Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most commonly used drugs worldwide to treat dyspepsia and prevent gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).¹ Between 40% and 70% of hospitalized patients receive acid-suppressive therapy (AST; defined as PPIs or histamine-receptor antagonists), and nearly half of these are initiated during the inpatient stay.^2,3 While up to 50% of inpatients who received a new AST were discharged on these medications,² there were no evidence-based indications for a majority of the prescriptions.^2,3

Growing evidence shows that PPIs are overutilized and may be associated with wide-ranging adverse events, such as acute and chronic kidney disease,⁴Clostridium difficile infection,⁵ hypomagnesemia,⁶ and fractures.⁷ Because of the widespread overuse and the potential harm associated with PPIs, a concerted effort to promote their appropriate use in the inpatient setting is necessary. It is important to note that reducing the use of PPIs does not increase the risks of GIB or worsening dyspepsia. Rather, reducing overuse of PPIs lowers the risk of harm to patients. The efforts to reduce overuse, however, are complex and difficult.

This article summarizes evidence regarding interventions to reduce overuse and offers an implementation guide based on this evidence. This guide promotes value-based quality improvement and provides a blueprint for implementing an institution-wide program to reduce PPI overuse in the inpatient setting. We begin with a discussion about quality initiatives to reduce PPI overuse, followed by a review of the safety outcomes associated with reduced use of PPIs.

A focused search of the US National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database was performed to identify English-language articles published between 2000 and 2018 that addressed strategies to reduce PPI overuse for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) and nonvariceal GIB. The following search terms were used: PPI and inappropriate use; acid-suppressive therapy and inappropriate use; PPI and discontinuation; acid-suppressive (or suppressant) therapy and discontinuation; SUP and cost; and histamine receptor antagonist and PPI. Inpatient or outpatient studies of patients aged 18 years or older were considered for inclusion in this narrative review, and all study types were included. The primary exclusion criterion was patients aged younger than 18 years. A manual review of the full text of the retrieved articles was performed and references were reviewed for missed citations.

We identified a total of 1,497 unique citations through our initial search. After performing a manual review, we excluded 1,483 of the references and added an additional 2, resulting in 16 articles selected for inclusion. The selected articles addressed interventions falling into three main groupings: implementation of institutional guidelines with or without electronic health record (EHR)–based decision support, educational interventions alone, and multifaceted interventions. Each of these interventions is discussed in the sections that follow. Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 summarize the results of the studies included in our narrative review.

Institutional Guidelines With or Without EHR-Based Decision Support

Table 1 summarizes institutional guidelines, with or without EHR-based decision support, to reduce inappropriate PPI use. The implementation of institutional guidelines for the appropriate reduction of PPI use has had some success. Coursol and Sanzari evaluated the impact of a treatment algorithm on the appropriateness of prescriptions for SUP in the intensive care unit (ICU).⁸ Risk factors of patients in this study included mechanical ventilation for 48 hours, coagulopathy for 24 hours, postoperative transplant, severe burns, active gastrointestinal (GI) disease, multiple trauma, multiple organ failure, and septicemia. The three treatment options chosen for the algorithm were intravenous (IV) famotidine (if the oral route was unavailable or impractical), omeprazole tablets (if oral access was available), and omeprazole suspension (in cases of dysphagia and presence of nasogastric or orogastric tube). After implementation of the treatment algorithm, the proportion of inappropriate prophylaxis decreased from 95.7% to 88.2% (P = .033), and the cost per patient decreased from $11.11 to $8.49 Canadian dollars (P = .003).

Van Vliet et al implemented a clinical practice guideline listing specific criteria for prescribing a PPI.⁹ Their criteria included the presence of gastric or duodenal ulcer and use of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or aspirin, plus at least one additional risk factor (eg, history of gastroduodenal hemorrhage or age >70 years). The proportion of patients started on PPIs during hospitalization decreased from 21% to 13% (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97).

Michal et al utilized an institutional pharmacist-driven protocol that stipulated criteria for appropriate PPI use (eg, upper GIB, mechanical ventilation, peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, coagulopathy).¹⁰ Pharmacists in the study evaluated patients for PPI appropriateness and recommended changes in medication or discontinuation of use. This institutional intervention decreased PPI use in non-ICU hospitalized adults. Discontinuation of PPIs increased from 41% of patients in the preintervention group to 66% of patients in the postintervention group (P = .001).

In addition to implementing guidelines and intervention strategies, institutions have also adopted changes to the EHR to reduce inappropriate PPI use. Herzig et al utilized a computerized clinical decision support intervention to decrease SUP in non-ICU hospitalized patients.¹¹ Of the available response options for acid-suppressive medication, when SUP was chosen as the only indication for PPI use a prompt alerted the clinician that “[SUP] is not recommended for patients outside the [ICU]”; the alert resulted in a significant reduction in AST for the sole purpose of SUP. With this intervention, the percentage of patients who had any inappropriate acid-suppressive exposure decreased from 4.0% to 0.6% (P < .001).

Table 2 summarizes educational interventions to reduce inappropriate PPI use.

Agee et al employed a pharmacist-led educational seminar that described SUP indications, risks, and costs.¹² Inappropriate SUP prescriptions decreased from 55.5% to 30.5% after the intervention (P < .0001). However, there was no reduction in the percentage of patients discharged on inappropriate AST.

Chui et al performed an intervention with academic detailing wherein a one-on-one visit with a physician took place, providing education to improve physician prescribing behavior.¹³ In this study, academic detailing focused on the most common instances for which PPIs were inappropriately utilized at that hospital (eg, surgical prophylaxis, anemia). Inappropriate use of double-dose PPIs was also targeted. Despite these efforts, no significant difference in inappropriate PPI prescribing was observed post intervention.

Hamzat et al implemented an educational strategy to reduce inappropriate PPI prescribing during hospital stays, which included dissemination of fliers, posters, emails, and presentations over a 4-week period.¹⁴ Educational efforts targeted clinical pharmacists, nurses, physicians, and patients. Appropriate indications for PPI use in this study included peptic ulcer disease (current or previous), H pylori infection, and treatment or prevention of an NSAID-induced ulcer. The primary outcome was a reduction in PPI dose or discontinuation of PPI during the hospital admission, which increased from 9% in the preintervention (pre-education) phase to 43% during the intervention (education) phase and to 46% in the postintervention (posteducation) phase (P = .006).

Liberman and Whelan also implemented an educational intervention among internal medicine residents to reduce inappropriate use of SUP; this intervention was based on practice-based learning and improvement methodology.¹⁵ They noted that the rate of inappropriate prophylaxis with AST decreased from 59% preintervention to 33% post intervention (P < .007).

Table 3 summarizes several multifaceted approaches aimed at reducing inappropriate PPI use. Belfield et al utilized an intervention consisting of an institutional guideline review, education, and monitoring of AST by clinical pharmacists to reduce inappropriate use of PPI for SUP.¹⁶ With this intervention, the primary outcome of total inappropriate days of AST during hospitalization decreased from 279 to 116 (48% relative reduction in risk, P < .01, across 142 patients studied). Furthermore, inappropriate AST prescriptions at discharge decreased from 32% to 8% (P = .006). The one case of GIB noted in this study occurred in the control group.

Del Giorno et al combined audit and feedback with education to reduce new PPI prescriptions at the time of discharge from the hospital.¹⁷ The educational component of this intervention included guidance regarding potentially inappropriate PPI use and associated side effects and targeted multiple departments in the hospital. This intervention led to a sustained reduction in new PPI prescriptions at discharge during the 3-year study period. The annual rate of new PPI prescriptions was 19%, 19%, 18%, and 16% in years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively, in the internal medicine department (postintervention group), compared with rates of 30%, 29%, 36%, 36% (P < .001) for the same years in the surgery department (control group).

Education and the use of medication reconciliation forms on admission and discharge were utilized by Gupta et al to reduce inappropriate AST in hospitalized patients from 51% prior to intervention to 22% post intervention (P < .001).¹⁸ Furthermore, the proportion of patients discharged on inappropriate AST decreased from 69% to 20% (P < .001).

Hatch et al also used educational resources and pharmacist-led medication reconciliation to reduce use of SUP.¹⁹ Before the intervention, 24.4% of patients were continued on SUP after hospital discharge in the absence of a clear indication for use; post intervention, 11% of patients were continued on SUP after hospital discharge (of these patients, 8.7% had no clear indication for use). This represented a 64.4% decrease in inappropriately prescribed SUP after discharge (P < .0001).

Khalili et al combined an educational intervention with an institutional guideline in an infectious disease ward to reduce inappropriate use of SUP.²⁰ This intervention reduced the inappropriate use of AST from 80.9% before the intervention to 47.1% post intervention (P < .001).

Masood et al implemented two interventions wherein pharmacists reviewed SUP indications for each patient during daily team rounds, and ICU residents and fellows received education about indications for SUP and the implemented initiative on a bimonthly basis.²¹ Inappropriate AST decreased from 26.75 to 7.14 prescriptions per 100 patient-days of care (P < .001).

McDonald et al combined education with a web-based quality improvement tool to reduce inappropriate exit prescriptions for PPIs.²² The proportion of PPIs discontinued at hospital discharge increased from 7.7% per month to 18.5% per month (P = .03).

Finally, the initiative implemented by Tasaka et al to reduce overutilization of SUP included an institutional guideline, a pharmacist-led intervention, and an institutional education and awareness campaign.²³ Their initiative led to a reduction in inappropriate SUP both at the time of transfer out of the ICU (8% before intervention, 4% post intervention, P = .54) and at the time of discharge from the hospital (7% before intervention, 0% post intervention, P = .22).

Proton pump inhibitors are often initiated in the hospital setting, with up to half of these new prescriptions continued at discharge.^2,24,25 Inappropriate prescriptions for PPIs expose patients to excess risk of long-term adverse events.²⁶ De-escalating PPIs, however, raises concern among clinicians and patients for potential recurrence of dyspepsia and GIB. There is limited evidence regarding long-term safety outcomes (including GIB) following the discontinuation of PPIs deemed to have been inappropriately initiated in the hospital. In view of this, clinicians should educate and monitor individual patients for symptom relapse to ensure timely and appropriate resumption of AST.

Our literature search for this narrative review and implementation guide has limitations. First, the time frame we included (2000-2018) may have excluded relevant articles published before our starting year. We did not include articles published before 2000 based on concerns these might contain outdated information. Also, there may have been incomplete retrieval of relevant studies/articles due to the labor-intensive nature involved in determining whether PPI prescriptions are appropriate or inappropriate.

We noted that interventional studies aimed at reducing overuse of PPIs were often limited by a low number of participants; these studies were also more likely to be single-center interventions, which limits generalizability. In addition, the studies often had low methodological rigor and lacked randomization or controls. Moreover, to fully evaluate the sustainability of interventions, some of the studies had a limited postimplementation period. For multifaceted interventions, the efficacy of individual components of the interventions was not clearly evaluated. Moreover, there was a high risk of bias in many of the included studies. Some of the larger studies used overall AST prescriptions as a surrogate for more appropriate use. It would be advantageous for a site to perform a pilot study that provides well-defined parameters for appropriate prescribing, and then correlate with the total number of prescriptions (automated and much easier) thereafter. Further, although the evidence regarding appropriate PPI use for SUP and GIB has shifted rapidly in recent years, society guidelines have not been updated to reflect this change. As such, quality improvement interventions have predominantly focused on reducing PPI use for the indications reflected by these guidelines.

The following are our recommendations for successfully implementing an evidence-based, institution-wide initiative to promote the appropriate use of PPIs during hospitalization. These recommendations are informed by the evidence review and reflect the consensus of the combined committees coauthoring this review.

For an initiative to succeed, participation from multiple disciplines is necessary to formulate local guidelines and design and implement interventions. Such an interdisciplinary approach requires advocates to closely monitor and evaluate the program; sustainability will be greatly facilitated by the active engagement of key stakeholders, including the hospital’s executive administration, supply chain, pharmacists, and gastroenterologists. Lack of adequate buy-in on the part of key stakeholders is a barrier to the success of any intervention. Accordingly, before selecting a particular intervention, it is important to understand local factors driving the overuse of PPI.

1. Develop evidence-based institutional guidelines for both SUP and nonvariceal upper GIB through an interdisciplinary workgroup.

• Establish an interdisciplinary group including, but not limited to, pharmacists, hospitalists, gastroenterologists, and intensivists so that changes in practice will be widely adopted as institutional policy.
• Incorporate the best evidence and clearly convey appropriate and inappropriate uses.

2. Integrate changes to the EHR.

• If possible, the EHR should be leveraged to implement changes in PPI ordering practices.
• While integrating changes to the EHR, it is important to consider informatics and implementation science, since the utility of hard stops and best practice alerts has been questioned in the setting of operational inefficiencies and alert fatigue.
• Options for integrating changes to the EHR include the following:
  • Create an ordering pathway that provides clinical decision support for PPI use.
  • Incorporate a best practice alert in the EMR to notify clinicians of institutional guidelines when they initiate an order for PPI outside of the pathway.
  • Consider restricting the authority to order IV PPIs by requiring a code or password or implement another means of using the EHR to limit the supply of PPI.
  • Limit the duration of IV PPI by requiring daily renewal of IV PPI dosing or by altering the period of time that use of IV PPI is permitted (eg, 48 to 72 hours).
  • PPIs should be removed from any current order sets that include medications for SUP.

3. Foster pharmacy-driven interventions.

• Consider requiring pharmacist approval for IV PPIs.
• Pharmacist-led review and feedback to clinicians for discontinuation of inappropriate PPIs can be effective in decreasing inappropriate utilization.

4. Provide education, audit data, and obtain feedback.

• Data auditing is needed to measure the efficacy of interventions. Outcome measures may include the number of non-ICU and ICU patients who are started on a PPI during an admission; the audit should be continued through discharge. A process measure may be the number of pharmacist calls for inappropriate PPIs. A balancing measure would be ulcer-specific upper GIB in patients who do not receive SUP during their admission. (Upper GIB from other etiologies, such as varices, portal hypertensive gastropathy, and Mallory-Weiss tear would not be affected by PPI SUP.)
• Run or control charts should be utilized, and data should be shared with project champions and ordering clinicians—in real time if possible.
• Project champions should provide feedback to colleagues; they should also work with hospital leadership to develop new strategies to improve adherence.
• Provide ongoing education about appropriate indications for PPIs and potential adverse effects associated with their use. Whenever possible, point-of-care or just-in-time teaching is the preferred format.

Excessive use of PPIs during hospitalization is prevalent; however, quality improvement interventions can be effective in achieving sustainable reductions in overuse. There is a need for the American College of Gastroenterology to revisit and update their guidelines for management of patients with ulcer bleeding to include stronger evidence-based recommendations on the proper use of PPIs.²⁷ These updated guidelines could be used to update the implementation blueprint.

Quality improvement teams have an opportunity to use the principles of value-based healthcare to reduce inappropriate PPI use. By following the blueprint outlined in this article, institutions can safely and effectively tailor the use of PPIs to suitable patients in the appropriate settings. Reduction of PPI overuse can be employed as an institutional catalyst to promote implementation of further value-based measures to improve efficiency and quality of patient care.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most commonly used drugs worldwide to treat dyspepsia and prevent gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).¹ Between 40% and 70% of hospitalized patients receive acid-suppressive therapy (AST; defined as PPIs or histamine-receptor antagonists), and nearly half of these are initiated during the inpatient stay.^2,3 While up to 50% of inpatients who received a new AST were discharged on these medications,² there were no evidence-based indications for a majority of the prescriptions.^2,3

Growing evidence shows that PPIs are overutilized and may be associated with wide-ranging adverse events, such as acute and chronic kidney disease,⁴Clostridium difficile infection,⁵ hypomagnesemia,⁶ and fractures.⁷ Because of the widespread overuse and the potential harm associated with PPIs, a concerted effort to promote their appropriate use in the inpatient setting is necessary. It is important to note that reducing the use of PPIs does not increase the risks of GIB or worsening dyspepsia. Rather, reducing overuse of PPIs lowers the risk of harm to patients. The efforts to reduce overuse, however, are complex and difficult.

This article summarizes evidence regarding interventions to reduce overuse and offers an implementation guide based on this evidence. This guide promotes value-based quality improvement and provides a blueprint for implementing an institution-wide program to reduce PPI overuse in the inpatient setting. We begin with a discussion about quality initiatives to reduce PPI overuse, followed by a review of the safety outcomes associated with reduced use of PPIs.

A focused search of the US National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database was performed to identify English-language articles published between 2000 and 2018 that addressed strategies to reduce PPI overuse for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) and nonvariceal GIB. The following search terms were used: PPI and inappropriate use; acid-suppressive therapy and inappropriate use; PPI and discontinuation; acid-suppressive (or suppressant) therapy and discontinuation; SUP and cost; and histamine receptor antagonist and PPI. Inpatient or outpatient studies of patients aged 18 years or older were considered for inclusion in this narrative review, and all study types were included. The primary exclusion criterion was patients aged younger than 18 years. A manual review of the full text of the retrieved articles was performed and references were reviewed for missed citations.

We identified a total of 1,497 unique citations through our initial search. After performing a manual review, we excluded 1,483 of the references and added an additional 2, resulting in 16 articles selected for inclusion. The selected articles addressed interventions falling into three main groupings: implementation of institutional guidelines with or without electronic health record (EHR)–based decision support, educational interventions alone, and multifaceted interventions. Each of these interventions is discussed in the sections that follow. Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 summarize the results of the studies included in our narrative review.

Institutional Guidelines With or Without EHR-Based Decision Support

Table 1 summarizes institutional guidelines, with or without EHR-based decision support, to reduce inappropriate PPI use. The implementation of institutional guidelines for the appropriate reduction of PPI use has had some success. Coursol and Sanzari evaluated the impact of a treatment algorithm on the appropriateness of prescriptions for SUP in the intensive care unit (ICU).⁸ Risk factors of patients in this study included mechanical ventilation for 48 hours, coagulopathy for 24 hours, postoperative transplant, severe burns, active gastrointestinal (GI) disease, multiple trauma, multiple organ failure, and septicemia. The three treatment options chosen for the algorithm were intravenous (IV) famotidine (if the oral route was unavailable or impractical), omeprazole tablets (if oral access was available), and omeprazole suspension (in cases of dysphagia and presence of nasogastric or orogastric tube). After implementation of the treatment algorithm, the proportion of inappropriate prophylaxis decreased from 95.7% to 88.2% (P = .033), and the cost per patient decreased from $11.11 to $8.49 Canadian dollars (P = .003).

Van Vliet et al implemented a clinical practice guideline listing specific criteria for prescribing a PPI.⁹ Their criteria included the presence of gastric or duodenal ulcer and use of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or aspirin, plus at least one additional risk factor (eg, history of gastroduodenal hemorrhage or age >70 years). The proportion of patients started on PPIs during hospitalization decreased from 21% to 13% (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97).

Michal et al utilized an institutional pharmacist-driven protocol that stipulated criteria for appropriate PPI use (eg, upper GIB, mechanical ventilation, peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, coagulopathy).¹⁰ Pharmacists in the study evaluated patients for PPI appropriateness and recommended changes in medication or discontinuation of use. This institutional intervention decreased PPI use in non-ICU hospitalized adults. Discontinuation of PPIs increased from 41% of patients in the preintervention group to 66% of patients in the postintervention group (P = .001).

In addition to implementing guidelines and intervention strategies, institutions have also adopted changes to the EHR to reduce inappropriate PPI use. Herzig et al utilized a computerized clinical decision support intervention to decrease SUP in non-ICU hospitalized patients.¹¹ Of the available response options for acid-suppressive medication, when SUP was chosen as the only indication for PPI use a prompt alerted the clinician that “[SUP] is not recommended for patients outside the [ICU]”; the alert resulted in a significant reduction in AST for the sole purpose of SUP. With this intervention, the percentage of patients who had any inappropriate acid-suppressive exposure decreased from 4.0% to 0.6% (P < .001).

Table 2 summarizes educational interventions to reduce inappropriate PPI use.

Agee et al employed a pharmacist-led educational seminar that described SUP indications, risks, and costs.¹² Inappropriate SUP prescriptions decreased from 55.5% to 30.5% after the intervention (P < .0001). However, there was no reduction in the percentage of patients discharged on inappropriate AST.

Chui et al performed an intervention with academic detailing wherein a one-on-one visit with a physician took place, providing education to improve physician prescribing behavior.¹³ In this study, academic detailing focused on the most common instances for which PPIs were inappropriately utilized at that hospital (eg, surgical prophylaxis, anemia). Inappropriate use of double-dose PPIs was also targeted. Despite these efforts, no significant difference in inappropriate PPI prescribing was observed post intervention.

Hamzat et al implemented an educational strategy to reduce inappropriate PPI prescribing during hospital stays, which included dissemination of fliers, posters, emails, and presentations over a 4-week period.¹⁴ Educational efforts targeted clinical pharmacists, nurses, physicians, and patients. Appropriate indications for PPI use in this study included peptic ulcer disease (current or previous), H pylori infection, and treatment or prevention of an NSAID-induced ulcer. The primary outcome was a reduction in PPI dose or discontinuation of PPI during the hospital admission, which increased from 9% in the preintervention (pre-education) phase to 43% during the intervention (education) phase and to 46% in the postintervention (posteducation) phase (P = .006).

Liberman and Whelan also implemented an educational intervention among internal medicine residents to reduce inappropriate use of SUP; this intervention was based on practice-based learning and improvement methodology.¹⁵ They noted that the rate of inappropriate prophylaxis with AST decreased from 59% preintervention to 33% post intervention (P < .007).

Table 3 summarizes several multifaceted approaches aimed at reducing inappropriate PPI use. Belfield et al utilized an intervention consisting of an institutional guideline review, education, and monitoring of AST by clinical pharmacists to reduce inappropriate use of PPI for SUP.¹⁶ With this intervention, the primary outcome of total inappropriate days of AST during hospitalization decreased from 279 to 116 (48% relative reduction in risk, P < .01, across 142 patients studied). Furthermore, inappropriate AST prescriptions at discharge decreased from 32% to 8% (P = .006). The one case of GIB noted in this study occurred in the control group.

Del Giorno et al combined audit and feedback with education to reduce new PPI prescriptions at the time of discharge from the hospital.¹⁷ The educational component of this intervention included guidance regarding potentially inappropriate PPI use and associated side effects and targeted multiple departments in the hospital. This intervention led to a sustained reduction in new PPI prescriptions at discharge during the 3-year study period. The annual rate of new PPI prescriptions was 19%, 19%, 18%, and 16% in years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively, in the internal medicine department (postintervention group), compared with rates of 30%, 29%, 36%, 36% (P < .001) for the same years in the surgery department (control group).

Education and the use of medication reconciliation forms on admission and discharge were utilized by Gupta et al to reduce inappropriate AST in hospitalized patients from 51% prior to intervention to 22% post intervention (P < .001).¹⁸ Furthermore, the proportion of patients discharged on inappropriate AST decreased from 69% to 20% (P < .001).

Hatch et al also used educational resources and pharmacist-led medication reconciliation to reduce use of SUP.¹⁹ Before the intervention, 24.4% of patients were continued on SUP after hospital discharge in the absence of a clear indication for use; post intervention, 11% of patients were continued on SUP after hospital discharge (of these patients, 8.7% had no clear indication for use). This represented a 64.4% decrease in inappropriately prescribed SUP after discharge (P < .0001).

Khalili et al combined an educational intervention with an institutional guideline in an infectious disease ward to reduce inappropriate use of SUP.²⁰ This intervention reduced the inappropriate use of AST from 80.9% before the intervention to 47.1% post intervention (P < .001).

Masood et al implemented two interventions wherein pharmacists reviewed SUP indications for each patient during daily team rounds, and ICU residents and fellows received education about indications for SUP and the implemented initiative on a bimonthly basis.²¹ Inappropriate AST decreased from 26.75 to 7.14 prescriptions per 100 patient-days of care (P < .001).

McDonald et al combined education with a web-based quality improvement tool to reduce inappropriate exit prescriptions for PPIs.²² The proportion of PPIs discontinued at hospital discharge increased from 7.7% per month to 18.5% per month (P = .03).

Finally, the initiative implemented by Tasaka et al to reduce overutilization of SUP included an institutional guideline, a pharmacist-led intervention, and an institutional education and awareness campaign.²³ Their initiative led to a reduction in inappropriate SUP both at the time of transfer out of the ICU (8% before intervention, 4% post intervention, P = .54) and at the time of discharge from the hospital (7% before intervention, 0% post intervention, P = .22).

Proton pump inhibitors are often initiated in the hospital setting, with up to half of these new prescriptions continued at discharge.^2,24,25 Inappropriate prescriptions for PPIs expose patients to excess risk of long-term adverse events.²⁶ De-escalating PPIs, however, raises concern among clinicians and patients for potential recurrence of dyspepsia and GIB. There is limited evidence regarding long-term safety outcomes (including GIB) following the discontinuation of PPIs deemed to have been inappropriately initiated in the hospital. In view of this, clinicians should educate and monitor individual patients for symptom relapse to ensure timely and appropriate resumption of AST.

Our literature search for this narrative review and implementation guide has limitations. First, the time frame we included (2000-2018) may have excluded relevant articles published before our starting year. We did not include articles published before 2000 based on concerns these might contain outdated information. Also, there may have been incomplete retrieval of relevant studies/articles due to the labor-intensive nature involved in determining whether PPI prescriptions are appropriate or inappropriate.

We noted that interventional studies aimed at reducing overuse of PPIs were often limited by a low number of participants; these studies were also more likely to be single-center interventions, which limits generalizability. In addition, the studies often had low methodological rigor and lacked randomization or controls. Moreover, to fully evaluate the sustainability of interventions, some of the studies had a limited postimplementation period. For multifaceted interventions, the efficacy of individual components of the interventions was not clearly evaluated. Moreover, there was a high risk of bias in many of the included studies. Some of the larger studies used overall AST prescriptions as a surrogate for more appropriate use. It would be advantageous for a site to perform a pilot study that provides well-defined parameters for appropriate prescribing, and then correlate with the total number of prescriptions (automated and much easier) thereafter. Further, although the evidence regarding appropriate PPI use for SUP and GIB has shifted rapidly in recent years, society guidelines have not been updated to reflect this change. As such, quality improvement interventions have predominantly focused on reducing PPI use for the indications reflected by these guidelines.

The following are our recommendations for successfully implementing an evidence-based, institution-wide initiative to promote the appropriate use of PPIs during hospitalization. These recommendations are informed by the evidence review and reflect the consensus of the combined committees coauthoring this review.

For an initiative to succeed, participation from multiple disciplines is necessary to formulate local guidelines and design and implement interventions. Such an interdisciplinary approach requires advocates to closely monitor and evaluate the program; sustainability will be greatly facilitated by the active engagement of key stakeholders, including the hospital’s executive administration, supply chain, pharmacists, and gastroenterologists. Lack of adequate buy-in on the part of key stakeholders is a barrier to the success of any intervention. Accordingly, before selecting a particular intervention, it is important to understand local factors driving the overuse of PPI.

1. Develop evidence-based institutional guidelines for both SUP and nonvariceal upper GIB through an interdisciplinary workgroup.

• Establish an interdisciplinary group including, but not limited to, pharmacists, hospitalists, gastroenterologists, and intensivists so that changes in practice will be widely adopted as institutional policy.
• Incorporate the best evidence and clearly convey appropriate and inappropriate uses.

2. Integrate changes to the EHR.

• If possible, the EHR should be leveraged to implement changes in PPI ordering practices.
• While integrating changes to the EHR, it is important to consider informatics and implementation science, since the utility of hard stops and best practice alerts has been questioned in the setting of operational inefficiencies and alert fatigue.
• Options for integrating changes to the EHR include the following:
  • Create an ordering pathway that provides clinical decision support for PPI use.
  • Incorporate a best practice alert in the EMR to notify clinicians of institutional guidelines when they initiate an order for PPI outside of the pathway.
  • Consider restricting the authority to order IV PPIs by requiring a code or password or implement another means of using the EHR to limit the supply of PPI.
  • Limit the duration of IV PPI by requiring daily renewal of IV PPI dosing or by altering the period of time that use of IV PPI is permitted (eg, 48 to 72 hours).
  • PPIs should be removed from any current order sets that include medications for SUP.

3. Foster pharmacy-driven interventions.

• Consider requiring pharmacist approval for IV PPIs.
• Pharmacist-led review and feedback to clinicians for discontinuation of inappropriate PPIs can be effective in decreasing inappropriate utilization.

4. Provide education, audit data, and obtain feedback.

• Data auditing is needed to measure the efficacy of interventions. Outcome measures may include the number of non-ICU and ICU patients who are started on a PPI during an admission; the audit should be continued through discharge. A process measure may be the number of pharmacist calls for inappropriate PPIs. A balancing measure would be ulcer-specific upper GIB in patients who do not receive SUP during their admission. (Upper GIB from other etiologies, such as varices, portal hypertensive gastropathy, and Mallory-Weiss tear would not be affected by PPI SUP.)
• Run or control charts should be utilized, and data should be shared with project champions and ordering clinicians—in real time if possible.
• Project champions should provide feedback to colleagues; they should also work with hospital leadership to develop new strategies to improve adherence.
• Provide ongoing education about appropriate indications for PPIs and potential adverse effects associated with their use. Whenever possible, point-of-care or just-in-time teaching is the preferred format.

Excessive use of PPIs during hospitalization is prevalent; however, quality improvement interventions can be effective in achieving sustainable reductions in overuse. There is a need for the American College of Gastroenterology to revisit and update their guidelines for management of patients with ulcer bleeding to include stronger evidence-based recommendations on the proper use of PPIs.²⁷ These updated guidelines could be used to update the implementation blueprint.

Quality improvement teams have an opportunity to use the principles of value-based healthcare to reduce inappropriate PPI use. By following the blueprint outlined in this article, institutions can safely and effectively tailor the use of PPIs to suitable patients in the appropriate settings. Reduction of PPI overuse can be employed as an institutional catalyst to promote implementation of further value-based measures to improve efficiency and quality of patient care.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most commonly used drugs worldwide to treat dyspepsia and prevent gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).¹ Between 40% and 70% of hospitalized patients receive acid-suppressive therapy (AST; defined as PPIs or histamine-receptor antagonists), and nearly half of these are initiated during the inpatient stay.^2,3 While up to 50% of inpatients who received a new AST were discharged on these medications,² there were no evidence-based indications for a majority of the prescriptions.^2,3

Growing evidence shows that PPIs are overutilized and may be associated with wide-ranging adverse events, such as acute and chronic kidney disease,⁴Clostridium difficile infection,⁵ hypomagnesemia,⁶ and fractures.⁷ Because of the widespread overuse and the potential harm associated with PPIs, a concerted effort to promote their appropriate use in the inpatient setting is necessary. It is important to note that reducing the use of PPIs does not increase the risks of GIB or worsening dyspepsia. Rather, reducing overuse of PPIs lowers the risk of harm to patients. The efforts to reduce overuse, however, are complex and difficult.

This article summarizes evidence regarding interventions to reduce overuse and offers an implementation guide based on this evidence. This guide promotes value-based quality improvement and provides a blueprint for implementing an institution-wide program to reduce PPI overuse in the inpatient setting. We begin with a discussion about quality initiatives to reduce PPI overuse, followed by a review of the safety outcomes associated with reduced use of PPIs.

A focused search of the US National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database was performed to identify English-language articles published between 2000 and 2018 that addressed strategies to reduce PPI overuse for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) and nonvariceal GIB. The following search terms were used: PPI and inappropriate use; acid-suppressive therapy and inappropriate use; PPI and discontinuation; acid-suppressive (or suppressant) therapy and discontinuation; SUP and cost; and histamine receptor antagonist and PPI. Inpatient or outpatient studies of patients aged 18 years or older were considered for inclusion in this narrative review, and all study types were included. The primary exclusion criterion was patients aged younger than 18 years. A manual review of the full text of the retrieved articles was performed and references were reviewed for missed citations.

We identified a total of 1,497 unique citations through our initial search. After performing a manual review, we excluded 1,483 of the references and added an additional 2, resulting in 16 articles selected for inclusion. The selected articles addressed interventions falling into three main groupings: implementation of institutional guidelines with or without electronic health record (EHR)–based decision support, educational interventions alone, and multifaceted interventions. Each of these interventions is discussed in the sections that follow. Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 summarize the results of the studies included in our narrative review.

Institutional Guidelines With or Without EHR-Based Decision Support

Table 1 summarizes institutional guidelines, with or without EHR-based decision support, to reduce inappropriate PPI use. The implementation of institutional guidelines for the appropriate reduction of PPI use has had some success. Coursol and Sanzari evaluated the impact of a treatment algorithm on the appropriateness of prescriptions for SUP in the intensive care unit (ICU).⁸ Risk factors of patients in this study included mechanical ventilation for 48 hours, coagulopathy for 24 hours, postoperative transplant, severe burns, active gastrointestinal (GI) disease, multiple trauma, multiple organ failure, and septicemia. The three treatment options chosen for the algorithm were intravenous (IV) famotidine (if the oral route was unavailable or impractical), omeprazole tablets (if oral access was available), and omeprazole suspension (in cases of dysphagia and presence of nasogastric or orogastric tube). After implementation of the treatment algorithm, the proportion of inappropriate prophylaxis decreased from 95.7% to 88.2% (P = .033), and the cost per patient decreased from $11.11 to $8.49 Canadian dollars (P = .003).

Van Vliet et al implemented a clinical practice guideline listing specific criteria for prescribing a PPI.⁹ Their criteria included the presence of gastric or duodenal ulcer and use of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or aspirin, plus at least one additional risk factor (eg, history of gastroduodenal hemorrhage or age >70 years). The proportion of patients started on PPIs during hospitalization decreased from 21% to 13% (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97).

Michal et al utilized an institutional pharmacist-driven protocol that stipulated criteria for appropriate PPI use (eg, upper GIB, mechanical ventilation, peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, coagulopathy).¹⁰ Pharmacists in the study evaluated patients for PPI appropriateness and recommended changes in medication or discontinuation of use. This institutional intervention decreased PPI use in non-ICU hospitalized adults. Discontinuation of PPIs increased from 41% of patients in the preintervention group to 66% of patients in the postintervention group (P = .001).

In addition to implementing guidelines and intervention strategies, institutions have also adopted changes to the EHR to reduce inappropriate PPI use. Herzig et al utilized a computerized clinical decision support intervention to decrease SUP in non-ICU hospitalized patients.¹¹ Of the available response options for acid-suppressive medication, when SUP was chosen as the only indication for PPI use a prompt alerted the clinician that “[SUP] is not recommended for patients outside the [ICU]”; the alert resulted in a significant reduction in AST for the sole purpose of SUP. With this intervention, the percentage of patients who had any inappropriate acid-suppressive exposure decreased from 4.0% to 0.6% (P < .001).

Table 2 summarizes educational interventions to reduce inappropriate PPI use.

Agee et al employed a pharmacist-led educational seminar that described SUP indications, risks, and costs.¹² Inappropriate SUP prescriptions decreased from 55.5% to 30.5% after the intervention (P < .0001). However, there was no reduction in the percentage of patients discharged on inappropriate AST.

Chui et al performed an intervention with academic detailing wherein a one-on-one visit with a physician took place, providing education to improve physician prescribing behavior.¹³ In this study, academic detailing focused on the most common instances for which PPIs were inappropriately utilized at that hospital (eg, surgical prophylaxis, anemia). Inappropriate use of double-dose PPIs was also targeted. Despite these efforts, no significant difference in inappropriate PPI prescribing was observed post intervention.

Hamzat et al implemented an educational strategy to reduce inappropriate PPI prescribing during hospital stays, which included dissemination of fliers, posters, emails, and presentations over a 4-week period.¹⁴ Educational efforts targeted clinical pharmacists, nurses, physicians, and patients. Appropriate indications for PPI use in this study included peptic ulcer disease (current or previous), H pylori infection, and treatment or prevention of an NSAID-induced ulcer. The primary outcome was a reduction in PPI dose or discontinuation of PPI during the hospital admission, which increased from 9% in the preintervention (pre-education) phase to 43% during the intervention (education) phase and to 46% in the postintervention (posteducation) phase (P = .006).

Liberman and Whelan also implemented an educational intervention among internal medicine residents to reduce inappropriate use of SUP; this intervention was based on practice-based learning and improvement methodology.¹⁵ They noted that the rate of inappropriate prophylaxis with AST decreased from 59% preintervention to 33% post intervention (P < .007).

Table 3 summarizes several multifaceted approaches aimed at reducing inappropriate PPI use. Belfield et al utilized an intervention consisting of an institutional guideline review, education, and monitoring of AST by clinical pharmacists to reduce inappropriate use of PPI for SUP.¹⁶ With this intervention, the primary outcome of total inappropriate days of AST during hospitalization decreased from 279 to 116 (48% relative reduction in risk, P < .01, across 142 patients studied). Furthermore, inappropriate AST prescriptions at discharge decreased from 32% to 8% (P = .006). The one case of GIB noted in this study occurred in the control group.

Del Giorno et al combined audit and feedback with education to reduce new PPI prescriptions at the time of discharge from the hospital.¹⁷ The educational component of this intervention included guidance regarding potentially inappropriate PPI use and associated side effects and targeted multiple departments in the hospital. This intervention led to a sustained reduction in new PPI prescriptions at discharge during the 3-year study period. The annual rate of new PPI prescriptions was 19%, 19%, 18%, and 16% in years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively, in the internal medicine department (postintervention group), compared with rates of 30%, 29%, 36%, 36% (P < .001) for the same years in the surgery department (control group).

Education and the use of medication reconciliation forms on admission and discharge were utilized by Gupta et al to reduce inappropriate AST in hospitalized patients from 51% prior to intervention to 22% post intervention (P < .001).¹⁸ Furthermore, the proportion of patients discharged on inappropriate AST decreased from 69% to 20% (P < .001).

Hatch et al also used educational resources and pharmacist-led medication reconciliation to reduce use of SUP.¹⁹ Before the intervention, 24.4% of patients were continued on SUP after hospital discharge in the absence of a clear indication for use; post intervention, 11% of patients were continued on SUP after hospital discharge (of these patients, 8.7% had no clear indication for use). This represented a 64.4% decrease in inappropriately prescribed SUP after discharge (P < .0001).

Khalili et al combined an educational intervention with an institutional guideline in an infectious disease ward to reduce inappropriate use of SUP.²⁰ This intervention reduced the inappropriate use of AST from 80.9% before the intervention to 47.1% post intervention (P < .001).

Masood et al implemented two interventions wherein pharmacists reviewed SUP indications for each patient during daily team rounds, and ICU residents and fellows received education about indications for SUP and the implemented initiative on a bimonthly basis.²¹ Inappropriate AST decreased from 26.75 to 7.14 prescriptions per 100 patient-days of care (P < .001).

McDonald et al combined education with a web-based quality improvement tool to reduce inappropriate exit prescriptions for PPIs.²² The proportion of PPIs discontinued at hospital discharge increased from 7.7% per month to 18.5% per month (P = .03).

Finally, the initiative implemented by Tasaka et al to reduce overutilization of SUP included an institutional guideline, a pharmacist-led intervention, and an institutional education and awareness campaign.²³ Their initiative led to a reduction in inappropriate SUP both at the time of transfer out of the ICU (8% before intervention, 4% post intervention, P = .54) and at the time of discharge from the hospital (7% before intervention, 0% post intervention, P = .22).

Proton pump inhibitors are often initiated in the hospital setting, with up to half of these new prescriptions continued at discharge.^2,24,25 Inappropriate prescriptions for PPIs expose patients to excess risk of long-term adverse events.²⁶ De-escalating PPIs, however, raises concern among clinicians and patients for potential recurrence of dyspepsia and GIB. There is limited evidence regarding long-term safety outcomes (including GIB) following the discontinuation of PPIs deemed to have been inappropriately initiated in the hospital. In view of this, clinicians should educate and monitor individual patients for symptom relapse to ensure timely and appropriate resumption of AST.

Our literature search for this narrative review and implementation guide has limitations. First, the time frame we included (2000-2018) may have excluded relevant articles published before our starting year. We did not include articles published before 2000 based on concerns these might contain outdated information. Also, there may have been incomplete retrieval of relevant studies/articles due to the labor-intensive nature involved in determining whether PPI prescriptions are appropriate or inappropriate.

We noted that interventional studies aimed at reducing overuse of PPIs were often limited by a low number of participants; these studies were also more likely to be single-center interventions, which limits generalizability. In addition, the studies often had low methodological rigor and lacked randomization or controls. Moreover, to fully evaluate the sustainability of interventions, some of the studies had a limited postimplementation period. For multifaceted interventions, the efficacy of individual components of the interventions was not clearly evaluated. Moreover, there was a high risk of bias in many of the included studies. Some of the larger studies used overall AST prescriptions as a surrogate for more appropriate use. It would be advantageous for a site to perform a pilot study that provides well-defined parameters for appropriate prescribing, and then correlate with the total number of prescriptions (automated and much easier) thereafter. Further, although the evidence regarding appropriate PPI use for SUP and GIB has shifted rapidly in recent years, society guidelines have not been updated to reflect this change. As such, quality improvement interventions have predominantly focused on reducing PPI use for the indications reflected by these guidelines.

The following are our recommendations for successfully implementing an evidence-based, institution-wide initiative to promote the appropriate use of PPIs during hospitalization. These recommendations are informed by the evidence review and reflect the consensus of the combined committees coauthoring this review.

For an initiative to succeed, participation from multiple disciplines is necessary to formulate local guidelines and design and implement interventions. Such an interdisciplinary approach requires advocates to closely monitor and evaluate the program; sustainability will be greatly facilitated by the active engagement of key stakeholders, including the hospital’s executive administration, supply chain, pharmacists, and gastroenterologists. Lack of adequate buy-in on the part of key stakeholders is a barrier to the success of any intervention. Accordingly, before selecting a particular intervention, it is important to understand local factors driving the overuse of PPI.

1. Develop evidence-based institutional guidelines for both SUP and nonvariceal upper GIB through an interdisciplinary workgroup.

• Establish an interdisciplinary group including, but not limited to, pharmacists, hospitalists, gastroenterologists, and intensivists so that changes in practice will be widely adopted as institutional policy.
• Incorporate the best evidence and clearly convey appropriate and inappropriate uses.

2. Integrate changes to the EHR.

• If possible, the EHR should be leveraged to implement changes in PPI ordering practices.
• While integrating changes to the EHR, it is important to consider informatics and implementation science, since the utility of hard stops and best practice alerts has been questioned in the setting of operational inefficiencies and alert fatigue.
• Options for integrating changes to the EHR include the following:
  • Create an ordering pathway that provides clinical decision support for PPI use.
  • Incorporate a best practice alert in the EMR to notify clinicians of institutional guidelines when they initiate an order for PPI outside of the pathway.
  • Consider restricting the authority to order IV PPIs by requiring a code or password or implement another means of using the EHR to limit the supply of PPI.
  • Limit the duration of IV PPI by requiring daily renewal of IV PPI dosing or by altering the period of time that use of IV PPI is permitted (eg, 48 to 72 hours).
  • PPIs should be removed from any current order sets that include medications for SUP.

3. Foster pharmacy-driven interventions.

• Consider requiring pharmacist approval for IV PPIs.
• Pharmacist-led review and feedback to clinicians for discontinuation of inappropriate PPIs can be effective in decreasing inappropriate utilization.

4. Provide education, audit data, and obtain feedback.

• Data auditing is needed to measure the efficacy of interventions. Outcome measures may include the number of non-ICU and ICU patients who are started on a PPI during an admission; the audit should be continued through discharge. A process measure may be the number of pharmacist calls for inappropriate PPIs. A balancing measure would be ulcer-specific upper GIB in patients who do not receive SUP during their admission. (Upper GIB from other etiologies, such as varices, portal hypertensive gastropathy, and Mallory-Weiss tear would not be affected by PPI SUP.)
• Run or control charts should be utilized, and data should be shared with project champions and ordering clinicians—in real time if possible.
• Project champions should provide feedback to colleagues; they should also work with hospital leadership to develop new strategies to improve adherence.
• Provide ongoing education about appropriate indications for PPIs and potential adverse effects associated with their use. Whenever possible, point-of-care or just-in-time teaching is the preferred format.

Excessive use of PPIs during hospitalization is prevalent; however, quality improvement interventions can be effective in achieving sustainable reductions in overuse. There is a need for the American College of Gastroenterology to revisit and update their guidelines for management of patients with ulcer bleeding to include stronger evidence-based recommendations on the proper use of PPIs.²⁷ These updated guidelines could be used to update the implementation blueprint.

Quality improvement teams have an opportunity to use the principles of value-based healthcare to reduce inappropriate PPI use. By following the blueprint outlined in this article, institutions can safely and effectively tailor the use of PPIs to suitable patients in the appropriate settings. Reduction of PPI overuse can be employed as an institutional catalyst to promote implementation of further value-based measures to improve efficiency and quality of patient care.

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely ^® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason™” (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent clear-cut conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

A 35-year-old man with a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), who most recently received treatment 12 months earlier, presents to the emergency department with abdominal pain and constipation. A computed tomography scan of the abdomen reveals retroperitoneal and mesenteric lymphadenopathy causing small bowel obstruction. The basic metabolic panel reveals a creatinine of 1.1 mg/dL, calcium of 8.5 mg/dL, phosphorus of 4 mg/dL, potassium of 4.5 mEq/L, and uric acid of 7.3 mg/dL. The admitting team contemplates using allopurinol or rasburicase for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prevention in the setting of recurrent DLBCL.

Tumor lysis syndrome is characterized by metabolic derangement and end-organ damage in the setting of cytotoxic chemotherapy, chemosensitive malignancy, and/or increased tumor burden.¹ Risk stratification for TLS takes into account patient and disease characteristics (Table 1). Other risk factors include tumor bulk, elevated baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase, and certain types of chemotherapy (eg, cisplatin, cytarabine, etoposide, paclitaxel, cytotoxic therapies), immunotherapy, or targeted therapy.² Elevated serum levels of uric acid, potassium, and phosphorus, as well as preexisting renal dysfunction, predispose patients to clinical TLS.³

The Cairo-Bishop classification system is most frequently used to diagnose TLS (Table 2).³ Laboratory features include hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, hyperuricemia, and hypocalcemia secondary to lysis of proliferating tumor cells and their nuclei. Clinical features include arrhythmias, seizures, and acute kidney injury (AKI).¹ Acute kidney injury, the most common clinical complication of TLS, results from crystallization of markedly elevated plasma uric acid, leading to tubular obstruction.^1,4 The development of AKI can predict morbidity (namely, the need for renal replacement therapy [RRT]) and mortality in this patient population.¹

Stratifying a patient’s baseline risk of developing TLS often dictates the prevention and management plan. Therapeutic prophylaxis and management strategies for TLS include aggressive fluid resuscitation, diuresis, plasma uric acid (PUA) levels, monitoring electrolyte levels, and, in certain life-threatening situations, dialysis. Oncologists presume reducing uric acid levels prevents and treats TLS.

Current methods to reduce PUA as a means of preventing or treating TLS include xanthine oxidase inhibitors (eg, allopurinol) or urate oxidase (eg, rasburicase). Before the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of rasburicase to manage TLS, providers combined allopurinol (a purine analog that inhibits the enzyme xanthine oxidase, decreasing uric acid level) with aggressive fluid resuscitation. Approved by the FDA in 2002, rasburicase offers an alternative treatment for hyperuricemia by directly decreasing levels of uric acid instead of merely preventing the increased formation of uric acid. As a urate oxidase, rasburicase converts uric acid to the non-nephrotoxic, water-soluble, and freely excreted allantoin.

Rasburicase is often considered the standard-of-care treatment for hyperuricemia due to its ability to reduce circulating uric acid levels rapidly. The primary goal of uric acid reduction is to prevent the occurrence of AKI.

Based upon bioplausible relevance to clinically meaningful endpoints, researchers selected PUA reduction as the primary outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to justify treatment with rasburicase. In RCTs, compassionate trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses, rasburicase demonstrated a more rapid reduction in uric acid levels compared to allopurinol.⁵ Specifically, in one study by Goldman et al,⁶ rasburicase decreased baseline uric acid levels in pediatric oncology patients by 86% (statistically significant) 4 hours after administration, compared to allopurinol, which only reduced baseline uric acid by 12%. According to a study by Cairo et al, allopurinol may take up to 1 day to reduce PUA.³

Randomized controlled trials examining the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of rasburicase in adult patients remain sparse. Both RCTs and systematic reviews and meta-analyses rely on PUA levels as a surrogate endpoint and fail to include clinically meaningful primary endpoints (eg, change in baseline creatinine or need for RRT), raising the question as to whether rasburicase improves patient-centered outcomes.⁵ Since previous studies in the oncology literature show low or modest correlations between PUA reduction and patient-oriented outcomes, we must question whether PUA reduction serves as a meaningful surrogate endpoint.

Treatment of Tumor Lysis Syndrome

Two meta-analyses focusing on the treatment of TLS by Dinnel et al⁵ and Lopez-Olivo et al⁸ each included only three unique RCTs (two of the three RCTs were referenced in both meta-analyses). Moreover, both studies included only one RCT comparing rasburicase directly to allopurinol (a 2010 RCT by Cortes et al⁹) while the other RCTs compared the impact of different rasburicase dosing regimens. Researchers powered the head-to-head RCT by Cortes et al⁹ to detect a difference in PUA levels across three different arms: rasburicase, rasburicase plus allopurinol, or allopurinol alone. All three treatment arms resulted in a statistically significant reduction in serum PUA levels (87%, 78%, 66%, respectively; P = .001) without a change in the secondary, underpowered clinical outcomes such as clinical TLS or reduced renal function (defined in this study as increased creatinine, renal failure/impairment, or acute renal failure).

More recently, retrospective analyses of patients with AKI secondary to TLS found no difference in creatinine improvement, renal recovery, or prevention of RRT based on whether the patients received either rasburicase or allopurinol.^10,11 While rasburicase is associated with greater PUA reduction compared to allopurinol, according to meaningful RCT and observational data as discussed previously and described further in the following section, this does not translate to clinically important risk reduction.

Prevention of Tumor Lysis Syndrome

Furthermore, there exists little compelling evidence to support the use of rasburicase for preventing AKI secondary to TLS. Even among patients at high-risk for TLS (the only group for whom rasburicase is currently recommended),⁵ rasburicase does not definitively prevent AKI. Data suggest that despite lowering uric acid levels, rasburicase does not consistently prevent renal injury¹¹ or decrease the total number of subsequent inpatient days.¹² The only phase 3 trial that compared the efficacy of rasburicase to allopurinol for the prevention of TLS and included clinically meaningful endpoints (eg, renal failure) found that, while rasburicase reduced uric acid levels faster than allopurinol, it did not decrease rates of clinical TLS.⁹

The published literature offers limited efficacy data of rasburicase in preventing TLS in low-risk patients; however, the absence of benefit of rasburicase in preventing renal failure in high-risk patients warrants skepticism as to its potential efficacy in low-risk patients.^8,10

Costs-Effectiveness and Other Ethical Considerations

Rasburicase is an expensive treatment. The estimated cost of the FDA-recommended dosing is around $37,500.¹³ Moreover, studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of rasburicase to allopurinol focus primarily on patients at high-risk for TLS, which overestimates the cost-effectiveness of rasburicase in patients at low-to-intermediate risk for TLS.^14,15 Unfortunately, some providers inappropriately prescribe rasburicase regularly to patients at low or intermediate risk for TLS. Based on observational studies of rasburicase in various clinical scenarios, including inpatient and emergency department settings, inappropriate use of rasburicase (eg, in the setting of hyperuricemia without evidence of a high-risk TLS tumor, no prior trial of allopurinol, preserved renal function, no laboratory evaluation) ranges from 32% to 70%.^14,15

Finally, while <1% of patients experience rasburicase-induced anaphylaxis, 20% to 50% of patients develop gastrointestinal symptoms and viral-syndrome-like symptoms.¹⁶ Meanwhile, major side effects from allopurinol that occur with 1% to 10% frequency include maculopapular rash, pruritis, gout, nausea, vomiting, and renal failure syndrome.¹⁷ Even if the cost for rasburicase and allopurinol were similar, the lack of improved efficacy and the side-effect profiles of the two medications should make us question whether to prescribe rasburicase preferentially over allopurinol.

While some experts recommend rasburicase prophylaxis in patients at high risk for developing TLS, such recommendations rely on low-quality evidence.² When prescribing rasburicase, the hospitalist must ensure correct dosing. The FDA approved rasburicase for weight-based dosing at 0.2 mg/kg, though current evidence favors a single, fixed dose of 3 mg.^16,17 Compared to weight-based dosing, which has an estimated cost-effectiveness ratio ranging from $27,982.77 to $119,643.59 per quality-adjusted life-year, single dosing has equivalent efficacy at approximately 50% lower cost per dose.^11,17,18

As a preventive treatment for TLS, clinicians should only consider prescribing rasburicase as a single fixed dose of 3 mg to high-risk patients.¹⁷ In the event of AKI secondary to TLS, clinicians should proceed with the mainstay treatment of resuscitation with aggressive fluid resuscitation, with a goal urine output of at least 2 mL/kg/h.¹ Fluid resuscitation should be used cautiously in patients with oliguric or anuric AKI, pulmonary hypertension, congestive heart failure, and hemodynamically significant valvular disease. Clinicians should provide continuous cardiac monitoring during the initial presentation to monitor for electrocardiographic changes in the setting of hyperkalemia and hypocalcemia, and they should consult nephrology, oncology, and critical care services early in the disease course to maximize coordination of care.

Prevention

• Identify patients at high-risk of TLS (Table 1) and consider a single 3-mg dose of rasburicase.
• Manage low- and intermediate-risk patients with allopurinol and hydration.

Treatment

• Identify patients with TLS using the clinical and laboratory findings outlined in the Cairo-Bishop classification system (Table 2).
• Initiate aggressive fluid resuscitation and manage electrolyte abnormalities.
• If urate-lowering therapy is part of local hospital guidelines for TLS management, consider a single dose regimen of rasburicase utilizing shared decision-making.

Tumor lysis syndrome remains a metabolic emergency that requires rapid diagnosis and management to prevent morbidity and mortality. Current data show rasburicase rapidly decreases PUA compared to allopurinol. However, the current literature does not provide compelling evidence that rapidly lowering uric acid with rasburicase to prevent TLS or to treat AKI secondary to TLS improves patient-oriented outcomes.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason™”? Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason™” topics by emailing [email protected]

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely ^® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason™” (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent clear-cut conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

A 35-year-old man with a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), who most recently received treatment 12 months earlier, presents to the emergency department with abdominal pain and constipation. A computed tomography scan of the abdomen reveals retroperitoneal and mesenteric lymphadenopathy causing small bowel obstruction. The basic metabolic panel reveals a creatinine of 1.1 mg/dL, calcium of 8.5 mg/dL, phosphorus of 4 mg/dL, potassium of 4.5 mEq/L, and uric acid of 7.3 mg/dL. The admitting team contemplates using allopurinol or rasburicase for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prevention in the setting of recurrent DLBCL.

Tumor lysis syndrome is characterized by metabolic derangement and end-organ damage in the setting of cytotoxic chemotherapy, chemosensitive malignancy, and/or increased tumor burden.¹ Risk stratification for TLS takes into account patient and disease characteristics (Table 1). Other risk factors include tumor bulk, elevated baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase, and certain types of chemotherapy (eg, cisplatin, cytarabine, etoposide, paclitaxel, cytotoxic therapies), immunotherapy, or targeted therapy.² Elevated serum levels of uric acid, potassium, and phosphorus, as well as preexisting renal dysfunction, predispose patients to clinical TLS.³

The Cairo-Bishop classification system is most frequently used to diagnose TLS (Table 2).³ Laboratory features include hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, hyperuricemia, and hypocalcemia secondary to lysis of proliferating tumor cells and their nuclei. Clinical features include arrhythmias, seizures, and acute kidney injury (AKI).¹ Acute kidney injury, the most common clinical complication of TLS, results from crystallization of markedly elevated plasma uric acid, leading to tubular obstruction.^1,4 The development of AKI can predict morbidity (namely, the need for renal replacement therapy [RRT]) and mortality in this patient population.¹

Stratifying a patient’s baseline risk of developing TLS often dictates the prevention and management plan. Therapeutic prophylaxis and management strategies for TLS include aggressive fluid resuscitation, diuresis, plasma uric acid (PUA) levels, monitoring electrolyte levels, and, in certain life-threatening situations, dialysis. Oncologists presume reducing uric acid levels prevents and treats TLS.

Current methods to reduce PUA as a means of preventing or treating TLS include xanthine oxidase inhibitors (eg, allopurinol) or urate oxidase (eg, rasburicase). Before the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of rasburicase to manage TLS, providers combined allopurinol (a purine analog that inhibits the enzyme xanthine oxidase, decreasing uric acid level) with aggressive fluid resuscitation. Approved by the FDA in 2002, rasburicase offers an alternative treatment for hyperuricemia by directly decreasing levels of uric acid instead of merely preventing the increased formation of uric acid. As a urate oxidase, rasburicase converts uric acid to the non-nephrotoxic, water-soluble, and freely excreted allantoin.

Rasburicase is often considered the standard-of-care treatment for hyperuricemia due to its ability to reduce circulating uric acid levels rapidly. The primary goal of uric acid reduction is to prevent the occurrence of AKI.

Based upon bioplausible relevance to clinically meaningful endpoints, researchers selected PUA reduction as the primary outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to justify treatment with rasburicase. In RCTs, compassionate trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses, rasburicase demonstrated a more rapid reduction in uric acid levels compared to allopurinol.⁵ Specifically, in one study by Goldman et al,⁶ rasburicase decreased baseline uric acid levels in pediatric oncology patients by 86% (statistically significant) 4 hours after administration, compared to allopurinol, which only reduced baseline uric acid by 12%. According to a study by Cairo et al, allopurinol may take up to 1 day to reduce PUA.³

Randomized controlled trials examining the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of rasburicase in adult patients remain sparse. Both RCTs and systematic reviews and meta-analyses rely on PUA levels as a surrogate endpoint and fail to include clinically meaningful primary endpoints (eg, change in baseline creatinine or need for RRT), raising the question as to whether rasburicase improves patient-centered outcomes.⁵ Since previous studies in the oncology literature show low or modest correlations between PUA reduction and patient-oriented outcomes, we must question whether PUA reduction serves as a meaningful surrogate endpoint.

Treatment of Tumor Lysis Syndrome

Two meta-analyses focusing on the treatment of TLS by Dinnel et al⁵ and Lopez-Olivo et al⁸ each included only three unique RCTs (two of the three RCTs were referenced in both meta-analyses). Moreover, both studies included only one RCT comparing rasburicase directly to allopurinol (a 2010 RCT by Cortes et al⁹) while the other RCTs compared the impact of different rasburicase dosing regimens. Researchers powered the head-to-head RCT by Cortes et al⁹ to detect a difference in PUA levels across three different arms: rasburicase, rasburicase plus allopurinol, or allopurinol alone. All three treatment arms resulted in a statistically significant reduction in serum PUA levels (87%, 78%, 66%, respectively; P = .001) without a change in the secondary, underpowered clinical outcomes such as clinical TLS or reduced renal function (defined in this study as increased creatinine, renal failure/impairment, or acute renal failure).

More recently, retrospective analyses of patients with AKI secondary to TLS found no difference in creatinine improvement, renal recovery, or prevention of RRT based on whether the patients received either rasburicase or allopurinol.^10,11 While rasburicase is associated with greater PUA reduction compared to allopurinol, according to meaningful RCT and observational data as discussed previously and described further in the following section, this does not translate to clinically important risk reduction.

Prevention of Tumor Lysis Syndrome

Furthermore, there exists little compelling evidence to support the use of rasburicase for preventing AKI secondary to TLS. Even among patients at high-risk for TLS (the only group for whom rasburicase is currently recommended),⁵ rasburicase does not definitively prevent AKI. Data suggest that despite lowering uric acid levels, rasburicase does not consistently prevent renal injury¹¹ or decrease the total number of subsequent inpatient days.¹² The only phase 3 trial that compared the efficacy of rasburicase to allopurinol for the prevention of TLS and included clinically meaningful endpoints (eg, renal failure) found that, while rasburicase reduced uric acid levels faster than allopurinol, it did not decrease rates of clinical TLS.⁹

The published literature offers limited efficacy data of rasburicase in preventing TLS in low-risk patients; however, the absence of benefit of rasburicase in preventing renal failure in high-risk patients warrants skepticism as to its potential efficacy in low-risk patients.^8,10

Costs-Effectiveness and Other Ethical Considerations

Rasburicase is an expensive treatment. The estimated cost of the FDA-recommended dosing is around $37,500.¹³ Moreover, studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of rasburicase to allopurinol focus primarily on patients at high-risk for TLS, which overestimates the cost-effectiveness of rasburicase in patients at low-to-intermediate risk for TLS.^14,15 Unfortunately, some providers inappropriately prescribe rasburicase regularly to patients at low or intermediate risk for TLS. Based on observational studies of rasburicase in various clinical scenarios, including inpatient and emergency department settings, inappropriate use of rasburicase (eg, in the setting of hyperuricemia without evidence of a high-risk TLS tumor, no prior trial of allopurinol, preserved renal function, no laboratory evaluation) ranges from 32% to 70%.^14,15

Finally, while <1% of patients experience rasburicase-induced anaphylaxis, 20% to 50% of patients develop gastrointestinal symptoms and viral-syndrome-like symptoms.¹⁶ Meanwhile, major side effects from allopurinol that occur with 1% to 10% frequency include maculopapular rash, pruritis, gout, nausea, vomiting, and renal failure syndrome.¹⁷ Even if the cost for rasburicase and allopurinol were similar, the lack of improved efficacy and the side-effect profiles of the two medications should make us question whether to prescribe rasburicase preferentially over allopurinol.

While some experts recommend rasburicase prophylaxis in patients at high risk for developing TLS, such recommendations rely on low-quality evidence.² When prescribing rasburicase, the hospitalist must ensure correct dosing. The FDA approved rasburicase for weight-based dosing at 0.2 mg/kg, though current evidence favors a single, fixed dose of 3 mg.^16,17 Compared to weight-based dosing, which has an estimated cost-effectiveness ratio ranging from $27,982.77 to $119,643.59 per quality-adjusted life-year, single dosing has equivalent efficacy at approximately 50% lower cost per dose.^11,17,18

As a preventive treatment for TLS, clinicians should only consider prescribing rasburicase as a single fixed dose of 3 mg to high-risk patients.¹⁷ In the event of AKI secondary to TLS, clinicians should proceed with the mainstay treatment of resuscitation with aggressive fluid resuscitation, with a goal urine output of at least 2 mL/kg/h.¹ Fluid resuscitation should be used cautiously in patients with oliguric or anuric AKI, pulmonary hypertension, congestive heart failure, and hemodynamically significant valvular disease. Clinicians should provide continuous cardiac monitoring during the initial presentation to monitor for electrocardiographic changes in the setting of hyperkalemia and hypocalcemia, and they should consult nephrology, oncology, and critical care services early in the disease course to maximize coordination of care.

Prevention

• Identify patients at high-risk of TLS (Table 1) and consider a single 3-mg dose of rasburicase.
• Manage low- and intermediate-risk patients with allopurinol and hydration.

Treatment

• Identify patients with TLS using the clinical and laboratory findings outlined in the Cairo-Bishop classification system (Table 2).
• Initiate aggressive fluid resuscitation and manage electrolyte abnormalities.
• If urate-lowering therapy is part of local hospital guidelines for TLS management, consider a single dose regimen of rasburicase utilizing shared decision-making.

Tumor lysis syndrome remains a metabolic emergency that requires rapid diagnosis and management to prevent morbidity and mortality. Current data show rasburicase rapidly decreases PUA compared to allopurinol. However, the current literature does not provide compelling evidence that rapidly lowering uric acid with rasburicase to prevent TLS or to treat AKI secondary to TLS improves patient-oriented outcomes.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason™”? Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason™” topics by emailing [email protected]

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely ^® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason™” (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent clear-cut conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

A 35-year-old man with a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), who most recently received treatment 12 months earlier, presents to the emergency department with abdominal pain and constipation. A computed tomography scan of the abdomen reveals retroperitoneal and mesenteric lymphadenopathy causing small bowel obstruction. The basic metabolic panel reveals a creatinine of 1.1 mg/dL, calcium of 8.5 mg/dL, phosphorus of 4 mg/dL, potassium of 4.5 mEq/L, and uric acid of 7.3 mg/dL. The admitting team contemplates using allopurinol or rasburicase for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prevention in the setting of recurrent DLBCL.

Tumor lysis syndrome is characterized by metabolic derangement and end-organ damage in the setting of cytotoxic chemotherapy, chemosensitive malignancy, and/or increased tumor burden.¹ Risk stratification for TLS takes into account patient and disease characteristics (Table 1). Other risk factors include tumor bulk, elevated baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase, and certain types of chemotherapy (eg, cisplatin, cytarabine, etoposide, paclitaxel, cytotoxic therapies), immunotherapy, or targeted therapy.² Elevated serum levels of uric acid, potassium, and phosphorus, as well as preexisting renal dysfunction, predispose patients to clinical TLS.³

The Cairo-Bishop classification system is most frequently used to diagnose TLS (Table 2).³ Laboratory features include hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, hyperuricemia, and hypocalcemia secondary to lysis of proliferating tumor cells and their nuclei. Clinical features include arrhythmias, seizures, and acute kidney injury (AKI).¹ Acute kidney injury, the most common clinical complication of TLS, results from crystallization of markedly elevated plasma uric acid, leading to tubular obstruction.^1,4 The development of AKI can predict morbidity (namely, the need for renal replacement therapy [RRT]) and mortality in this patient population.¹

Stratifying a patient’s baseline risk of developing TLS often dictates the prevention and management plan. Therapeutic prophylaxis and management strategies for TLS include aggressive fluid resuscitation, diuresis, plasma uric acid (PUA) levels, monitoring electrolyte levels, and, in certain life-threatening situations, dialysis. Oncologists presume reducing uric acid levels prevents and treats TLS.

Current methods to reduce PUA as a means of preventing or treating TLS include xanthine oxidase inhibitors (eg, allopurinol) or urate oxidase (eg, rasburicase). Before the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of rasburicase to manage TLS, providers combined allopurinol (a purine analog that inhibits the enzyme xanthine oxidase, decreasing uric acid level) with aggressive fluid resuscitation. Approved by the FDA in 2002, rasburicase offers an alternative treatment for hyperuricemia by directly decreasing levels of uric acid instead of merely preventing the increased formation of uric acid. As a urate oxidase, rasburicase converts uric acid to the non-nephrotoxic, water-soluble, and freely excreted allantoin.

Rasburicase is often considered the standard-of-care treatment for hyperuricemia due to its ability to reduce circulating uric acid levels rapidly. The primary goal of uric acid reduction is to prevent the occurrence of AKI.

Based upon bioplausible relevance to clinically meaningful endpoints, researchers selected PUA reduction as the primary outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to justify treatment with rasburicase. In RCTs, compassionate trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses, rasburicase demonstrated a more rapid reduction in uric acid levels compared to allopurinol.⁵ Specifically, in one study by Goldman et al,⁶ rasburicase decreased baseline uric acid levels in pediatric oncology patients by 86% (statistically significant) 4 hours after administration, compared to allopurinol, which only reduced baseline uric acid by 12%. According to a study by Cairo et al, allopurinol may take up to 1 day to reduce PUA.³

Randomized controlled trials examining the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of rasburicase in adult patients remain sparse. Both RCTs and systematic reviews and meta-analyses rely on PUA levels as a surrogate endpoint and fail to include clinically meaningful primary endpoints (eg, change in baseline creatinine or need for RRT), raising the question as to whether rasburicase improves patient-centered outcomes.⁵ Since previous studies in the oncology literature show low or modest correlations between PUA reduction and patient-oriented outcomes, we must question whether PUA reduction serves as a meaningful surrogate endpoint.

Treatment of Tumor Lysis Syndrome

Two meta-analyses focusing on the treatment of TLS by Dinnel et al⁵ and Lopez-Olivo et al⁸ each included only three unique RCTs (two of the three RCTs were referenced in both meta-analyses). Moreover, both studies included only one RCT comparing rasburicase directly to allopurinol (a 2010 RCT by Cortes et al⁹) while the other RCTs compared the impact of different rasburicase dosing regimens. Researchers powered the head-to-head RCT by Cortes et al⁹ to detect a difference in PUA levels across three different arms: rasburicase, rasburicase plus allopurinol, or allopurinol alone. All three treatment arms resulted in a statistically significant reduction in serum PUA levels (87%, 78%, 66%, respectively; P = .001) without a change in the secondary, underpowered clinical outcomes such as clinical TLS or reduced renal function (defined in this study as increased creatinine, renal failure/impairment, or acute renal failure).

More recently, retrospective analyses of patients with AKI secondary to TLS found no difference in creatinine improvement, renal recovery, or prevention of RRT based on whether the patients received either rasburicase or allopurinol.^10,11 While rasburicase is associated with greater PUA reduction compared to allopurinol, according to meaningful RCT and observational data as discussed previously and described further in the following section, this does not translate to clinically important risk reduction.

Prevention of Tumor Lysis Syndrome

Furthermore, there exists little compelling evidence to support the use of rasburicase for preventing AKI secondary to TLS. Even among patients at high-risk for TLS (the only group for whom rasburicase is currently recommended),⁵ rasburicase does not definitively prevent AKI. Data suggest that despite lowering uric acid levels, rasburicase does not consistently prevent renal injury¹¹ or decrease the total number of subsequent inpatient days.¹² The only phase 3 trial that compared the efficacy of rasburicase to allopurinol for the prevention of TLS and included clinically meaningful endpoints (eg, renal failure) found that, while rasburicase reduced uric acid levels faster than allopurinol, it did not decrease rates of clinical TLS.⁹

The published literature offers limited efficacy data of rasburicase in preventing TLS in low-risk patients; however, the absence of benefit of rasburicase in preventing renal failure in high-risk patients warrants skepticism as to its potential efficacy in low-risk patients.^8,10

Costs-Effectiveness and Other Ethical Considerations

Rasburicase is an expensive treatment. The estimated cost of the FDA-recommended dosing is around $37,500.¹³ Moreover, studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of rasburicase to allopurinol focus primarily on patients at high-risk for TLS, which overestimates the cost-effectiveness of rasburicase in patients at low-to-intermediate risk for TLS.^14,15 Unfortunately, some providers inappropriately prescribe rasburicase regularly to patients at low or intermediate risk for TLS. Based on observational studies of rasburicase in various clinical scenarios, including inpatient and emergency department settings, inappropriate use of rasburicase (eg, in the setting of hyperuricemia without evidence of a high-risk TLS tumor, no prior trial of allopurinol, preserved renal function, no laboratory evaluation) ranges from 32% to 70%.^14,15

Finally, while <1% of patients experience rasburicase-induced anaphylaxis, 20% to 50% of patients develop gastrointestinal symptoms and viral-syndrome-like symptoms.¹⁶ Meanwhile, major side effects from allopurinol that occur with 1% to 10% frequency include maculopapular rash, pruritis, gout, nausea, vomiting, and renal failure syndrome.¹⁷ Even if the cost for rasburicase and allopurinol were similar, the lack of improved efficacy and the side-effect profiles of the two medications should make us question whether to prescribe rasburicase preferentially over allopurinol.

While some experts recommend rasburicase prophylaxis in patients at high risk for developing TLS, such recommendations rely on low-quality evidence.² When prescribing rasburicase, the hospitalist must ensure correct dosing. The FDA approved rasburicase for weight-based dosing at 0.2 mg/kg, though current evidence favors a single, fixed dose of 3 mg.^16,17 Compared to weight-based dosing, which has an estimated cost-effectiveness ratio ranging from $27,982.77 to $119,643.59 per quality-adjusted life-year, single dosing has equivalent efficacy at approximately 50% lower cost per dose.^11,17,18

As a preventive treatment for TLS, clinicians should only consider prescribing rasburicase as a single fixed dose of 3 mg to high-risk patients.¹⁷ In the event of AKI secondary to TLS, clinicians should proceed with the mainstay treatment of resuscitation with aggressive fluid resuscitation, with a goal urine output of at least 2 mL/kg/h.¹ Fluid resuscitation should be used cautiously in patients with oliguric or anuric AKI, pulmonary hypertension, congestive heart failure, and hemodynamically significant valvular disease. Clinicians should provide continuous cardiac monitoring during the initial presentation to monitor for electrocardiographic changes in the setting of hyperkalemia and hypocalcemia, and they should consult nephrology, oncology, and critical care services early in the disease course to maximize coordination of care.

Prevention

• Identify patients at high-risk of TLS (Table 1) and consider a single 3-mg dose of rasburicase.
• Manage low- and intermediate-risk patients with allopurinol and hydration.

Treatment

• Identify patients with TLS using the clinical and laboratory findings outlined in the Cairo-Bishop classification system (Table 2).
• Initiate aggressive fluid resuscitation and manage electrolyte abnormalities.
• If urate-lowering therapy is part of local hospital guidelines for TLS management, consider a single dose regimen of rasburicase utilizing shared decision-making.

Tumor lysis syndrome remains a metabolic emergency that requires rapid diagnosis and management to prevent morbidity and mortality. Current data show rasburicase rapidly decreases PUA compared to allopurinol. However, the current literature does not provide compelling evidence that rapidly lowering uric acid with rasburicase to prevent TLS or to treat AKI secondary to TLS improves patient-oriented outcomes.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason™”? Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason™” topics by emailing [email protected]

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals across the country face a crisis in identifying resources for the surging needs of patients with mental health conditions. Compared with 2019, survey and utilization data from 2020 suggest an increase in suicidal ideation and other symptoms among adults,¹ and an escalation in mental health-related visits to pediatric emergency departments, respectively.² Unfortunately, mental health resources have dwindled during this period. Available inpatient psychiatric beds and 24-hour residential treatment beds—already on the decline over the past 5 years—have been massively affected by the pandemic due to capacity constraints and facility closures.³

These factors have placed general medical hospitals (hospitals) at the front lines of a mental health crisis⁴ for which most are ill prepared. Indeed, once a patient with acute mental health needs is “medically cleared,” they must wait for an available bed at a psychiatric or residential treatment facility.³ This waiting period often delays necessary patient care, as most consultation-liaison psychiatry models are not designed to provide intensive services.⁵

This waiting period can also place hospital staff in unfamiliar and potentially unsafe scenarios related to physical and psychological stressors. Staff may encounter patient behaviors that risk harm to patients and staff (ie, behavioral crisis events), which may require seclusion (ie, confinement to a locked room) or restraints (chemical, physical, and mechanical). Even in inpatient psychiatric units, an estimated 70% of nurses have been assaulted at least once during their career.⁶ Such violent behaviors and the interventions required to subdue them can be traumatizing for both patients and staff.⁷ In fact, the “cost of caring” may be higher for mental health nurses, who often suffer from secondary posttraumatic stress.⁸ Staff lacking mental health training may encounter additional stressors from feeling powerless to help their patients.

Facing this crisis, hospitals must develop a strategic response that encompasses the needs of both patients and staff. Beyond intensive interventions (eg, additional staffing resources), this response should include lower-effort interventions. In this perspective, we review two debriefing practices—clinical event debriefing and psychological debriefing—that hospitals can feasibly implement during this crisis. These respective practices can ensure safe and effective care of patients by reducing use of restraints and seclusion while also providing crucial support for staff.

Broadly defined as a facilitated discussion of significant clinical events, clinical event debriefing (CED) can improve both individual and team performance in resuscitation events and patient outcomes.^9-11 While CED is often utilized for clinical deterioration events, it can also apply to behavioral crises in a diversity of settings.⁶

In recent decades, researchers have developed several frameworks for reducing seclusion and restraint practices in psychiatric care settings.⁶ A common framework is Huckshorn’s Six Core Strategies,^6,12,13 which can reduce seclusion and restraint use¹⁴ and is feasible to implement.¹⁵ This framework advocates for an immediate CED following behavioral crisis events. A unit supervisor or senior staff member not involved in the event should lead the CED, which has several goals. The first priorities, however, are ensuring the physical safety of all staff and returning the unit to normal operations. More broadly, the CED group should review event documentation and interview staff who were present at the time of the event. These processes can help identify antecedents as well as short- and long-term practices, systems, and environmental modifications to prevent reoccurence.¹² However, little is known about this practice outside of inpatient psychiatric units.

Our pediatric hospital implemented a CED process in our medical behavioral unit (MBU), a 10-bed unit designed for patients with comorbid mental health needs requiring a higher level of psychosocial resources. The MBU is not an inpatient psychiatric unit, yet more than 50% of patients admitted to the MBU at any given time are hospitalized with a primary psychiatric diagnosis requiring intensive services due to a lack of resources in the community.

Preventing use of restraints is an institutional priority for all areas of our hospital. To reduce restraint use in the MBU, staff are asked to perform immediate CED following behavioral crisis events. This process involves both clinical (eg, nurses, physicians, psychiatric technicians) and nonclinical staff (eg, unit clerks, security officers). All staff involved in the event are invited to attend. A senior staff member not involved in the event typically organizes and leads the CED. The group uses a facilitative guide to (1) review the patient’s history; (2) identify potential triggers for the event; (3) reflect on areas of strength and weakness in unit response; (4) identify systems issues impacting the patient or the unit response; and (5) generate a strategy to prevent reoccurrence. The process is designed to take 5 to 10 minutes. The guide also serves as a data collection tool that unit leaders use to screen for generalizable learnings and improvement ideas (Appendix). For example, if a behavioral trigger is identified for a patient, unit leaders disseminate this information to create situational awareness and to ensure care plans are updated.

Psychological debriefing is an application of Critical Incident Stress Management, a comprehensive approach that was developed in the 1970s to help emergency service workers process the thoughts and emotions arising from their exposure to trauma in their work.^8,16 More recently, it has become a standard practice in many settings, including healthcare. Notably, psychological debriefing and event debriefing are often conflated. While not mutually exclusive, psychological debriefing has the unique aim of providing support to groups who work together in stressful situations.

Strategies for psychological debriefing are less well described in healthcare. However, our hospital has found it to be a useful tool for MBU staff. Operationally, this process takes the form of a weekly multidisciplinary team meeting with unit clinical staff. Typically, a psychologist or social worker initiates this meeting, which is held at a dedicated time and in a protected space. Discussion centers on patients who have been admitted to the unit for more than 30 days. A goal of the meeting is to review and update patient care plans, but there is also an important goal of emotional processing (Appendix).

In this meeting, staff reflect collectively on the unique stressors they encounter in their work, and they generate situational awareness and potential interventions for these stressors. The psychosocial providers often share recommendations, such as strategies to promote effective communication with patients and families. Peer support is a major component of this meeting and is often utilized to navigate stressful situations, such as disagreements with families regarding behavioral management. Staff also review and reinforce the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports framework—a preventive framework that can reduce seclusion and restraint use in pediatric psychiatric units, among other positive outcomes.¹⁷ This framework includes setting expectations for patients and families regarding behaviors on the unit. In reviewing these guidelines, staff are encouraged to recognize and report inappropriate behaviors (from patients or families) that can be traumatizing, especially over prolonged hospitalizations. This framework also provides a common language for staff to express behavioral expectations in a positive manner (eg, “Let’s use our walking feet” rather than “No running”). Overall, staff view this meeting as a resilience-building activity that empowers them in their routine work.

While the MBU is a specialized unit with dedicated psychosocial resources, the debriefing practices we describe can be translated to multiple care settings. However, successful implementation relies on intentional process design. First, debriefing indications must be made clear to staff (eg, events of restraint). There should be a role or group accountable for organizing and leading debriefings, which should be held at a time that promotes participation from frontline staff,particularly for CED. Debriefings—especially psychological debriefings—should be held in a protected space. They should have a clear organization, such as use of a survey-based debriefing guide that allows for data collection. Importantly, there should be a unit or hospital leader accountable for disseminating learnings and improvement ideas to relevant staff and ensuring action items are completed. Finally, accountable leaders should evaluate the process’ feasibility, efficacy, and sustainability to inform implementation.

Hospitals must also consider how to train debriefing leaders to facilitate difficult conversations. Some hospitals may have formal communication training programs, but it may also be helpful to leverage the skills of social workers and psychosocial staff.

Debriefing relies on a climate in which staff of diverse backgrounds and professional status feel comfortable speaking up. Psychological safety is critical in any crisis, and hospital leaders should consider how to make staff feel comfortable during this mental health crisis.¹⁸ Leaders must also be prepared to support staff beyond debriefing if resources are required for secondary posttraumatic stress, burnout, or compassion fatigue.^8,19,20 Employee assistance programs may be a useful resource.

Debriefing practices can help hospitals contend with the unique challenges facing patients and staff in a mental health crisis. While debriefing may vary based on need and setting, hospitals should consider CED as a strategy for reducing seclusion and restraint use, which adversely impact patients and staff. Psychological debriefing can also help staff mitigate the psychosocial stressors of their work.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals across the country face a crisis in identifying resources for the surging needs of patients with mental health conditions. Compared with 2019, survey and utilization data from 2020 suggest an increase in suicidal ideation and other symptoms among adults,¹ and an escalation in mental health-related visits to pediatric emergency departments, respectively.² Unfortunately, mental health resources have dwindled during this period. Available inpatient psychiatric beds and 24-hour residential treatment beds—already on the decline over the past 5 years—have been massively affected by the pandemic due to capacity constraints and facility closures.³

These factors have placed general medical hospitals (hospitals) at the front lines of a mental health crisis⁴ for which most are ill prepared. Indeed, once a patient with acute mental health needs is “medically cleared,” they must wait for an available bed at a psychiatric or residential treatment facility.³ This waiting period often delays necessary patient care, as most consultation-liaison psychiatry models are not designed to provide intensive services.⁵

This waiting period can also place hospital staff in unfamiliar and potentially unsafe scenarios related to physical and psychological stressors. Staff may encounter patient behaviors that risk harm to patients and staff (ie, behavioral crisis events), which may require seclusion (ie, confinement to a locked room) or restraints (chemical, physical, and mechanical). Even in inpatient psychiatric units, an estimated 70% of nurses have been assaulted at least once during their career.⁶ Such violent behaviors and the interventions required to subdue them can be traumatizing for both patients and staff.⁷ In fact, the “cost of caring” may be higher for mental health nurses, who often suffer from secondary posttraumatic stress.⁸ Staff lacking mental health training may encounter additional stressors from feeling powerless to help their patients.

Facing this crisis, hospitals must develop a strategic response that encompasses the needs of both patients and staff. Beyond intensive interventions (eg, additional staffing resources), this response should include lower-effort interventions. In this perspective, we review two debriefing practices—clinical event debriefing and psychological debriefing—that hospitals can feasibly implement during this crisis. These respective practices can ensure safe and effective care of patients by reducing use of restraints and seclusion while also providing crucial support for staff.

Broadly defined as a facilitated discussion of significant clinical events, clinical event debriefing (CED) can improve both individual and team performance in resuscitation events and patient outcomes.^9-11 While CED is often utilized for clinical deterioration events, it can also apply to behavioral crises in a diversity of settings.⁶

In recent decades, researchers have developed several frameworks for reducing seclusion and restraint practices in psychiatric care settings.⁶ A common framework is Huckshorn’s Six Core Strategies,^6,12,13 which can reduce seclusion and restraint use¹⁴ and is feasible to implement.¹⁵ This framework advocates for an immediate CED following behavioral crisis events. A unit supervisor or senior staff member not involved in the event should lead the CED, which has several goals. The first priorities, however, are ensuring the physical safety of all staff and returning the unit to normal operations. More broadly, the CED group should review event documentation and interview staff who were present at the time of the event. These processes can help identify antecedents as well as short- and long-term practices, systems, and environmental modifications to prevent reoccurence.¹² However, little is known about this practice outside of inpatient psychiatric units.

Our pediatric hospital implemented a CED process in our medical behavioral unit (MBU), a 10-bed unit designed for patients with comorbid mental health needs requiring a higher level of psychosocial resources. The MBU is not an inpatient psychiatric unit, yet more than 50% of patients admitted to the MBU at any given time are hospitalized with a primary psychiatric diagnosis requiring intensive services due to a lack of resources in the community.

Preventing use of restraints is an institutional priority for all areas of our hospital. To reduce restraint use in the MBU, staff are asked to perform immediate CED following behavioral crisis events. This process involves both clinical (eg, nurses, physicians, psychiatric technicians) and nonclinical staff (eg, unit clerks, security officers). All staff involved in the event are invited to attend. A senior staff member not involved in the event typically organizes and leads the CED. The group uses a facilitative guide to (1) review the patient’s history; (2) identify potential triggers for the event; (3) reflect on areas of strength and weakness in unit response; (4) identify systems issues impacting the patient or the unit response; and (5) generate a strategy to prevent reoccurrence. The process is designed to take 5 to 10 minutes. The guide also serves as a data collection tool that unit leaders use to screen for generalizable learnings and improvement ideas (Appendix). For example, if a behavioral trigger is identified for a patient, unit leaders disseminate this information to create situational awareness and to ensure care plans are updated.

Psychological debriefing is an application of Critical Incident Stress Management, a comprehensive approach that was developed in the 1970s to help emergency service workers process the thoughts and emotions arising from their exposure to trauma in their work.^8,16 More recently, it has become a standard practice in many settings, including healthcare. Notably, psychological debriefing and event debriefing are often conflated. While not mutually exclusive, psychological debriefing has the unique aim of providing support to groups who work together in stressful situations.

Strategies for psychological debriefing are less well described in healthcare. However, our hospital has found it to be a useful tool for MBU staff. Operationally, this process takes the form of a weekly multidisciplinary team meeting with unit clinical staff. Typically, a psychologist or social worker initiates this meeting, which is held at a dedicated time and in a protected space. Discussion centers on patients who have been admitted to the unit for more than 30 days. A goal of the meeting is to review and update patient care plans, but there is also an important goal of emotional processing (Appendix).

In this meeting, staff reflect collectively on the unique stressors they encounter in their work, and they generate situational awareness and potential interventions for these stressors. The psychosocial providers often share recommendations, such as strategies to promote effective communication with patients and families. Peer support is a major component of this meeting and is often utilized to navigate stressful situations, such as disagreements with families regarding behavioral management. Staff also review and reinforce the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports framework—a preventive framework that can reduce seclusion and restraint use in pediatric psychiatric units, among other positive outcomes.¹⁷ This framework includes setting expectations for patients and families regarding behaviors on the unit. In reviewing these guidelines, staff are encouraged to recognize and report inappropriate behaviors (from patients or families) that can be traumatizing, especially over prolonged hospitalizations. This framework also provides a common language for staff to express behavioral expectations in a positive manner (eg, “Let’s use our walking feet” rather than “No running”). Overall, staff view this meeting as a resilience-building activity that empowers them in their routine work.

While the MBU is a specialized unit with dedicated psychosocial resources, the debriefing practices we describe can be translated to multiple care settings. However, successful implementation relies on intentional process design. First, debriefing indications must be made clear to staff (eg, events of restraint). There should be a role or group accountable for organizing and leading debriefings, which should be held at a time that promotes participation from frontline staff,particularly for CED. Debriefings—especially psychological debriefings—should be held in a protected space. They should have a clear organization, such as use of a survey-based debriefing guide that allows for data collection. Importantly, there should be a unit or hospital leader accountable for disseminating learnings and improvement ideas to relevant staff and ensuring action items are completed. Finally, accountable leaders should evaluate the process’ feasibility, efficacy, and sustainability to inform implementation.

Hospitals must also consider how to train debriefing leaders to facilitate difficult conversations. Some hospitals may have formal communication training programs, but it may also be helpful to leverage the skills of social workers and psychosocial staff.

Debriefing relies on a climate in which staff of diverse backgrounds and professional status feel comfortable speaking up. Psychological safety is critical in any crisis, and hospital leaders should consider how to make staff feel comfortable during this mental health crisis.¹⁸ Leaders must also be prepared to support staff beyond debriefing if resources are required for secondary posttraumatic stress, burnout, or compassion fatigue.^8,19,20 Employee assistance programs may be a useful resource.

Debriefing practices can help hospitals contend with the unique challenges facing patients and staff in a mental health crisis. While debriefing may vary based on need and setting, hospitals should consider CED as a strategy for reducing seclusion and restraint use, which adversely impact patients and staff. Psychological debriefing can also help staff mitigate the psychosocial stressors of their work.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals across the country face a crisis in identifying resources for the surging needs of patients with mental health conditions. Compared with 2019, survey and utilization data from 2020 suggest an increase in suicidal ideation and other symptoms among adults,¹ and an escalation in mental health-related visits to pediatric emergency departments, respectively.² Unfortunately, mental health resources have dwindled during this period. Available inpatient psychiatric beds and 24-hour residential treatment beds—already on the decline over the past 5 years—have been massively affected by the pandemic due to capacity constraints and facility closures.³

These factors have placed general medical hospitals (hospitals) at the front lines of a mental health crisis⁴ for which most are ill prepared. Indeed, once a patient with acute mental health needs is “medically cleared,” they must wait for an available bed at a psychiatric or residential treatment facility.³ This waiting period often delays necessary patient care, as most consultation-liaison psychiatry models are not designed to provide intensive services.⁵

This waiting period can also place hospital staff in unfamiliar and potentially unsafe scenarios related to physical and psychological stressors. Staff may encounter patient behaviors that risk harm to patients and staff (ie, behavioral crisis events), which may require seclusion (ie, confinement to a locked room) or restraints (chemical, physical, and mechanical). Even in inpatient psychiatric units, an estimated 70% of nurses have been assaulted at least once during their career.⁶ Such violent behaviors and the interventions required to subdue them can be traumatizing for both patients and staff.⁷ In fact, the “cost of caring” may be higher for mental health nurses, who often suffer from secondary posttraumatic stress.⁸ Staff lacking mental health training may encounter additional stressors from feeling powerless to help their patients.

Facing this crisis, hospitals must develop a strategic response that encompasses the needs of both patients and staff. Beyond intensive interventions (eg, additional staffing resources), this response should include lower-effort interventions. In this perspective, we review two debriefing practices—clinical event debriefing and psychological debriefing—that hospitals can feasibly implement during this crisis. These respective practices can ensure safe and effective care of patients by reducing use of restraints and seclusion while also providing crucial support for staff.

Broadly defined as a facilitated discussion of significant clinical events, clinical event debriefing (CED) can improve both individual and team performance in resuscitation events and patient outcomes.^9-11 While CED is often utilized for clinical deterioration events, it can also apply to behavioral crises in a diversity of settings.⁶

In recent decades, researchers have developed several frameworks for reducing seclusion and restraint practices in psychiatric care settings.⁶ A common framework is Huckshorn’s Six Core Strategies,^6,12,13 which can reduce seclusion and restraint use¹⁴ and is feasible to implement.¹⁵ This framework advocates for an immediate CED following behavioral crisis events. A unit supervisor or senior staff member not involved in the event should lead the CED, which has several goals. The first priorities, however, are ensuring the physical safety of all staff and returning the unit to normal operations. More broadly, the CED group should review event documentation and interview staff who were present at the time of the event. These processes can help identify antecedents as well as short- and long-term practices, systems, and environmental modifications to prevent reoccurence.¹² However, little is known about this practice outside of inpatient psychiatric units.

Our pediatric hospital implemented a CED process in our medical behavioral unit (MBU), a 10-bed unit designed for patients with comorbid mental health needs requiring a higher level of psychosocial resources. The MBU is not an inpatient psychiatric unit, yet more than 50% of patients admitted to the MBU at any given time are hospitalized with a primary psychiatric diagnosis requiring intensive services due to a lack of resources in the community.

Preventing use of restraints is an institutional priority for all areas of our hospital. To reduce restraint use in the MBU, staff are asked to perform immediate CED following behavioral crisis events. This process involves both clinical (eg, nurses, physicians, psychiatric technicians) and nonclinical staff (eg, unit clerks, security officers). All staff involved in the event are invited to attend. A senior staff member not involved in the event typically organizes and leads the CED. The group uses a facilitative guide to (1) review the patient’s history; (2) identify potential triggers for the event; (3) reflect on areas of strength and weakness in unit response; (4) identify systems issues impacting the patient or the unit response; and (5) generate a strategy to prevent reoccurrence. The process is designed to take 5 to 10 minutes. The guide also serves as a data collection tool that unit leaders use to screen for generalizable learnings and improvement ideas (Appendix). For example, if a behavioral trigger is identified for a patient, unit leaders disseminate this information to create situational awareness and to ensure care plans are updated.

Psychological debriefing is an application of Critical Incident Stress Management, a comprehensive approach that was developed in the 1970s to help emergency service workers process the thoughts and emotions arising from their exposure to trauma in their work.^8,16 More recently, it has become a standard practice in many settings, including healthcare. Notably, psychological debriefing and event debriefing are often conflated. While not mutually exclusive, psychological debriefing has the unique aim of providing support to groups who work together in stressful situations.

Strategies for psychological debriefing are less well described in healthcare. However, our hospital has found it to be a useful tool for MBU staff. Operationally, this process takes the form of a weekly multidisciplinary team meeting with unit clinical staff. Typically, a psychologist or social worker initiates this meeting, which is held at a dedicated time and in a protected space. Discussion centers on patients who have been admitted to the unit for more than 30 days. A goal of the meeting is to review and update patient care plans, but there is also an important goal of emotional processing (Appendix).

In this meeting, staff reflect collectively on the unique stressors they encounter in their work, and they generate situational awareness and potential interventions for these stressors. The psychosocial providers often share recommendations, such as strategies to promote effective communication with patients and families. Peer support is a major component of this meeting and is often utilized to navigate stressful situations, such as disagreements with families regarding behavioral management. Staff also review and reinforce the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports framework—a preventive framework that can reduce seclusion and restraint use in pediatric psychiatric units, among other positive outcomes.¹⁷ This framework includes setting expectations for patients and families regarding behaviors on the unit. In reviewing these guidelines, staff are encouraged to recognize and report inappropriate behaviors (from patients or families) that can be traumatizing, especially over prolonged hospitalizations. This framework also provides a common language for staff to express behavioral expectations in a positive manner (eg, “Let’s use our walking feet” rather than “No running”). Overall, staff view this meeting as a resilience-building activity that empowers them in their routine work.

While the MBU is a specialized unit with dedicated psychosocial resources, the debriefing practices we describe can be translated to multiple care settings. However, successful implementation relies on intentional process design. First, debriefing indications must be made clear to staff (eg, events of restraint). There should be a role or group accountable for organizing and leading debriefings, which should be held at a time that promotes participation from frontline staff,particularly for CED. Debriefings—especially psychological debriefings—should be held in a protected space. They should have a clear organization, such as use of a survey-based debriefing guide that allows for data collection. Importantly, there should be a unit or hospital leader accountable for disseminating learnings and improvement ideas to relevant staff and ensuring action items are completed. Finally, accountable leaders should evaluate the process’ feasibility, efficacy, and sustainability to inform implementation.

Hospitals must also consider how to train debriefing leaders to facilitate difficult conversations. Some hospitals may have formal communication training programs, but it may also be helpful to leverage the skills of social workers and psychosocial staff.

Debriefing relies on a climate in which staff of diverse backgrounds and professional status feel comfortable speaking up. Psychological safety is critical in any crisis, and hospital leaders should consider how to make staff feel comfortable during this mental health crisis.¹⁸ Leaders must also be prepared to support staff beyond debriefing if resources are required for secondary posttraumatic stress, burnout, or compassion fatigue.^8,19,20 Employee assistance programs may be a useful resource.

Debriefing practices can help hospitals contend with the unique challenges facing patients and staff in a mental health crisis. While debriefing may vary based on need and setting, hospitals should consider CED as a strategy for reducing seclusion and restraint use, which adversely impact patients and staff. Psychological debriefing can also help staff mitigate the psychosocial stressors of their work.

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason™” (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent clear-cut conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

A hospitalist admits a 75-year-old man for evaluation of acute pyelonephritis; the patient’s medical history is significant for chronic kidney disease and nephrotic syndrome. The patient endorses moderate flank pain upon palpation. Initial serum laboratory studies reveal an albumin level of 1.5 g/dL and a calcium level of 10.0 mg/dL. A repeat serum calcium assessment produces similar results. The hospitalist corrects calcium for albumin concentration by applying the most common formula (Payne’s formula), which results in a corrected calcium value of 12 mg/dL. The hospitalist then starts the patient on intravenous (IV) fluids to treat hypercalcemia and obtains serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and parathyroid hormone levels.

Our skeletons bind, with phosphate, nearly 99% of the body’s calcium, the most abundant mineral in our body. The remaining 1% of calcium (approximately 9-10.5 mg/dL) circulates in the blood. Approximately 40% of serum calcium is bound to albumin, with a smaller percentage bound to lactate and citrate. The remaining 4.5 to 5.5 mg/dL circulates unbound as free (ie, ionized) calcium (iCa).¹ Calcium has many fundamental intra- and extracellular functions. Physiologic calcium homeostasis is maintained by parathyroid hormone and vitamin D.² The amount of circulating iCa, rather than total plasma calcium, determines the many biologic effects of plasma calcium.

In the hospital setting, clinicians commonly encounter patients with derangements in calcium homeostasis.³ True hypercalcemia or hypocalcemia has significant clinical manifestations, including generalized fatigue, nephrolithiasis, cardiac arrhythmias, and, potentially, death. Thus, clinical practice requires correct and accurate assessment of serum calcium levels.¹

Although measuring biologically active calcium (ie, iCa) is the gold standard for assessing calcium levels, laboratories struggle to obtain a direct, accurate measurement of iCa due to the special handling and time constraints required to process samples.⁴ As a result, metabolic laboratory panels typically report the more easily measured total calcium, the sum of iCa and bound calcium.⁵ Changes in albumin levels, however, do not affect iCa levels. Since calcium has less available albumin for binding, hypoalbuminemia should theoretically decrease the amount of bound calcium and lead to a decreased reported total calcium. Therefore, a patient’s total calcium level may appear low even though their iCa is normal, which can lead to an incorrect diagnosis of hypocalcemia or overestimate of the extent of existing hypocalcemia. Moreover, these lower reported calcium levels can falsely report normocalcemia in patients with hypercalcemia or underestimate the extent of the patient’s hypercalcemia.

For years physicians have attempted to account for the underestimate in total calcium due to hypoalbuminemia by calculating a “corrected” calcium. The correction formulas use total calcium and serum albumin to estimate the expected iCa. Refinements to the original formula, developed by Payne et al in 1973, have resulted in the most commonly utilized formula today: corrected calcium = (0.8 x [normal albumin – patient’s albumin]) + serum calcium.^6,7 Many commonly used clinical-decision resources recommend correcting serum calcium concentrations in patients with hypoalbuminemia.⁶

While calculating corrected calcium should theoretically provide a more accurate estimate of physiologically active iCa in patients with hypoalbuminemia,⁴ the commonly used correction equations become less accurate as hypoalbuminemia worsens.⁸ Payne et al derived the original formula from 200 patients using a single laboratory; however, subsequent retrospective studies have not supported the use of albumin-corrected calcium calculations to estimate the iCa.^4,9-11 For example, although Payne’s corrected calcium equations assume a constant relationship between albumin and calcium binding throughout all serum-albumin concentrations, studies have shown that as albumin falls, more calcium ions bind to each available gram of albumin. Payne’s assumption results in an overestimation of the total serum calcium after correction as compared to the iCa.⁸ In comparison, uncorrected total serum calcium assays more accurately reflect both the change in albumin binding that occurs with alterations in albumin concentration and the unchanged free calcium ions. Studies demonstrate superior correlation between iCa and uncorrected total calcium.^4,9-11

Several large retrospective studies revealed the poor in vivo accuracy of equations used to correct calcium for albumin. In one study, Uppsala University Sweden researchers reviewed the laboratory records of more than 20,000 hospitalized patients from 2005 to 2013.⁹ This group compared seven corrected calcium formulas to direct measurements of iCa. All of the correction equations correlated poorly with iCa based on their intraclass correlation (ICC), a descriptive statistic for units that have been sorted into groups. (ICC describes how strongly the units in each group correlate or resemble each other—eg, the closer an ICC is to 1, the stronger the correlation is between each unit in the group.) ICC for the correcting equations ranged from 0.45-0.81. The formulas used to calculate corrected calcium levels performed especially poorly in patients with hypoalbuminemia. In this same patient population, the total serum calcium correlated well with directly assessed iCa, with an ICC of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84-0.86). Moreover, the uncorrected total calcium classified the patient’s calcium level correctly in 82% of cases.

A second study of 5,500 patients in Australia comparing total and adjusted calcium with iCa similarly demonstrated that corrected calcium inaccurately predicts calcium status.¹⁰ Findings from this study showed that corrected calcium values correlated with iCa in only 55% to 65% of samples, but uncorrected total calcium correlated with iCa in 70% to 80% of samples. Notably, in patients with renal failure and/or serum albumin concentrations <3 g/dL, formulas used to correct calcium overestimated calcium levels when compared to directly assessed iCa. Correction formulas performed on serum albumin concentrations >3 g/dL correlated better with iCa (65%-77%), effectively negating the utility of the correction formulas.

Another large retrospective observational study from Norway reviewed laboratory data from more than 6,500 hospitalized and clinic patients.¹¹ In this study, researchers calculated corrected calcium using several different albumin-adjusted formulas and compared results to laboratory-assessed iCa. As compared to corrected calcium, uncorrected total calcium more accurately determined clinically relevant free calcium.

Finally, a Canadian research group analyzed time-matched calcium, albumin, and iCa samples from 678 patients.⁴ They calculated each patient’s corrected calcium values using Payne’s formula. Results of this study showed that corrected calcium predicted iCa outcomes less reliably than uncorrected total calcium (ICC, 0.73 for corrected calcium vs 0.78 for uncorrected calcium).

Utilizing corrected calcium formulas in patients with hypoalbuminemia can overestimate serum calcium, resulting in false-positive findings and an incorrect diagnosis of hypercalcemia or normocalcemia.¹² Incorrectly diagnosing hypercalcemia by using correction formulas prompts management that can lead to iatrogenic harm. Hypoalbuminemia is often associated with hepatic or renal disease. In this patient population, standard treatment of hypercalcemia with volume resuscitation (typically 2 to 4 L) and potentially IV loop diuretics will cause clinically significant volume overload and could worsen renal dysfunction.¹³ Notably, some of the correction formulas utilized in the studies discussed here performed well in hypercalcemic patients, particularly in those with preserved renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m²).

Importantly, correction formulas can mask true hypocalcemia or the true severity of hypocalcemia. Applying correction formulas in patients with clinically significant hypocalcemia and hypoalbuminemia can make hospitalists believe that the calcium levels are normal or not as clinically significant as they first seemed. This can lead to the withholding of appropriate treatment.¹²

Based on the available literature, uncorrected total calcium values more accurately assess biologically active calcium. If a more certain calcium value will affect clinical outcomes, clinicians should obtain a direct measurement of iCa.^4,9-11 Therefore, clinicians should assess iCa irrespective of the uncorrected serum calcium level in patients who are critically ill or who have known hypoparathyroidism or other derangements in iCa.¹⁴ Since iCa levels also fluctuate with pH, samples must be processed quickly and kept cool to slow blood cell metabolism, which alters pH levels.⁴ Using bedside point-of-care blood gas analyzers to obtain iCa removes a large logistical obstacle to obtaining an accurate iCa. Serum electrolyte interpretation with a properly calibrated point-of-care analyzer correlates well with a traditional laboratory analyzer.¹⁵

• Use serum calcium testing routinely to evaluate calcium homeostasis.
• Do not use corrected calcium equations to estimate total calcium.
• If a more accurate measurement of calcium will change medical management, obtain a direct iCa.
• Obtain a direct iCa measurement in critically ill patents and in patients with known hypoparathyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, or other derangements in calcium homeostasis.
• Do not order a serum albumin test to assess calcium levels.

Returning to our clinical scenario, this patient did not have true hypercalcemia and experienced unnecessary evaluation and treatment. Multiple retrospective clinical trials do not support the practice of using corrected calcium equations to correct for serum albumin derangements.^4,9-11 Hospitalists should therefore avoid the temptation to calculate a corrected calcium level in patients with hypoalbuminemia. For patients with clinically significant total serum hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, they should consider obtaining an iCa assay to better determine the true physiologic impact.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason™”? Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason™” topics by emailing [email protected]

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason™” (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent clear-cut conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

A hospitalist admits a 75-year-old man for evaluation of acute pyelonephritis; the patient’s medical history is significant for chronic kidney disease and nephrotic syndrome. The patient endorses moderate flank pain upon palpation. Initial serum laboratory studies reveal an albumin level of 1.5 g/dL and a calcium level of 10.0 mg/dL. A repeat serum calcium assessment produces similar results. The hospitalist corrects calcium for albumin concentration by applying the most common formula (Payne’s formula), which results in a corrected calcium value of 12 mg/dL. The hospitalist then starts the patient on intravenous (IV) fluids to treat hypercalcemia and obtains serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and parathyroid hormone levels.

Our skeletons bind, with phosphate, nearly 99% of the body’s calcium, the most abundant mineral in our body. The remaining 1% of calcium (approximately 9-10.5 mg/dL) circulates in the blood. Approximately 40% of serum calcium is bound to albumin, with a smaller percentage bound to lactate and citrate. The remaining 4.5 to 5.5 mg/dL circulates unbound as free (ie, ionized) calcium (iCa).¹ Calcium has many fundamental intra- and extracellular functions. Physiologic calcium homeostasis is maintained by parathyroid hormone and vitamin D.² The amount of circulating iCa, rather than total plasma calcium, determines the many biologic effects of plasma calcium.

In the hospital setting, clinicians commonly encounter patients with derangements in calcium homeostasis.³ True hypercalcemia or hypocalcemia has significant clinical manifestations, including generalized fatigue, nephrolithiasis, cardiac arrhythmias, and, potentially, death. Thus, clinical practice requires correct and accurate assessment of serum calcium levels.¹

Although measuring biologically active calcium (ie, iCa) is the gold standard for assessing calcium levels, laboratories struggle to obtain a direct, accurate measurement of iCa due to the special handling and time constraints required to process samples.⁴ As a result, metabolic laboratory panels typically report the more easily measured total calcium, the sum of iCa and bound calcium.⁵ Changes in albumin levels, however, do not affect iCa levels. Since calcium has less available albumin for binding, hypoalbuminemia should theoretically decrease the amount of bound calcium and lead to a decreased reported total calcium. Therefore, a patient’s total calcium level may appear low even though their iCa is normal, which can lead to an incorrect diagnosis of hypocalcemia or overestimate of the extent of existing hypocalcemia. Moreover, these lower reported calcium levels can falsely report normocalcemia in patients with hypercalcemia or underestimate the extent of the patient’s hypercalcemia.

For years physicians have attempted to account for the underestimate in total calcium due to hypoalbuminemia by calculating a “corrected” calcium. The correction formulas use total calcium and serum albumin to estimate the expected iCa. Refinements to the original formula, developed by Payne et al in 1973, have resulted in the most commonly utilized formula today: corrected calcium = (0.8 x [normal albumin – patient’s albumin]) + serum calcium.^6,7 Many commonly used clinical-decision resources recommend correcting serum calcium concentrations in patients with hypoalbuminemia.⁶

While calculating corrected calcium should theoretically provide a more accurate estimate of physiologically active iCa in patients with hypoalbuminemia,⁴ the commonly used correction equations become less accurate as hypoalbuminemia worsens.⁸ Payne et al derived the original formula from 200 patients using a single laboratory; however, subsequent retrospective studies have not supported the use of albumin-corrected calcium calculations to estimate the iCa.^4,9-11 For example, although Payne’s corrected calcium equations assume a constant relationship between albumin and calcium binding throughout all serum-albumin concentrations, studies have shown that as albumin falls, more calcium ions bind to each available gram of albumin. Payne’s assumption results in an overestimation of the total serum calcium after correction as compared to the iCa.⁸ In comparison, uncorrected total serum calcium assays more accurately reflect both the change in albumin binding that occurs with alterations in albumin concentration and the unchanged free calcium ions. Studies demonstrate superior correlation between iCa and uncorrected total calcium.^4,9-11

Several large retrospective studies revealed the poor in vivo accuracy of equations used to correct calcium for albumin. In one study, Uppsala University Sweden researchers reviewed the laboratory records of more than 20,000 hospitalized patients from 2005 to 2013.⁹ This group compared seven corrected calcium formulas to direct measurements of iCa. All of the correction equations correlated poorly with iCa based on their intraclass correlation (ICC), a descriptive statistic for units that have been sorted into groups. (ICC describes how strongly the units in each group correlate or resemble each other—eg, the closer an ICC is to 1, the stronger the correlation is between each unit in the group.) ICC for the correcting equations ranged from 0.45-0.81. The formulas used to calculate corrected calcium levels performed especially poorly in patients with hypoalbuminemia. In this same patient population, the total serum calcium correlated well with directly assessed iCa, with an ICC of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84-0.86). Moreover, the uncorrected total calcium classified the patient’s calcium level correctly in 82% of cases.

A second study of 5,500 patients in Australia comparing total and adjusted calcium with iCa similarly demonstrated that corrected calcium inaccurately predicts calcium status.¹⁰ Findings from this study showed that corrected calcium values correlated with iCa in only 55% to 65% of samples, but uncorrected total calcium correlated with iCa in 70% to 80% of samples. Notably, in patients with renal failure and/or serum albumin concentrations <3 g/dL, formulas used to correct calcium overestimated calcium levels when compared to directly assessed iCa. Correction formulas performed on serum albumin concentrations >3 g/dL correlated better with iCa (65%-77%), effectively negating the utility of the correction formulas.

Another large retrospective observational study from Norway reviewed laboratory data from more than 6,500 hospitalized and clinic patients.¹¹ In this study, researchers calculated corrected calcium using several different albumin-adjusted formulas and compared results to laboratory-assessed iCa. As compared to corrected calcium, uncorrected total calcium more accurately determined clinically relevant free calcium.

Finally, a Canadian research group analyzed time-matched calcium, albumin, and iCa samples from 678 patients.⁴ They calculated each patient’s corrected calcium values using Payne’s formula. Results of this study showed that corrected calcium predicted iCa outcomes less reliably than uncorrected total calcium (ICC, 0.73 for corrected calcium vs 0.78 for uncorrected calcium).

Utilizing corrected calcium formulas in patients with hypoalbuminemia can overestimate serum calcium, resulting in false-positive findings and an incorrect diagnosis of hypercalcemia or normocalcemia.¹² Incorrectly diagnosing hypercalcemia by using correction formulas prompts management that can lead to iatrogenic harm. Hypoalbuminemia is often associated with hepatic or renal disease. In this patient population, standard treatment of hypercalcemia with volume resuscitation (typically 2 to 4 L) and potentially IV loop diuretics will cause clinically significant volume overload and could worsen renal dysfunction.¹³ Notably, some of the correction formulas utilized in the studies discussed here performed well in hypercalcemic patients, particularly in those with preserved renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m²).

Importantly, correction formulas can mask true hypocalcemia or the true severity of hypocalcemia. Applying correction formulas in patients with clinically significant hypocalcemia and hypoalbuminemia can make hospitalists believe that the calcium levels are normal or not as clinically significant as they first seemed. This can lead to the withholding of appropriate treatment.¹²

Based on the available literature, uncorrected total calcium values more accurately assess biologically active calcium. If a more certain calcium value will affect clinical outcomes, clinicians should obtain a direct measurement of iCa.^4,9-11 Therefore, clinicians should assess iCa irrespective of the uncorrected serum calcium level in patients who are critically ill or who have known hypoparathyroidism or other derangements in iCa.¹⁴ Since iCa levels also fluctuate with pH, samples must be processed quickly and kept cool to slow blood cell metabolism, which alters pH levels.⁴ Using bedside point-of-care blood gas analyzers to obtain iCa removes a large logistical obstacle to obtaining an accurate iCa. Serum electrolyte interpretation with a properly calibrated point-of-care analyzer correlates well with a traditional laboratory analyzer.¹⁵

• Use serum calcium testing routinely to evaluate calcium homeostasis.
• Do not use corrected calcium equations to estimate total calcium.
• If a more accurate measurement of calcium will change medical management, obtain a direct iCa.
• Obtain a direct iCa measurement in critically ill patents and in patients with known hypoparathyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, or other derangements in calcium homeostasis.
• Do not order a serum albumin test to assess calcium levels.

Returning to our clinical scenario, this patient did not have true hypercalcemia and experienced unnecessary evaluation and treatment. Multiple retrospective clinical trials do not support the practice of using corrected calcium equations to correct for serum albumin derangements.^4,9-11 Hospitalists should therefore avoid the temptation to calculate a corrected calcium level in patients with hypoalbuminemia. For patients with clinically significant total serum hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, they should consider obtaining an iCa assay to better determine the true physiologic impact.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason™”? Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason™” topics by emailing [email protected]

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason™” (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent clear-cut conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

A hospitalist admits a 75-year-old man for evaluation of acute pyelonephritis; the patient’s medical history is significant for chronic kidney disease and nephrotic syndrome. The patient endorses moderate flank pain upon palpation. Initial serum laboratory studies reveal an albumin level of 1.5 g/dL and a calcium level of 10.0 mg/dL. A repeat serum calcium assessment produces similar results. The hospitalist corrects calcium for albumin concentration by applying the most common formula (Payne’s formula), which results in a corrected calcium value of 12 mg/dL. The hospitalist then starts the patient on intravenous (IV) fluids to treat hypercalcemia and obtains serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and parathyroid hormone levels.

Our skeletons bind, with phosphate, nearly 99% of the body’s calcium, the most abundant mineral in our body. The remaining 1% of calcium (approximately 9-10.5 mg/dL) circulates in the blood. Approximately 40% of serum calcium is bound to albumin, with a smaller percentage bound to lactate and citrate. The remaining 4.5 to 5.5 mg/dL circulates unbound as free (ie, ionized) calcium (iCa).¹ Calcium has many fundamental intra- and extracellular functions. Physiologic calcium homeostasis is maintained by parathyroid hormone and vitamin D.² The amount of circulating iCa, rather than total plasma calcium, determines the many biologic effects of plasma calcium.

In the hospital setting, clinicians commonly encounter patients with derangements in calcium homeostasis.³ True hypercalcemia or hypocalcemia has significant clinical manifestations, including generalized fatigue, nephrolithiasis, cardiac arrhythmias, and, potentially, death. Thus, clinical practice requires correct and accurate assessment of serum calcium levels.¹

Although measuring biologically active calcium (ie, iCa) is the gold standard for assessing calcium levels, laboratories struggle to obtain a direct, accurate measurement of iCa due to the special handling and time constraints required to process samples.⁴ As a result, metabolic laboratory panels typically report the more easily measured total calcium, the sum of iCa and bound calcium.⁵ Changes in albumin levels, however, do not affect iCa levels. Since calcium has less available albumin for binding, hypoalbuminemia should theoretically decrease the amount of bound calcium and lead to a decreased reported total calcium. Therefore, a patient’s total calcium level may appear low even though their iCa is normal, which can lead to an incorrect diagnosis of hypocalcemia or overestimate of the extent of existing hypocalcemia. Moreover, these lower reported calcium levels can falsely report normocalcemia in patients with hypercalcemia or underestimate the extent of the patient’s hypercalcemia.

For years physicians have attempted to account for the underestimate in total calcium due to hypoalbuminemia by calculating a “corrected” calcium. The correction formulas use total calcium and serum albumin to estimate the expected iCa. Refinements to the original formula, developed by Payne et al in 1973, have resulted in the most commonly utilized formula today: corrected calcium = (0.8 x [normal albumin – patient’s albumin]) + serum calcium.^6,7 Many commonly used clinical-decision resources recommend correcting serum calcium concentrations in patients with hypoalbuminemia.⁶

While calculating corrected calcium should theoretically provide a more accurate estimate of physiologically active iCa in patients with hypoalbuminemia,⁴ the commonly used correction equations become less accurate as hypoalbuminemia worsens.⁸ Payne et al derived the original formula from 200 patients using a single laboratory; however, subsequent retrospective studies have not supported the use of albumin-corrected calcium calculations to estimate the iCa.^4,9-11 For example, although Payne’s corrected calcium equations assume a constant relationship between albumin and calcium binding throughout all serum-albumin concentrations, studies have shown that as albumin falls, more calcium ions bind to each available gram of albumin. Payne’s assumption results in an overestimation of the total serum calcium after correction as compared to the iCa.⁸ In comparison, uncorrected total serum calcium assays more accurately reflect both the change in albumin binding that occurs with alterations in albumin concentration and the unchanged free calcium ions. Studies demonstrate superior correlation between iCa and uncorrected total calcium.^4,9-11

Several large retrospective studies revealed the poor in vivo accuracy of equations used to correct calcium for albumin. In one study, Uppsala University Sweden researchers reviewed the laboratory records of more than 20,000 hospitalized patients from 2005 to 2013.⁹ This group compared seven corrected calcium formulas to direct measurements of iCa. All of the correction equations correlated poorly with iCa based on their intraclass correlation (ICC), a descriptive statistic for units that have been sorted into groups. (ICC describes how strongly the units in each group correlate or resemble each other—eg, the closer an ICC is to 1, the stronger the correlation is between each unit in the group.) ICC for the correcting equations ranged from 0.45-0.81. The formulas used to calculate corrected calcium levels performed especially poorly in patients with hypoalbuminemia. In this same patient population, the total serum calcium correlated well with directly assessed iCa, with an ICC of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84-0.86). Moreover, the uncorrected total calcium classified the patient’s calcium level correctly in 82% of cases.

A second study of 5,500 patients in Australia comparing total and adjusted calcium with iCa similarly demonstrated that corrected calcium inaccurately predicts calcium status.¹⁰ Findings from this study showed that corrected calcium values correlated with iCa in only 55% to 65% of samples, but uncorrected total calcium correlated with iCa in 70% to 80% of samples. Notably, in patients with renal failure and/or serum albumin concentrations <3 g/dL, formulas used to correct calcium overestimated calcium levels when compared to directly assessed iCa. Correction formulas performed on serum albumin concentrations >3 g/dL correlated better with iCa (65%-77%), effectively negating the utility of the correction formulas.

Another large retrospective observational study from Norway reviewed laboratory data from more than 6,500 hospitalized and clinic patients.¹¹ In this study, researchers calculated corrected calcium using several different albumin-adjusted formulas and compared results to laboratory-assessed iCa. As compared to corrected calcium, uncorrected total calcium more accurately determined clinically relevant free calcium.

Finally, a Canadian research group analyzed time-matched calcium, albumin, and iCa samples from 678 patients.⁴ They calculated each patient’s corrected calcium values using Payne’s formula. Results of this study showed that corrected calcium predicted iCa outcomes less reliably than uncorrected total calcium (ICC, 0.73 for corrected calcium vs 0.78 for uncorrected calcium).

Utilizing corrected calcium formulas in patients with hypoalbuminemia can overestimate serum calcium, resulting in false-positive findings and an incorrect diagnosis of hypercalcemia or normocalcemia.¹² Incorrectly diagnosing hypercalcemia by using correction formulas prompts management that can lead to iatrogenic harm. Hypoalbuminemia is often associated with hepatic or renal disease. In this patient population, standard treatment of hypercalcemia with volume resuscitation (typically 2 to 4 L) and potentially IV loop diuretics will cause clinically significant volume overload and could worsen renal dysfunction.¹³ Notably, some of the correction formulas utilized in the studies discussed here performed well in hypercalcemic patients, particularly in those with preserved renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m²).

Importantly, correction formulas can mask true hypocalcemia or the true severity of hypocalcemia. Applying correction formulas in patients with clinically significant hypocalcemia and hypoalbuminemia can make hospitalists believe that the calcium levels are normal or not as clinically significant as they first seemed. This can lead to the withholding of appropriate treatment.¹²

Based on the available literature, uncorrected total calcium values more accurately assess biologically active calcium. If a more certain calcium value will affect clinical outcomes, clinicians should obtain a direct measurement of iCa.^4,9-11 Therefore, clinicians should assess iCa irrespective of the uncorrected serum calcium level in patients who are critically ill or who have known hypoparathyroidism or other derangements in iCa.¹⁴ Since iCa levels also fluctuate with pH, samples must be processed quickly and kept cool to slow blood cell metabolism, which alters pH levels.⁴ Using bedside point-of-care blood gas analyzers to obtain iCa removes a large logistical obstacle to obtaining an accurate iCa. Serum electrolyte interpretation with a properly calibrated point-of-care analyzer correlates well with a traditional laboratory analyzer.¹⁵

• Use serum calcium testing routinely to evaluate calcium homeostasis.
• Do not use corrected calcium equations to estimate total calcium.
• If a more accurate measurement of calcium will change medical management, obtain a direct iCa.
• Obtain a direct iCa measurement in critically ill patents and in patients with known hypoparathyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, or other derangements in calcium homeostasis.
• Do not order a serum albumin test to assess calcium levels.

Returning to our clinical scenario, this patient did not have true hypercalcemia and experienced unnecessary evaluation and treatment. Multiple retrospective clinical trials do not support the practice of using corrected calcium equations to correct for serum albumin derangements.^4,9-11 Hospitalists should therefore avoid the temptation to calculate a corrected calcium level in patients with hypoalbuminemia. For patients with clinically significant total serum hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, they should consider obtaining an iCa assay to better determine the true physiologic impact.

Do you think this is a low-value practice? Is this truly a “Thing We Do for No Reason™”? Share what you do in your practice and join in the conversation online by retweeting it on Twitter (#TWDFNR) and liking it on Facebook. We invite you to propose ideas for other “Things We Do for No Reason™” topics by emailing [email protected]

Regionalization of pediatric acute care is increasing across the United States, with rates of interfacility transfer for general medical conditions in children similar to those of high-risk conditions in adults.¹ The inability for children to receive definitive care (ie, care provided to conclusively manage a patient’s condition without requiring an interfacility transfer) within their local community has implications on public health as well as family function and financial burden.^1,2 Previous studies demonstrated that 30% to 80% of interfacility transfers are potentially unnecessary,^3-6 as indicated by a high proportion of short lengths of stay after transfer. While rapidity of discharge is an important factor in identifying potentially unnecessary transfers, many of these studies included diagnoses requiring specialized imaging or surgical interventions, which may not be available in referring institutions.

To highlight conditions that referring hospitals may prioritize for pediatric capacity building, we aimed to identify the most common medical diagnoses among pediatric transfer patients that did not require advanced evaluation or intervention and that had high rates of discharge within 1 day of interfacility transfer.

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive study using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database, which contains administrative data from 48 geographically diverse US children’s hospitals.

We included children <18 years old who were transferred to a participating PHIS hospital in 2019, including emergency department (ED), observation, and inpatient encounters. We identified patients through the source-of-admission code labeled as “transfer.” Diagnoses were identified through the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes using the Pediatric Clinical Classification System.⁷We excluded the following categories: mental or behavioral health diagnoses, maternal or labor diagnoses, primary newborn birth diagnoses, and transfers directly to an intensive care unit (ICU).

For each diagnosis, we determined the number of transfers and frequency of rapid discharge, defined as either discharge from the ED without admission or admission and discharge within 1 day from a general inpatient unit. As discharge times are not reliably available in PHIS, all patients discharged on the day of transfer or the following calendar day were identified as rapid discharge. Medical complexity was determined through applying the Pediatric Medical Complexity Algorithm (PMCA).⁸

To identify diagnoses seen with sufficient frequency to represent potentially useful areas for referring hospitals to target, we limited our analysis to diagnoses that had a minimum of 576 transfers per year, equivalent to at least 1 transfer for that diagnosis per month per PHIS hospital. We then categorized the frequency of interventions after transfer, including (1) no interventions received; (2) basic interventions only, defined as receiving any intravenous fluids, antimicrobials, antipyretics or analgesics, and/or basic imaging (ie, radiography and computed tomography [CT]); or (3) advanced interventions, including transfer to an ICU after initial presentation/management in the ED or inpatient ward, advanced imaging (eg, ultrasound, magnetic resonance [MR] imaging, MR angiography or venography, CT angiography), or any surgical intervention. A full categorization of basic and advanced interventions is available in Appendix Table 1.

For descriptive statistics, we calculated means for normally distributed variables, medians for continuous variables with nonnormal distributions, and percentages for binary variables. Comparisons were made using t-tests and chi-square tests.

This study was approved by the Seattle Children’s Institutional Review Board.

We identified 286,905 transfers into participating PHIS hospitals in 2019. Of these, 89,519 (31.2%) were excluded (Appendix Table 2), leaving 197,386 (68.6%) transfers. Patients discharged within 1 day were more likely to have public or unknown insurance (65.1% vs 61.5%, P < 0.01), to have no co-occurring chronic conditions (60.2% vs 28.5%, P < 0.01), and to reside within the Northeast (35.0% vs 11.0%, P < 0.01) (Appendix Table 3).

The most common medical diagnoses among these transfers included acute bronchiolitis (4.3% of all interfacility transfers, n = 8,425), chemotherapy (4.0%, n = 7,819), and asthma (3.3%, n = 6,430) (Appendix Table 4); 45.9% of bronchiolitis, 15.0% of chemotherapy, and 67.4% of asthma transfers were rapidly discharged.

The Table shows the medical conditions among transfers that most frequently experienced rapid discharge (primary surgical diagnoses are presented in Appendix Table 5).

We have identified medical conditions that not only had high rates of rapid discharge after transfer, but also received minimal intervention from the accepting institution. Although bronchiolitis and chemotherapy were the most common conditions for which patients were transferred, the range of severity varied widely, with more than 50% of bronchiolitis and 85% of chemotherapy transfers requiring hospitalization for longer than 1 day. Diagnoses such as chemotherapy, although common among transferred patients, likely represent conditions that may not be appropriate to care for in pediatric-limited settings, as they require subspecialized pediatric care. General conditions, however, such as cough, chest pain, allergic reactions, and febrile seizures may represent diagnoses for which it would be appropriate for general hospitals to develop infrastructure to provide definitive pediatric care given how infrequently specialized pediatric resources are needed in caring for these conditions.

Identifying conditions as potential targets to reduce the number of interfacility transfers requires balancing a hospital’s capacity (or lack thereof) for pediatric admissions, perceived risk of decompensation, referring provider discomfort, and parental preference.^9-11 Although several studies have identified conditions associated with frequent transfer and rapid discharge,^3-5 prior studies’ conclusions that 40% or more of interhospital transfers may be avoidable are potential over-estimates, representing conditions that may not be appropriate to care for in pediatric-limited settings given their need for advanced interventions. Our findings demonstrate that defining a cohort of conditions based on frequency of transfer, even when accounting for minimal intervention post transfer, may not adequately capture avoidable transfers. For example, abdominal pain was one of the conditions for which patients were most frequently transferred, with 92% of patients discharged rapidly. However, the most common surgical transfer was acute appendicitis with peritonitis. Many of these transfers may have been identified initially as “abdominal pain” at the referring institution, highlighting the role of diagnostic uncertainty in identifying preventable transfers. In addition, more than 56% of patients transferred for abdominal pain required advanced interventions, further illustrating the potential risk and uncertainty for referring hospitals that do not have the capacity for advanced imaging or surgical intervention.

The rapid upscale of telehealth may provide a unique opportunity to support the provision of pediatric care within local communities.^12,13 As many general hospitals do not have ultrasound technicians trained for children available 24 hours per day, several conditions that fell into the advanced intervention category, like abdominal pain, were driven by the receipt of an ultrasound at the accepting hospital. Targeted work to expand ultrasound capabilities at referring hospitals may enable changing the categorization of an ultrasound to a basic intervention rather than an advanced intervention. Paired with telehealth, this might broaden the scope of potential diagnoses that could be triaged to stay within referring institutions.

Building infrastructure to prevent interfacility transfers may improve healthcare access for children in rural areas proportionately more than children in urban areas. Children in rural communities experience significantly higher rates of interfacility transfers than children in urban areas.¹⁴ This increases financial burden and causes additional distress and inconvenience for families.¹⁵ With constraints in staffing capacity, equipment, and finances, identifying a subset of medical conditions is a critical initial step to inform the design of targeted interventions to support pediatric healthcare delivery in local communities and avoid costly transfers, although it is not the wholesale solution. Additional utilization of tools such as informed shared decision-making resources and implementation of pediatric-specific protocols likely represent additional necessary steps.

Our study has several limitations. Because we used administrative data, there is a risk of misclassifying diagnoses. We attempted to mitigate this by using a standard ICD-10-based, pediatric-specific grouper. ICD-10 coding is also based upon discharge diagnoses, which inherently has retrospective bias that cannot capture the diagnostic uncertainty when making an initial decision for transfer. In addition, without a comparator group of patients who were not transferred, it remains unknown to what extent balancing factors informed the decision to transfer or whether these diagnoses represent conditions that the referring hospital encounters only a few times a year, or alternatively, that the percentage transferred represents a small fraction of the referring institution’s population with a given diagnosis.

Our exploration of pediatric interfacility transfers that experienced rapid discharge with minimal intervention provides a building block to support the provision of definitive pediatric care in non-pediatric hospitals and represents a step towards addressing limited access to care in general hospitals.

Regionalization of pediatric acute care is increasing across the United States, with rates of interfacility transfer for general medical conditions in children similar to those of high-risk conditions in adults.¹ The inability for children to receive definitive care (ie, care provided to conclusively manage a patient’s condition without requiring an interfacility transfer) within their local community has implications on public health as well as family function and financial burden.^1,2 Previous studies demonstrated that 30% to 80% of interfacility transfers are potentially unnecessary,^3-6 as indicated by a high proportion of short lengths of stay after transfer. While rapidity of discharge is an important factor in identifying potentially unnecessary transfers, many of these studies included diagnoses requiring specialized imaging or surgical interventions, which may not be available in referring institutions.

To highlight conditions that referring hospitals may prioritize for pediatric capacity building, we aimed to identify the most common medical diagnoses among pediatric transfer patients that did not require advanced evaluation or intervention and that had high rates of discharge within 1 day of interfacility transfer.

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive study using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database, which contains administrative data from 48 geographically diverse US children’s hospitals.

We included children <18 years old who were transferred to a participating PHIS hospital in 2019, including emergency department (ED), observation, and inpatient encounters. We identified patients through the source-of-admission code labeled as “transfer.” Diagnoses were identified through the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes using the Pediatric Clinical Classification System.⁷We excluded the following categories: mental or behavioral health diagnoses, maternal or labor diagnoses, primary newborn birth diagnoses, and transfers directly to an intensive care unit (ICU).

For each diagnosis, we determined the number of transfers and frequency of rapid discharge, defined as either discharge from the ED without admission or admission and discharge within 1 day from a general inpatient unit. As discharge times are not reliably available in PHIS, all patients discharged on the day of transfer or the following calendar day were identified as rapid discharge. Medical complexity was determined through applying the Pediatric Medical Complexity Algorithm (PMCA).⁸

To identify diagnoses seen with sufficient frequency to represent potentially useful areas for referring hospitals to target, we limited our analysis to diagnoses that had a minimum of 576 transfers per year, equivalent to at least 1 transfer for that diagnosis per month per PHIS hospital. We then categorized the frequency of interventions after transfer, including (1) no interventions received; (2) basic interventions only, defined as receiving any intravenous fluids, antimicrobials, antipyretics or analgesics, and/or basic imaging (ie, radiography and computed tomography [CT]); or (3) advanced interventions, including transfer to an ICU after initial presentation/management in the ED or inpatient ward, advanced imaging (eg, ultrasound, magnetic resonance [MR] imaging, MR angiography or venography, CT angiography), or any surgical intervention. A full categorization of basic and advanced interventions is available in Appendix Table 1.

For descriptive statistics, we calculated means for normally distributed variables, medians for continuous variables with nonnormal distributions, and percentages for binary variables. Comparisons were made using t-tests and chi-square tests.

This study was approved by the Seattle Children’s Institutional Review Board.

We identified 286,905 transfers into participating PHIS hospitals in 2019. Of these, 89,519 (31.2%) were excluded (Appendix Table 2), leaving 197,386 (68.6%) transfers. Patients discharged within 1 day were more likely to have public or unknown insurance (65.1% vs 61.5%, P < 0.01), to have no co-occurring chronic conditions (60.2% vs 28.5%, P < 0.01), and to reside within the Northeast (35.0% vs 11.0%, P < 0.01) (Appendix Table 3).

The most common medical diagnoses among these transfers included acute bronchiolitis (4.3% of all interfacility transfers, n = 8,425), chemotherapy (4.0%, n = 7,819), and asthma (3.3%, n = 6,430) (Appendix Table 4); 45.9% of bronchiolitis, 15.0% of chemotherapy, and 67.4% of asthma transfers were rapidly discharged.

The Table shows the medical conditions among transfers that most frequently experienced rapid discharge (primary surgical diagnoses are presented in Appendix Table 5).

We have identified medical conditions that not only had high rates of rapid discharge after transfer, but also received minimal intervention from the accepting institution. Although bronchiolitis and chemotherapy were the most common conditions for which patients were transferred, the range of severity varied widely, with more than 50% of bronchiolitis and 85% of chemotherapy transfers requiring hospitalization for longer than 1 day. Diagnoses such as chemotherapy, although common among transferred patients, likely represent conditions that may not be appropriate to care for in pediatric-limited settings, as they require subspecialized pediatric care. General conditions, however, such as cough, chest pain, allergic reactions, and febrile seizures may represent diagnoses for which it would be appropriate for general hospitals to develop infrastructure to provide definitive pediatric care given how infrequently specialized pediatric resources are needed in caring for these conditions.

Identifying conditions as potential targets to reduce the number of interfacility transfers requires balancing a hospital’s capacity (or lack thereof) for pediatric admissions, perceived risk of decompensation, referring provider discomfort, and parental preference.^9-11 Although several studies have identified conditions associated with frequent transfer and rapid discharge,^3-5 prior studies’ conclusions that 40% or more of interhospital transfers may be avoidable are potential over-estimates, representing conditions that may not be appropriate to care for in pediatric-limited settings given their need for advanced interventions. Our findings demonstrate that defining a cohort of conditions based on frequency of transfer, even when accounting for minimal intervention post transfer, may not adequately capture avoidable transfers. For example, abdominal pain was one of the conditions for which patients were most frequently transferred, with 92% of patients discharged rapidly. However, the most common surgical transfer was acute appendicitis with peritonitis. Many of these transfers may have been identified initially as “abdominal pain” at the referring institution, highlighting the role of diagnostic uncertainty in identifying preventable transfers. In addition, more than 56% of patients transferred for abdominal pain required advanced interventions, further illustrating the potential risk and uncertainty for referring hospitals that do not have the capacity for advanced imaging or surgical intervention.

The rapid upscale of telehealth may provide a unique opportunity to support the provision of pediatric care within local communities.^12,13 As many general hospitals do not have ultrasound technicians trained for children available 24 hours per day, several conditions that fell into the advanced intervention category, like abdominal pain, were driven by the receipt of an ultrasound at the accepting hospital. Targeted work to expand ultrasound capabilities at referring hospitals may enable changing the categorization of an ultrasound to a basic intervention rather than an advanced intervention. Paired with telehealth, this might broaden the scope of potential diagnoses that could be triaged to stay within referring institutions.

Building infrastructure to prevent interfacility transfers may improve healthcare access for children in rural areas proportionately more than children in urban areas. Children in rural communities experience significantly higher rates of interfacility transfers than children in urban areas.¹⁴ This increases financial burden and causes additional distress and inconvenience for families.¹⁵ With constraints in staffing capacity, equipment, and finances, identifying a subset of medical conditions is a critical initial step to inform the design of targeted interventions to support pediatric healthcare delivery in local communities and avoid costly transfers, although it is not the wholesale solution. Additional utilization of tools such as informed shared decision-making resources and implementation of pediatric-specific protocols likely represent additional necessary steps.

Our study has several limitations. Because we used administrative data, there is a risk of misclassifying diagnoses. We attempted to mitigate this by using a standard ICD-10-based, pediatric-specific grouper. ICD-10 coding is also based upon discharge diagnoses, which inherently has retrospective bias that cannot capture the diagnostic uncertainty when making an initial decision for transfer. In addition, without a comparator group of patients who were not transferred, it remains unknown to what extent balancing factors informed the decision to transfer or whether these diagnoses represent conditions that the referring hospital encounters only a few times a year, or alternatively, that the percentage transferred represents a small fraction of the referring institution’s population with a given diagnosis.

Our exploration of pediatric interfacility transfers that experienced rapid discharge with minimal intervention provides a building block to support the provision of definitive pediatric care in non-pediatric hospitals and represents a step towards addressing limited access to care in general hospitals.

Regionalization of pediatric acute care is increasing across the United States, with rates of interfacility transfer for general medical conditions in children similar to those of high-risk conditions in adults.¹ The inability for children to receive definitive care (ie, care provided to conclusively manage a patient’s condition without requiring an interfacility transfer) within their local community has implications on public health as well as family function and financial burden.^1,2 Previous studies demonstrated that 30% to 80% of interfacility transfers are potentially unnecessary,^3-6 as indicated by a high proportion of short lengths of stay after transfer. While rapidity of discharge is an important factor in identifying potentially unnecessary transfers, many of these studies included diagnoses requiring specialized imaging or surgical interventions, which may not be available in referring institutions.

To highlight conditions that referring hospitals may prioritize for pediatric capacity building, we aimed to identify the most common medical diagnoses among pediatric transfer patients that did not require advanced evaluation or intervention and that had high rates of discharge within 1 day of interfacility transfer.

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive study using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database, which contains administrative data from 48 geographically diverse US children’s hospitals.

We included children <18 years old who were transferred to a participating PHIS hospital in 2019, including emergency department (ED), observation, and inpatient encounters. We identified patients through the source-of-admission code labeled as “transfer.” Diagnoses were identified through the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes using the Pediatric Clinical Classification System.⁷We excluded the following categories: mental or behavioral health diagnoses, maternal or labor diagnoses, primary newborn birth diagnoses, and transfers directly to an intensive care unit (ICU).

For each diagnosis, we determined the number of transfers and frequency of rapid discharge, defined as either discharge from the ED without admission or admission and discharge within 1 day from a general inpatient unit. As discharge times are not reliably available in PHIS, all patients discharged on the day of transfer or the following calendar day were identified as rapid discharge. Medical complexity was determined through applying the Pediatric Medical Complexity Algorithm (PMCA).⁸

To identify diagnoses seen with sufficient frequency to represent potentially useful areas for referring hospitals to target, we limited our analysis to diagnoses that had a minimum of 576 transfers per year, equivalent to at least 1 transfer for that diagnosis per month per PHIS hospital. We then categorized the frequency of interventions after transfer, including (1) no interventions received; (2) basic interventions only, defined as receiving any intravenous fluids, antimicrobials, antipyretics or analgesics, and/or basic imaging (ie, radiography and computed tomography [CT]); or (3) advanced interventions, including transfer to an ICU after initial presentation/management in the ED or inpatient ward, advanced imaging (eg, ultrasound, magnetic resonance [MR] imaging, MR angiography or venography, CT angiography), or any surgical intervention. A full categorization of basic and advanced interventions is available in Appendix Table 1.

For descriptive statistics, we calculated means for normally distributed variables, medians for continuous variables with nonnormal distributions, and percentages for binary variables. Comparisons were made using t-tests and chi-square tests.

This study was approved by the Seattle Children’s Institutional Review Board.

We identified 286,905 transfers into participating PHIS hospitals in 2019. Of these, 89,519 (31.2%) were excluded (Appendix Table 2), leaving 197,386 (68.6%) transfers. Patients discharged within 1 day were more likely to have public or unknown insurance (65.1% vs 61.5%, P < 0.01), to have no co-occurring chronic conditions (60.2% vs 28.5%, P < 0.01), and to reside within the Northeast (35.0% vs 11.0%, P < 0.01) (Appendix Table 3).

The most common medical diagnoses among these transfers included acute bronchiolitis (4.3% of all interfacility transfers, n = 8,425), chemotherapy (4.0%, n = 7,819), and asthma (3.3%, n = 6,430) (Appendix Table 4); 45.9% of bronchiolitis, 15.0% of chemotherapy, and 67.4% of asthma transfers were rapidly discharged.

The Table shows the medical conditions among transfers that most frequently experienced rapid discharge (primary surgical diagnoses are presented in Appendix Table 5).

We have identified medical conditions that not only had high rates of rapid discharge after transfer, but also received minimal intervention from the accepting institution. Although bronchiolitis and chemotherapy were the most common conditions for which patients were transferred, the range of severity varied widely, with more than 50% of bronchiolitis and 85% of chemotherapy transfers requiring hospitalization for longer than 1 day. Diagnoses such as chemotherapy, although common among transferred patients, likely represent conditions that may not be appropriate to care for in pediatric-limited settings, as they require subspecialized pediatric care. General conditions, however, such as cough, chest pain, allergic reactions, and febrile seizures may represent diagnoses for which it would be appropriate for general hospitals to develop infrastructure to provide definitive pediatric care given how infrequently specialized pediatric resources are needed in caring for these conditions.

Identifying conditions as potential targets to reduce the number of interfacility transfers requires balancing a hospital’s capacity (or lack thereof) for pediatric admissions, perceived risk of decompensation, referring provider discomfort, and parental preference.^9-11 Although several studies have identified conditions associated with frequent transfer and rapid discharge,^3-5 prior studies’ conclusions that 40% or more of interhospital transfers may be avoidable are potential over-estimates, representing conditions that may not be appropriate to care for in pediatric-limited settings given their need for advanced interventions. Our findings demonstrate that defining a cohort of conditions based on frequency of transfer, even when accounting for minimal intervention post transfer, may not adequately capture avoidable transfers. For example, abdominal pain was one of the conditions for which patients were most frequently transferred, with 92% of patients discharged rapidly. However, the most common surgical transfer was acute appendicitis with peritonitis. Many of these transfers may have been identified initially as “abdominal pain” at the referring institution, highlighting the role of diagnostic uncertainty in identifying preventable transfers. In addition, more than 56% of patients transferred for abdominal pain required advanced interventions, further illustrating the potential risk and uncertainty for referring hospitals that do not have the capacity for advanced imaging or surgical intervention.

The rapid upscale of telehealth may provide a unique opportunity to support the provision of pediatric care within local communities.^12,13 As many general hospitals do not have ultrasound technicians trained for children available 24 hours per day, several conditions that fell into the advanced intervention category, like abdominal pain, were driven by the receipt of an ultrasound at the accepting hospital. Targeted work to expand ultrasound capabilities at referring hospitals may enable changing the categorization of an ultrasound to a basic intervention rather than an advanced intervention. Paired with telehealth, this might broaden the scope of potential diagnoses that could be triaged to stay within referring institutions.

Building infrastructure to prevent interfacility transfers may improve healthcare access for children in rural areas proportionately more than children in urban areas. Children in rural communities experience significantly higher rates of interfacility transfers than children in urban areas.¹⁴ This increases financial burden and causes additional distress and inconvenience for families.¹⁵ With constraints in staffing capacity, equipment, and finances, identifying a subset of medical conditions is a critical initial step to inform the design of targeted interventions to support pediatric healthcare delivery in local communities and avoid costly transfers, although it is not the wholesale solution. Additional utilization of tools such as informed shared decision-making resources and implementation of pediatric-specific protocols likely represent additional necessary steps.

Our study has several limitations. Because we used administrative data, there is a risk of misclassifying diagnoses. We attempted to mitigate this by using a standard ICD-10-based, pediatric-specific grouper. ICD-10 coding is also based upon discharge diagnoses, which inherently has retrospective bias that cannot capture the diagnostic uncertainty when making an initial decision for transfer. In addition, without a comparator group of patients who were not transferred, it remains unknown to what extent balancing factors informed the decision to transfer or whether these diagnoses represent conditions that the referring hospital encounters only a few times a year, or alternatively, that the percentage transferred represents a small fraction of the referring institution’s population with a given diagnosis.

Our exploration of pediatric interfacility transfers that experienced rapid discharge with minimal intervention provides a building block to support the provision of definitive pediatric care in non-pediatric hospitals and represents a step towards addressing limited access to care in general hospitals.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was designed to improve quality and safety for traditional Medicare beneficiaries.¹ Since 2012, the program has reduced payments to institutions with excess inpatient rehospitalizations within 30 days of an index inpatient stay for targeted medical conditions. Observation hospitalizations, billed as outpatient and covered under Medicare Part B, are not counted as index or 30-day rehospitalizations under HRRP methods. Historically, observation occurred almost exclusively in observation units. Now, observation hospitalizations commonly occur on hospital wards, even in intensive care units, and are often clinically indistinguishable from inpatient hospitalizations billed under Medicare Part A.² The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) state that beneficiaries expected to need 2 or more midnights of hospital care should generally be considered inpatients, yet observation hospitalizations commonly exceed 2 midnights.^3,4

The increasing use of observation hospitalizations^5,6 raises questions about its impact on HRRP measurements. While observation hospitalizations have been studied as part of 30-day follow-up (numerator) to index inpatient hospitalizations,^5,6 little is known about how observation hospitalizations impact rates when they are factored in as both index stays (denominator) and in the 30-day rehospitalization rate (numerator).^2,7 We analyzed the complete combinations of observation and inpatient hospitalizations, including observation as index hospitalization, rehospitalization, or both, to determine HRRP impact.

Study Cohort

Medicare fee-for-service standard claim files for all beneficiaries (100% population file version) were used to examine qualifying index inpatient and observation hospitalizations between January 1, 2014, and November 30, 2014, as well as 30-day inpatient and observation rehospitalizations. We used CMS’s 30-day methodology, including previously described standard exclusions (Appendix Figure),⁸ except for the aforementioned inclusion of observation hospitalizations. Observation hospitalizations were identified using established methods,^3,9,10 excluding those observation encounters coded with revenue center code 0761 only^3,10 in order to be most conservative in identifying observation hospitalizations (Appendix Figure). These methods assign hospitalization type (observation or inpatient) based on the final (billed) status. The terms hospitalization and rehospitalization refer to both inpatient and observation encounters. The University of Wisconsin Health Sciences Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

Index HRRP admissions for congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, and pneumonia were examined as a prespecified subgroup.^1,11 Coronary artery bypass grafting, total hip replacement, and total knee replacement were excluded in this analysis, as no crosswalk exists between International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes and Current Procedural Terminology codes for these surgical conditions.¹¹

Analysis

Analyses were conducted at the encounter level, consistent with CMS methods.⁸ Descriptive statistics were used to summarize index and 30-day outcomes.

Of 8,859,534 index hospitalizations for any reason or diagnosis, 1,597,837 (18%) were observation and 7,261,697 (82%) were inpatient. Including all hospitalizations, 23% (390,249/1,689,609) of rehospitalizations were excluded from readmission measurement by virtue of the index hospitalization and/or 30-day rehospitalization being observation (Table 1 and Table 2).

For the subgroup of HRRP conditions, 418,923 (11%) and 3,387,849 (89%) of 3,806,772 index hospitalizations were observation and inpatient, respectively. Including HRRP conditions only, 18% (155,553/876,033) of rehospitalizations were excluded from HRRP reporting owing to observation hospitalization as index, 30-day outcome, or both. Of 188,430 index/30-day pairs containing observation, 34% (63,740) were observation/inpatient, 53% (100,343) were inpatient/observation, and 13% (24,347) were observation/observation (Table 1 and Table 2).

DISCUSSION

By ignoring observation hospitalizations in 30-day HRRP quality metrics, nearly one of five potential rehospitalizations is missed. Observation hospitalizations commonly occur as either the index event or 30-day outcome, so accurately determining 30-day HRRP rates must include observation in both positions. Given hospital variability in observation use,^3,7 these findings are critically important to accurately understand rehospitalization risk and indicate that HRRP may not be fulfilling its intended purpose.

Including all hospitalizations for any diagnosis, we found that observation and inpatient hospitalizations commonly occur within 30 days of each other. Nearly one in four hospitalization/rehospitalization pairs include observation as index, 30-day rehospitalization, or both. Although not directly related to HRRP metrics, these data demonstrate the growing importance and presence of outpatient (observation) hospitalizations in the Medicare program.

Our study adds to the evolving body of literature investigating quality measures under a two-tiered hospital system where inpatient hospitalizations are counted and observation hospitalizations are not. Figueroa and colleagues¹² found that improvements in avoidable admission rates for patients with ambulatory care–sensitive conditions were largely attributable to a shift from counted inpatient to uncounted observation hospitalizations. In other words, hospitalizations were still occurring, but were not being tallied due to outpatient (observation) classification. Zuckerman et al⁵ and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC)⁶ concluded that readmissions improvements recognized by the HRRP were not explained by a shift to more observation hospitalizations following an index inpatient hospitalization; however, both studies included observation hospitalizations as part of 30-day rehospitalization (numerator) only, not also as part of index hospitalizations (denominator). Our study confirms the importance of including observation hospitalizations in both the index (denominator) and 30-day (numerator) rehospitalization positions to determine the full impact of observation hospitalizations on Medicare’s HRRP metrics.

Our study has limitations. We focused on nonsurgical HRRP conditions, which may have impacted our findings. Additionally, some authors have suggested including emergency department (ED) visits in rehospitalization studies.⁷ Although ED visits occur at hospitals, they are not hospitalizations; we excluded them as a first step. Had we included ED visits, encounters excluded from HRRP measurements would have increased, suggesting that our findings, while sizeable, are likely conservative. Additionally, we could not determine the merits or medical necessity of hospitalizations (inpatient or outpatient observation), but this is an inherent limitation in a large claims dataset like this one. Finally, we only included a single year of data in this analysis, and it is possible that additional years of data would show different trends. However, we have no reason to believe the study year to be an aberrant year; if anything, observation rates have increased since 2014,⁶ again pointing out that while our findings are sizable, they are likely conservative. Future research could include additional years of data to confirm even greater proportions of rehospitalizations exempt from HRRP over time due to observation hospitalizations as index and/or 30-day events.

Outpatient observation hospitalizations can occur anywhere in the hospital and are often clinically similar to inpatient hospitalizations, yet observation hospitalizations are essentially invisible under inpatient quality metrics. Requiring the HRRP to include observation hospitalizations is the most obvious solution, but this could require major regulatory and legislative change^11,13—change that would fix a metric but fail to address broad policy concerns inherent in the two-tiered observation and inpatient billing distinction. Instead, CMS and Congress might consider this an opportunity to address the oxymoron of “outpatient hospitalizations” by engaging in comprehensive observation reform.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was designed to improve quality and safety for traditional Medicare beneficiaries.¹ Since 2012, the program has reduced payments to institutions with excess inpatient rehospitalizations within 30 days of an index inpatient stay for targeted medical conditions. Observation hospitalizations, billed as outpatient and covered under Medicare Part B, are not counted as index or 30-day rehospitalizations under HRRP methods. Historically, observation occurred almost exclusively in observation units. Now, observation hospitalizations commonly occur on hospital wards, even in intensive care units, and are often clinically indistinguishable from inpatient hospitalizations billed under Medicare Part A.² The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) state that beneficiaries expected to need 2 or more midnights of hospital care should generally be considered inpatients, yet observation hospitalizations commonly exceed 2 midnights.^3,4

The increasing use of observation hospitalizations^5,6 raises questions about its impact on HRRP measurements. While observation hospitalizations have been studied as part of 30-day follow-up (numerator) to index inpatient hospitalizations,^5,6 little is known about how observation hospitalizations impact rates when they are factored in as both index stays (denominator) and in the 30-day rehospitalization rate (numerator).^2,7 We analyzed the complete combinations of observation and inpatient hospitalizations, including observation as index hospitalization, rehospitalization, or both, to determine HRRP impact.

Study Cohort

Medicare fee-for-service standard claim files for all beneficiaries (100% population file version) were used to examine qualifying index inpatient and observation hospitalizations between January 1, 2014, and November 30, 2014, as well as 30-day inpatient and observation rehospitalizations. We used CMS’s 30-day methodology, including previously described standard exclusions (Appendix Figure),⁸ except for the aforementioned inclusion of observation hospitalizations. Observation hospitalizations were identified using established methods,^3,9,10 excluding those observation encounters coded with revenue center code 0761 only^3,10 in order to be most conservative in identifying observation hospitalizations (Appendix Figure). These methods assign hospitalization type (observation or inpatient) based on the final (billed) status. The terms hospitalization and rehospitalization refer to both inpatient and observation encounters. The University of Wisconsin Health Sciences Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

Index HRRP admissions for congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, and pneumonia were examined as a prespecified subgroup.^1,11 Coronary artery bypass grafting, total hip replacement, and total knee replacement were excluded in this analysis, as no crosswalk exists between International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes and Current Procedural Terminology codes for these surgical conditions.¹¹

Analysis

Analyses were conducted at the encounter level, consistent with CMS methods.⁸ Descriptive statistics were used to summarize index and 30-day outcomes.

Of 8,859,534 index hospitalizations for any reason or diagnosis, 1,597,837 (18%) were observation and 7,261,697 (82%) were inpatient. Including all hospitalizations, 23% (390,249/1,689,609) of rehospitalizations were excluded from readmission measurement by virtue of the index hospitalization and/or 30-day rehospitalization being observation (Table 1 and Table 2).

For the subgroup of HRRP conditions, 418,923 (11%) and 3,387,849 (89%) of 3,806,772 index hospitalizations were observation and inpatient, respectively. Including HRRP conditions only, 18% (155,553/876,033) of rehospitalizations were excluded from HRRP reporting owing to observation hospitalization as index, 30-day outcome, or both. Of 188,430 index/30-day pairs containing observation, 34% (63,740) were observation/inpatient, 53% (100,343) were inpatient/observation, and 13% (24,347) were observation/observation (Table 1 and Table 2).

DISCUSSION

By ignoring observation hospitalizations in 30-day HRRP quality metrics, nearly one of five potential rehospitalizations is missed. Observation hospitalizations commonly occur as either the index event or 30-day outcome, so accurately determining 30-day HRRP rates must include observation in both positions. Given hospital variability in observation use,^3,7 these findings are critically important to accurately understand rehospitalization risk and indicate that HRRP may not be fulfilling its intended purpose.

Including all hospitalizations for any diagnosis, we found that observation and inpatient hospitalizations commonly occur within 30 days of each other. Nearly one in four hospitalization/rehospitalization pairs include observation as index, 30-day rehospitalization, or both. Although not directly related to HRRP metrics, these data demonstrate the growing importance and presence of outpatient (observation) hospitalizations in the Medicare program.

Our study adds to the evolving body of literature investigating quality measures under a two-tiered hospital system where inpatient hospitalizations are counted and observation hospitalizations are not. Figueroa and colleagues¹² found that improvements in avoidable admission rates for patients with ambulatory care–sensitive conditions were largely attributable to a shift from counted inpatient to uncounted observation hospitalizations. In other words, hospitalizations were still occurring, but were not being tallied due to outpatient (observation) classification. Zuckerman et al⁵ and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC)⁶ concluded that readmissions improvements recognized by the HRRP were not explained by a shift to more observation hospitalizations following an index inpatient hospitalization; however, both studies included observation hospitalizations as part of 30-day rehospitalization (numerator) only, not also as part of index hospitalizations (denominator). Our study confirms the importance of including observation hospitalizations in both the index (denominator) and 30-day (numerator) rehospitalization positions to determine the full impact of observation hospitalizations on Medicare’s HRRP metrics.

Our study has limitations. We focused on nonsurgical HRRP conditions, which may have impacted our findings. Additionally, some authors have suggested including emergency department (ED) visits in rehospitalization studies.⁷ Although ED visits occur at hospitals, they are not hospitalizations; we excluded them as a first step. Had we included ED visits, encounters excluded from HRRP measurements would have increased, suggesting that our findings, while sizeable, are likely conservative. Additionally, we could not determine the merits or medical necessity of hospitalizations (inpatient or outpatient observation), but this is an inherent limitation in a large claims dataset like this one. Finally, we only included a single year of data in this analysis, and it is possible that additional years of data would show different trends. However, we have no reason to believe the study year to be an aberrant year; if anything, observation rates have increased since 2014,⁶ again pointing out that while our findings are sizable, they are likely conservative. Future research could include additional years of data to confirm even greater proportions of rehospitalizations exempt from HRRP over time due to observation hospitalizations as index and/or 30-day events.

Outpatient observation hospitalizations can occur anywhere in the hospital and are often clinically similar to inpatient hospitalizations, yet observation hospitalizations are essentially invisible under inpatient quality metrics. Requiring the HRRP to include observation hospitalizations is the most obvious solution, but this could require major regulatory and legislative change^11,13—change that would fix a metric but fail to address broad policy concerns inherent in the two-tiered observation and inpatient billing distinction. Instead, CMS and Congress might consider this an opportunity to address the oxymoron of “outpatient hospitalizations” by engaging in comprehensive observation reform.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was designed to improve quality and safety for traditional Medicare beneficiaries.¹ Since 2012, the program has reduced payments to institutions with excess inpatient rehospitalizations within 30 days of an index inpatient stay for targeted medical conditions. Observation hospitalizations, billed as outpatient and covered under Medicare Part B, are not counted as index or 30-day rehospitalizations under HRRP methods. Historically, observation occurred almost exclusively in observation units. Now, observation hospitalizations commonly occur on hospital wards, even in intensive care units, and are often clinically indistinguishable from inpatient hospitalizations billed under Medicare Part A.² The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) state that beneficiaries expected to need 2 or more midnights of hospital care should generally be considered inpatients, yet observation hospitalizations commonly exceed 2 midnights.^3,4

The increasing use of observation hospitalizations^5,6 raises questions about its impact on HRRP measurements. While observation hospitalizations have been studied as part of 30-day follow-up (numerator) to index inpatient hospitalizations,^5,6 little is known about how observation hospitalizations impact rates when they are factored in as both index stays (denominator) and in the 30-day rehospitalization rate (numerator).^2,7 We analyzed the complete combinations of observation and inpatient hospitalizations, including observation as index hospitalization, rehospitalization, or both, to determine HRRP impact.

Study Cohort

Medicare fee-for-service standard claim files for all beneficiaries (100% population file version) were used to examine qualifying index inpatient and observation hospitalizations between January 1, 2014, and November 30, 2014, as well as 30-day inpatient and observation rehospitalizations. We used CMS’s 30-day methodology, including previously described standard exclusions (Appendix Figure),⁸ except for the aforementioned inclusion of observation hospitalizations. Observation hospitalizations were identified using established methods,^3,9,10 excluding those observation encounters coded with revenue center code 0761 only^3,10 in order to be most conservative in identifying observation hospitalizations (Appendix Figure). These methods assign hospitalization type (observation or inpatient) based on the final (billed) status. The terms hospitalization and rehospitalization refer to both inpatient and observation encounters. The University of Wisconsin Health Sciences Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

Index HRRP admissions for congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, and pneumonia were examined as a prespecified subgroup.^1,11 Coronary artery bypass grafting, total hip replacement, and total knee replacement were excluded in this analysis, as no crosswalk exists between International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes and Current Procedural Terminology codes for these surgical conditions.¹¹

Analysis

Analyses were conducted at the encounter level, consistent with CMS methods.⁸ Descriptive statistics were used to summarize index and 30-day outcomes.

Of 8,859,534 index hospitalizations for any reason or diagnosis, 1,597,837 (18%) were observation and 7,261,697 (82%) were inpatient. Including all hospitalizations, 23% (390,249/1,689,609) of rehospitalizations were excluded from readmission measurement by virtue of the index hospitalization and/or 30-day rehospitalization being observation (Table 1 and Table 2).

For the subgroup of HRRP conditions, 418,923 (11%) and 3,387,849 (89%) of 3,806,772 index hospitalizations were observation and inpatient, respectively. Including HRRP conditions only, 18% (155,553/876,033) of rehospitalizations were excluded from HRRP reporting owing to observation hospitalization as index, 30-day outcome, or both. Of 188,430 index/30-day pairs containing observation, 34% (63,740) were observation/inpatient, 53% (100,343) were inpatient/observation, and 13% (24,347) were observation/observation (Table 1 and Table 2).

DISCUSSION

By ignoring observation hospitalizations in 30-day HRRP quality metrics, nearly one of five potential rehospitalizations is missed. Observation hospitalizations commonly occur as either the index event or 30-day outcome, so accurately determining 30-day HRRP rates must include observation in both positions. Given hospital variability in observation use,^3,7 these findings are critically important to accurately understand rehospitalization risk and indicate that HRRP may not be fulfilling its intended purpose.

Including all hospitalizations for any diagnosis, we found that observation and inpatient hospitalizations commonly occur within 30 days of each other. Nearly one in four hospitalization/rehospitalization pairs include observation as index, 30-day rehospitalization, or both. Although not directly related to HRRP metrics, these data demonstrate the growing importance and presence of outpatient (observation) hospitalizations in the Medicare program.

Our study adds to the evolving body of literature investigating quality measures under a two-tiered hospital system where inpatient hospitalizations are counted and observation hospitalizations are not. Figueroa and colleagues¹² found that improvements in avoidable admission rates for patients with ambulatory care–sensitive conditions were largely attributable to a shift from counted inpatient to uncounted observation hospitalizations. In other words, hospitalizations were still occurring, but were not being tallied due to outpatient (observation) classification. Zuckerman et al⁵ and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC)⁶ concluded that readmissions improvements recognized by the HRRP were not explained by a shift to more observation hospitalizations following an index inpatient hospitalization; however, both studies included observation hospitalizations as part of 30-day rehospitalization (numerator) only, not also as part of index hospitalizations (denominator). Our study confirms the importance of including observation hospitalizations in both the index (denominator) and 30-day (numerator) rehospitalization positions to determine the full impact of observation hospitalizations on Medicare’s HRRP metrics.

Our study has limitations. We focused on nonsurgical HRRP conditions, which may have impacted our findings. Additionally, some authors have suggested including emergency department (ED) visits in rehospitalization studies.⁷ Although ED visits occur at hospitals, they are not hospitalizations; we excluded them as a first step. Had we included ED visits, encounters excluded from HRRP measurements would have increased, suggesting that our findings, while sizeable, are likely conservative. Additionally, we could not determine the merits or medical necessity of hospitalizations (inpatient or outpatient observation), but this is an inherent limitation in a large claims dataset like this one. Finally, we only included a single year of data in this analysis, and it is possible that additional years of data would show different trends. However, we have no reason to believe the study year to be an aberrant year; if anything, observation rates have increased since 2014,⁶ again pointing out that while our findings are sizable, they are likely conservative. Future research could include additional years of data to confirm even greater proportions of rehospitalizations exempt from HRRP over time due to observation hospitalizations as index and/or 30-day events.

Outpatient observation hospitalizations can occur anywhere in the hospital and are often clinically similar to inpatient hospitalizations, yet observation hospitalizations are essentially invisible under inpatient quality metrics. Requiring the HRRP to include observation hospitalizations is the most obvious solution, but this could require major regulatory and legislative change^11,13—change that would fix a metric but fail to address broad policy concerns inherent in the two-tiered observation and inpatient billing distinction. Instead, CMS and Congress might consider this an opportunity to address the oxymoron of “outpatient hospitalizations” by engaging in comprehensive observation reform.

Hospital medicine has grown rapidly, with more than 50,000 hospitalists practicing nationally in 2016.¹ Despite the remarkable increase in academic hospital medicine faculty (AHMF), scholarly productivity remains underdeveloped. Prior evidence suggests peer-reviewed publications remain an important aspect of promotion in academic hospital medicine.² However, there are multiple barriers to robust scholarly productivity among AHMF, including inadequate mentorship,³ lack of protected scholarship time,⁴ and greater participation in nonclinical activities outside of peer-reviewed clinical research.⁵ Though research barriers have been described previously, the current state of scholarly productivity among AHMF has not been characterized. In this cross-sectional study, we describe the distribution of academic rank and scholarly output of a national sample of AHMF.

Study Design and Data Source

We performed a cross-sectional study of AHMF at the top 25 internal medicine residency programs as determined by Doximity.com as of February 1, 2020 (Appendix Table 1). Between March and August 2020, two authors (NS, MT) visited each residency program’s website, identified all faculty listed as members of the hospital medicine program, and extracted demographic data, including degrees, sex, residency, medical school, year of residency graduation, completion of chief residency, completion of fellowship, and rank. We categorized all academic titles into full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor/lecturer. Missing information was supplemented by searching state licensing websites and Doximity.com. Sex was validated using Genderize.io. We queried the Scopus database for each AHMF’s name and affiliated institution to extract publications, citations, and H-index (metric of productivity and impact, derived from the number of publications and their associated citations).⁶ We categorized medical schools by rank (top 25, top 50, or unranked), as defined by the 2020 US News Best Medical Schools, sorted by research⁷ and by location (United States, international Caribbean, and international non-Caribbean). We excluded programs without hospital medicine section/division webpages and AHMF with nonpromotion titles such as “adjunct professor” or “acting professor” or those with missing data that could not be identified using these methods.

Analysis

Summary statistics were generated using means with standard deviations and medians with interquartile ranges. We evaluated postresidency years 6 to 10 and 14 to 18 as conservative time frames for promotion to associate and full professor, respectively. These windows account for time spent for additional degrees, instructor years, and alternative career pathways. Demographic differences between academic ranks were determined using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis analyses.  

Because promotion occurs sequentially, a proportional odds logistic regression model was used to evaluate the association of academic rank and H-index, number of years post residency, completion of chief residency, graduation from a top 25 medical school, and sex. Since not all programs have the instructor/lecturer rank, only assistant, associate, and full professors were included in this model. Significance was assessed with the likelihood ratio test. The proportional odds assumption was assessed using the score test. All adjusted odds ratios and their associated 95% confidence intervals were recorded. A two-tailed P value < .05 was considered significant for this study, and SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) was used to conduct all analyses. This study was approved by the UT Southwestern Institutional Review Board.

Cohort Demographics

Of the top 25 internal medicine programs, 3 were excluded because they did not have websites that listed AHMF. Of the remaining 22 programs, we identified 1,829 AHMF. We excluded 166 AHMF because we could not identify title or year of residency graduation and 109 for having nonpromotion titles, leaving 1,554 AHMF (Appendix Figure). The cohort characteristics are described in Table 1.

Research Productivity

A total of 9,809 documents had been published by this cohort of academic hospitalists (Appendix Table 2). Overall mean (SD) and median (IQR) publications were 6.3 (24.3) and 0.0 (0.0-4.0), respectively. A total of 799 (51.4%) AHMF had no publications, 347 (22.3%) had one to three publications, 209 (13.4%) had 10 or more, and 39 (2.5%) had 50 or more. The median number of publications stratified by academic rank were 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-1.0) for instructors, 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-3.0) for assistant professors, 8.0 (IQR, 2.0-23.0) for associate professors, and 38.0 (IQR, 6.0-99.0) for full professors. Among men, 54.3% had published at least one manuscript, compared to 42.7% of women (P < .0001). The distribution of H-indices by years since residency graduation is shown in the Figure. The median number of documents published by faculty 6 to 10 years post residency was 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-4.0), with 46.8% of these faculty without a publication. For faculty 14 to 18 years post residency, the median number of documents was 3.0 (IQR, 0.0-11.0), with 30.1% of these faculty without a publication. Years post residency and academic rank were correlated with higher H-indices as well as more publications and citations (P < .0001).

Factors Associated With Academic Rank

Factors associated with rank are described in Appendix Table 3. In our multivariable ordinal regression model, H-index (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.16 per single H-index point; 95% CI, 1.12-1.20), years post residency graduation (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.17), completion of chief residency (aOR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.34-4.51), and graduation from a top 25 medical school (aOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.44-3.06) were associated with promotion.

In this cross-sectional analysis of more than 1,500 AHMF at the top 25 internal medicine residencies in the United States, 88.3% were instructors or assistant professors, while only 11.7% were associate or full professors. Furthermore, 51.4% were without a publication, and only 26.3% had published more than three manuscripts. Last, H-index, completion of a chief residency, years post residency, and graduation from a top 25 medical school were associated with higher academic rank.

Only 2.7% of the cohort were full professors, and 9.0% were associate professors. In comparison, academic cardiology faculty are 28.2% full professors and 22.9% associate professors.⁸ While the field of hospital medicine is relatively new, many faculty members had practiced for the expected duration of time for promotion consideration, with assistant professors or instructors constituting 89.9% of faculty at 6 to 10 years and 63.6% of faculty at 14 to 18 years post residency. We additionally observed a gender gap in publication history in hospital medicine, consistent with prior studies in hospital medicine that suggested gender disparities in scholarship.^9,10 Increased focus will be needed in the future to ensure opportunities for scholarship are equitable for all faculty in hospital medicine.

Our findings suggest that scholarly productivity in academic hospital medicine remains a challenge. Prior studies have reported that less than half of academic hospitalists have ever published, and fewer than one in eight have received research funding.^11,12 It is encouraging, however, that publications increase with time after residency. These data are consistent with the literature demonstrating a modest increase in hospitalists who had ever published, increasing from 43.0% in 2012 to 48.6% in 2020.¹² Despite these trends, however, some early-career academic hospitalists report ambivalence toward academic productivity and promotion.¹³ Whether this ambivalence is the source of low scholarship output or the outcome of insufficient mentorship and limited research success is uncertain. But these factors, combined with the pressures of clinical productivity, the existing lack of mentorship, and inadequate protected research time represent barriers to successful scholarship in academic hospital medicine.^3,14

Our study has several limitations. First, our inclusion criteria for the top 25 internal medicine residencies may have excluded hospital medicine divisions with substantial scholarly productivity. However, with 21 of the 25 programs listed on Doximity.com in the top 25 for internal medicine research funding, it is likely that our results overestimate scholarly productivity if compared to a complete, national cohort of AHMF.¹⁵ Second, our findings may not be generalizable to hospitalists who practice in nonacademic settings. Third, we were unable to account for differences in promotion criteria/tracks or scholarly output expectations between institutions. This limitation has been seen similarly in prior studies linking promotion and H-index.² Furthermore, our study does not capture promotion via other pathways that may not depend on scholarly output, such as hospital leadership roles. Last, as data were abstracted from academic center websites, it is possible that not all information was accurate or updated. However, we randomly reevaluated 25% of hospital division webpages 6 months after our initial data collection and noted that all had been updated with new faculty and academic ranks, suggesting our data were accurate.

These data highlight that research productivity and academic promotion remain challenges in academic hospital medicine. Future studies may examine topics that include understanding pathways and milestones to promotion, reducing disparities in scholarship, and improving mentorship, protected time, and research funding in academic hospital medicine.

Hospital medicine has grown rapidly, with more than 50,000 hospitalists practicing nationally in 2016.¹ Despite the remarkable increase in academic hospital medicine faculty (AHMF), scholarly productivity remains underdeveloped. Prior evidence suggests peer-reviewed publications remain an important aspect of promotion in academic hospital medicine.² However, there are multiple barriers to robust scholarly productivity among AHMF, including inadequate mentorship,³ lack of protected scholarship time,⁴ and greater participation in nonclinical activities outside of peer-reviewed clinical research.⁵ Though research barriers have been described previously, the current state of scholarly productivity among AHMF has not been characterized. In this cross-sectional study, we describe the distribution of academic rank and scholarly output of a national sample of AHMF.

Study Design and Data Source

We performed a cross-sectional study of AHMF at the top 25 internal medicine residency programs as determined by Doximity.com as of February 1, 2020 (Appendix Table 1). Between March and August 2020, two authors (NS, MT) visited each residency program’s website, identified all faculty listed as members of the hospital medicine program, and extracted demographic data, including degrees, sex, residency, medical school, year of residency graduation, completion of chief residency, completion of fellowship, and rank. We categorized all academic titles into full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor/lecturer. Missing information was supplemented by searching state licensing websites and Doximity.com. Sex was validated using Genderize.io. We queried the Scopus database for each AHMF’s name and affiliated institution to extract publications, citations, and H-index (metric of productivity and impact, derived from the number of publications and their associated citations).⁶ We categorized medical schools by rank (top 25, top 50, or unranked), as defined by the 2020 US News Best Medical Schools, sorted by research⁷ and by location (United States, international Caribbean, and international non-Caribbean). We excluded programs without hospital medicine section/division webpages and AHMF with nonpromotion titles such as “adjunct professor” or “acting professor” or those with missing data that could not be identified using these methods.

Analysis

Summary statistics were generated using means with standard deviations and medians with interquartile ranges. We evaluated postresidency years 6 to 10 and 14 to 18 as conservative time frames for promotion to associate and full professor, respectively. These windows account for time spent for additional degrees, instructor years, and alternative career pathways. Demographic differences between academic ranks were determined using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis analyses.  

Because promotion occurs sequentially, a proportional odds logistic regression model was used to evaluate the association of academic rank and H-index, number of years post residency, completion of chief residency, graduation from a top 25 medical school, and sex. Since not all programs have the instructor/lecturer rank, only assistant, associate, and full professors were included in this model. Significance was assessed with the likelihood ratio test. The proportional odds assumption was assessed using the score test. All adjusted odds ratios and their associated 95% confidence intervals were recorded. A two-tailed P value < .05 was considered significant for this study, and SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) was used to conduct all analyses. This study was approved by the UT Southwestern Institutional Review Board.

Cohort Demographics

Of the top 25 internal medicine programs, 3 were excluded because they did not have websites that listed AHMF. Of the remaining 22 programs, we identified 1,829 AHMF. We excluded 166 AHMF because we could not identify title or year of residency graduation and 109 for having nonpromotion titles, leaving 1,554 AHMF (Appendix Figure). The cohort characteristics are described in Table 1.

Research Productivity

A total of 9,809 documents had been published by this cohort of academic hospitalists (Appendix Table 2). Overall mean (SD) and median (IQR) publications were 6.3 (24.3) and 0.0 (0.0-4.0), respectively. A total of 799 (51.4%) AHMF had no publications, 347 (22.3%) had one to three publications, 209 (13.4%) had 10 or more, and 39 (2.5%) had 50 or more. The median number of publications stratified by academic rank were 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-1.0) for instructors, 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-3.0) for assistant professors, 8.0 (IQR, 2.0-23.0) for associate professors, and 38.0 (IQR, 6.0-99.0) for full professors. Among men, 54.3% had published at least one manuscript, compared to 42.7% of women (P < .0001). The distribution of H-indices by years since residency graduation is shown in the Figure. The median number of documents published by faculty 6 to 10 years post residency was 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-4.0), with 46.8% of these faculty without a publication. For faculty 14 to 18 years post residency, the median number of documents was 3.0 (IQR, 0.0-11.0), with 30.1% of these faculty without a publication. Years post residency and academic rank were correlated with higher H-indices as well as more publications and citations (P < .0001).

Factors Associated With Academic Rank

Factors associated with rank are described in Appendix Table 3. In our multivariable ordinal regression model, H-index (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.16 per single H-index point; 95% CI, 1.12-1.20), years post residency graduation (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.17), completion of chief residency (aOR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.34-4.51), and graduation from a top 25 medical school (aOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.44-3.06) were associated with promotion.

In this cross-sectional analysis of more than 1,500 AHMF at the top 25 internal medicine residencies in the United States, 88.3% were instructors or assistant professors, while only 11.7% were associate or full professors. Furthermore, 51.4% were without a publication, and only 26.3% had published more than three manuscripts. Last, H-index, completion of a chief residency, years post residency, and graduation from a top 25 medical school were associated with higher academic rank.

Only 2.7% of the cohort were full professors, and 9.0% were associate professors. In comparison, academic cardiology faculty are 28.2% full professors and 22.9% associate professors.⁸ While the field of hospital medicine is relatively new, many faculty members had practiced for the expected duration of time for promotion consideration, with assistant professors or instructors constituting 89.9% of faculty at 6 to 10 years and 63.6% of faculty at 14 to 18 years post residency. We additionally observed a gender gap in publication history in hospital medicine, consistent with prior studies in hospital medicine that suggested gender disparities in scholarship.^9,10 Increased focus will be needed in the future to ensure opportunities for scholarship are equitable for all faculty in hospital medicine.

Our findings suggest that scholarly productivity in academic hospital medicine remains a challenge. Prior studies have reported that less than half of academic hospitalists have ever published, and fewer than one in eight have received research funding.^11,12 It is encouraging, however, that publications increase with time after residency. These data are consistent with the literature demonstrating a modest increase in hospitalists who had ever published, increasing from 43.0% in 2012 to 48.6% in 2020.¹² Despite these trends, however, some early-career academic hospitalists report ambivalence toward academic productivity and promotion.¹³ Whether this ambivalence is the source of low scholarship output or the outcome of insufficient mentorship and limited research success is uncertain. But these factors, combined with the pressures of clinical productivity, the existing lack of mentorship, and inadequate protected research time represent barriers to successful scholarship in academic hospital medicine.^3,14

Our study has several limitations. First, our inclusion criteria for the top 25 internal medicine residencies may have excluded hospital medicine divisions with substantial scholarly productivity. However, with 21 of the 25 programs listed on Doximity.com in the top 25 for internal medicine research funding, it is likely that our results overestimate scholarly productivity if compared to a complete, national cohort of AHMF.¹⁵ Second, our findings may not be generalizable to hospitalists who practice in nonacademic settings. Third, we were unable to account for differences in promotion criteria/tracks or scholarly output expectations between institutions. This limitation has been seen similarly in prior studies linking promotion and H-index.² Furthermore, our study does not capture promotion via other pathways that may not depend on scholarly output, such as hospital leadership roles. Last, as data were abstracted from academic center websites, it is possible that not all information was accurate or updated. However, we randomly reevaluated 25% of hospital division webpages 6 months after our initial data collection and noted that all had been updated with new faculty and academic ranks, suggesting our data were accurate.

These data highlight that research productivity and academic promotion remain challenges in academic hospital medicine. Future studies may examine topics that include understanding pathways and milestones to promotion, reducing disparities in scholarship, and improving mentorship, protected time, and research funding in academic hospital medicine.

Hospital medicine has grown rapidly, with more than 50,000 hospitalists practicing nationally in 2016.¹ Despite the remarkable increase in academic hospital medicine faculty (AHMF), scholarly productivity remains underdeveloped. Prior evidence suggests peer-reviewed publications remain an important aspect of promotion in academic hospital medicine.² However, there are multiple barriers to robust scholarly productivity among AHMF, including inadequate mentorship,³ lack of protected scholarship time,⁴ and greater participation in nonclinical activities outside of peer-reviewed clinical research.⁵ Though research barriers have been described previously, the current state of scholarly productivity among AHMF has not been characterized. In this cross-sectional study, we describe the distribution of academic rank and scholarly output of a national sample of AHMF.

Study Design and Data Source

We performed a cross-sectional study of AHMF at the top 25 internal medicine residency programs as determined by Doximity.com as of February 1, 2020 (Appendix Table 1). Between March and August 2020, two authors (NS, MT) visited each residency program’s website, identified all faculty listed as members of the hospital medicine program, and extracted demographic data, including degrees, sex, residency, medical school, year of residency graduation, completion of chief residency, completion of fellowship, and rank. We categorized all academic titles into full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor/lecturer. Missing information was supplemented by searching state licensing websites and Doximity.com. Sex was validated using Genderize.io. We queried the Scopus database for each AHMF’s name and affiliated institution to extract publications, citations, and H-index (metric of productivity and impact, derived from the number of publications and their associated citations).⁶ We categorized medical schools by rank (top 25, top 50, or unranked), as defined by the 2020 US News Best Medical Schools, sorted by research⁷ and by location (United States, international Caribbean, and international non-Caribbean). We excluded programs without hospital medicine section/division webpages and AHMF with nonpromotion titles such as “adjunct professor” or “acting professor” or those with missing data that could not be identified using these methods.

Analysis

Summary statistics were generated using means with standard deviations and medians with interquartile ranges. We evaluated postresidency years 6 to 10 and 14 to 18 as conservative time frames for promotion to associate and full professor, respectively. These windows account for time spent for additional degrees, instructor years, and alternative career pathways. Demographic differences between academic ranks were determined using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis analyses.  

Because promotion occurs sequentially, a proportional odds logistic regression model was used to evaluate the association of academic rank and H-index, number of years post residency, completion of chief residency, graduation from a top 25 medical school, and sex. Since not all programs have the instructor/lecturer rank, only assistant, associate, and full professors were included in this model. Significance was assessed with the likelihood ratio test. The proportional odds assumption was assessed using the score test. All adjusted odds ratios and their associated 95% confidence intervals were recorded. A two-tailed P value < .05 was considered significant for this study, and SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) was used to conduct all analyses. This study was approved by the UT Southwestern Institutional Review Board.

Cohort Demographics

Of the top 25 internal medicine programs, 3 were excluded because they did not have websites that listed AHMF. Of the remaining 22 programs, we identified 1,829 AHMF. We excluded 166 AHMF because we could not identify title or year of residency graduation and 109 for having nonpromotion titles, leaving 1,554 AHMF (Appendix Figure). The cohort characteristics are described in Table 1.

Research Productivity

A total of 9,809 documents had been published by this cohort of academic hospitalists (Appendix Table 2). Overall mean (SD) and median (IQR) publications were 6.3 (24.3) and 0.0 (0.0-4.0), respectively. A total of 799 (51.4%) AHMF had no publications, 347 (22.3%) had one to three publications, 209 (13.4%) had 10 or more, and 39 (2.5%) had 50 or more. The median number of publications stratified by academic rank were 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-1.0) for instructors, 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-3.0) for assistant professors, 8.0 (IQR, 2.0-23.0) for associate professors, and 38.0 (IQR, 6.0-99.0) for full professors. Among men, 54.3% had published at least one manuscript, compared to 42.7% of women (P < .0001). The distribution of H-indices by years since residency graduation is shown in the Figure. The median number of documents published by faculty 6 to 10 years post residency was 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-4.0), with 46.8% of these faculty without a publication. For faculty 14 to 18 years post residency, the median number of documents was 3.0 (IQR, 0.0-11.0), with 30.1% of these faculty without a publication. Years post residency and academic rank were correlated with higher H-indices as well as more publications and citations (P < .0001).

Factors Associated With Academic Rank

Factors associated with rank are described in Appendix Table 3. In our multivariable ordinal regression model, H-index (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.16 per single H-index point; 95% CI, 1.12-1.20), years post residency graduation (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.17), completion of chief residency (aOR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.34-4.51), and graduation from a top 25 medical school (aOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.44-3.06) were associated with promotion.

In this cross-sectional analysis of more than 1,500 AHMF at the top 25 internal medicine residencies in the United States, 88.3% were instructors or assistant professors, while only 11.7% were associate or full professors. Furthermore, 51.4% were without a publication, and only 26.3% had published more than three manuscripts. Last, H-index, completion of a chief residency, years post residency, and graduation from a top 25 medical school were associated with higher academic rank.

Only 2.7% of the cohort were full professors, and 9.0% were associate professors. In comparison, academic cardiology faculty are 28.2% full professors and 22.9% associate professors.⁸ While the field of hospital medicine is relatively new, many faculty members had practiced for the expected duration of time for promotion consideration, with assistant professors or instructors constituting 89.9% of faculty at 6 to 10 years and 63.6% of faculty at 14 to 18 years post residency. We additionally observed a gender gap in publication history in hospital medicine, consistent with prior studies in hospital medicine that suggested gender disparities in scholarship.^9,10 Increased focus will be needed in the future to ensure opportunities for scholarship are equitable for all faculty in hospital medicine.

Our findings suggest that scholarly productivity in academic hospital medicine remains a challenge. Prior studies have reported that less than half of academic hospitalists have ever published, and fewer than one in eight have received research funding.^11,12 It is encouraging, however, that publications increase with time after residency. These data are consistent with the literature demonstrating a modest increase in hospitalists who had ever published, increasing from 43.0% in 2012 to 48.6% in 2020.¹² Despite these trends, however, some early-career academic hospitalists report ambivalence toward academic productivity and promotion.¹³ Whether this ambivalence is the source of low scholarship output or the outcome of insufficient mentorship and limited research success is uncertain. But these factors, combined with the pressures of clinical productivity, the existing lack of mentorship, and inadequate protected research time represent barriers to successful scholarship in academic hospital medicine.^3,14

Our study has several limitations. First, our inclusion criteria for the top 25 internal medicine residencies may have excluded hospital medicine divisions with substantial scholarly productivity. However, with 21 of the 25 programs listed on Doximity.com in the top 25 for internal medicine research funding, it is likely that our results overestimate scholarly productivity if compared to a complete, national cohort of AHMF.¹⁵ Second, our findings may not be generalizable to hospitalists who practice in nonacademic settings. Third, we were unable to account for differences in promotion criteria/tracks or scholarly output expectations between institutions. This limitation has been seen similarly in prior studies linking promotion and H-index.² Furthermore, our study does not capture promotion via other pathways that may not depend on scholarly output, such as hospital leadership roles. Last, as data were abstracted from academic center websites, it is possible that not all information was accurate or updated. However, we randomly reevaluated 25% of hospital division webpages 6 months after our initial data collection and noted that all had been updated with new faculty and academic ranks, suggesting our data were accurate.

These data highlight that research productivity and academic promotion remain challenges in academic hospital medicine. Future studies may examine topics that include understanding pathways and milestones to promotion, reducing disparities in scholarship, and improving mentorship, protected time, and research funding in academic hospital medicine.

Clinical scenario

An 83-year-old man is admitted with a hemiplegic cerebrovascular accident. He is found to have dysphagia, and a nasogastric feeding tube is placed. Over the next several days, his strength begins to recover, and he tolerates his tube feeding well. Discharge to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) for subacute rehabilitation is planned. His swallowing is showing signs of recovery; it has not recovered adequately but is expected to continue to improve such that he is predicted to be independent of tube feeding within 7-14 days. None of the facilities in the region are willing to admit a patient with a nasal feeding tube, despite the anticipated short duration. The patient is medically ready for discharge but is refusing the feeding gastrostomy. “Why would I want a hole in my stomach, if I’m only going to need it for 1-2 weeks and this tube in my nose is working fine and is comfortable?” he pleads with tears in his eyes.

Feeding dysphagic patients after stroke

Dysphagia, potentially leading to aspiration and/or pneumonia, is a common sequela of stroke – up to half of hospitalized patients are affected.¹ When oral intake is contraindicated, patients are often fed by nasogastric tube (NGT) or by surgically or endoscopically placed gastrostomy tube (GT). Without good justification based on outcomes, NGTs are traditionally used when the need for feeding is thought to be short term (<4 weeks) and GTs are used for long term (>4 weeks). However, in 2005, a large multicenter randomized control trial found that the majority of stroke patients with dysphagia that would resolve had resolution within 2-3 weeks. Moreover, outcomes were equivalent or better for patients fed with an NGT versus GT.

The authors concluded by recommending feeding via NGT for 2-3 weeks, after which conversion to GT can be considered if dysphagia persists.¹ Notably, the recommendation allows consideration, and no evidence-based guideline requires or recommends GT be placed based on duration of tube feed dependence. Currently, while nutrition and neurology authorities have adopted these recommendations,^2,3 many authors have noted poor adherence to this guideline, and many find that the median period between stroke and GT placement is 7 days rather than the recommended minimum of 14.^4,5,6 While ignorance can partially explain the lack of widespread compliance,⁶ the policies of posthospital facilities are another culprit. Increasingly, and for a variety of reasons unsupported by the literature, SNFs refuse NGT and require GT.^4,7,8,9

Ethical considerations

The four principles of medical ethics – autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice – can guide clinicians, patients, and family members in decision-making. In our case, by withholding needed and desired treatment (discharge to and treatment by a rehabilitation facility) the patient is being coerced to undergo a procedure he does not want, and clinicians participate in denying him autonomy. Further, given that the evidence, national guidelines, and in fact federal regulations indicate that his preferences are congruent with best practices, pressuring him to accept gastrostomy placement runs afoul of the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Though the mechanism is unclear, early gastrostomy (<14-21 days) is associated with increased risk of death, worse functional outcomes, and a lower rate of return to oral feeding, as well as a significant procedure-specific complication rate.^1,10 By insisting on gastrostomy, we neither act in this patient’s best interests nor “do no harm.”

However, the medical system is complex. The clinician at the bedside can evaluate this scenario, review the national guidelines, discuss the procedure and risks with the patient and family, and conclude that the patient should be discharged with a nasal feeding tube. Nevertheless, if no facility is willing to accept him without a gastrostomy, our decision-making model – previously limited to our patient’s best interests alone – is forced to change. Despite our misgivings, we often conclude that the harm done by an early gastrostomy is outweighed by the harm of remaining unnecessarily in the acute hospital setting. We further worry about other patients lingering in the emergency department for lack of an inpatient bed and the possible – though unknowable – harm done to them.
 

Looking forward

It is an unfortunate fact that medical decision-making must often include factors unrelated to the patient’s best interests, with financial considerations and structural barriers frequently driving deviation from ideal care. Providers and patients navigate these decisions to their best abilities, making compromises when forced. However, with education and professional activism, providers can advocate for the elimination of barriers to providing medically sound and ethically appropriate care. In our experience, delay of gastrostomy placement, until discharge is imminent and planning for postdischarge care is initiated, has resulted in a decrease by half the fraction of patients with tracheostomies who had gastrostomies placed prior to discharge.¹¹ With aggressive outreach and education, we now have nursing homes willing to accept patients with NGTs.

Criteria for admission to discharge facilities can drive medical decision-making that is unethical and unsupported by evidence. Continued efforts to eliminate barriers to appropriate and ethical care have been successful and are encouraged.
 

Dr. Cowan is administrative chief resident in the department of surgery at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dr. Seres is professor of medicine in the Institute of Human Nutrition and associate clinical ethicist at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Dennis MS et al. Lancet. 2005 Feb 26-Mar 4;365(9461):764-72.

2. Powers W. et al. Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):e46-e110.

3. Burgos R et al. Clin Nutr. 2018 Feb;37(1):354-96.

4. Wilmskoetter J et al. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016 Nov;25(11):2694-700.

5. George BP et al. Stroke. 2017 Feb;48(2):420-7.

6. Fessler TA. et al. Surg Endosc. 2019 Dec;33(12):4089-97.

7. Burgermaster M et al. Nutr Clin Pract. 2016 Jun;31(3):342-8.

8. Moran C and O’Mahoney S. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2015 Mar;31(2):137-42.

9. Gomes CA et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10;(11):CD008096.

10. Joundi RA et al. Neurology. 2018 Feb 13;90(7):e544-52.

11. Bothra A et al. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2018 Feb;42(2):491.

Clinical scenario

An 83-year-old man is admitted with a hemiplegic cerebrovascular accident. He is found to have dysphagia, and a nasogastric feeding tube is placed. Over the next several days, his strength begins to recover, and he tolerates his tube feeding well. Discharge to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) for subacute rehabilitation is planned. His swallowing is showing signs of recovery; it has not recovered adequately but is expected to continue to improve such that he is predicted to be independent of tube feeding within 7-14 days. None of the facilities in the region are willing to admit a patient with a nasal feeding tube, despite the anticipated short duration. The patient is medically ready for discharge but is refusing the feeding gastrostomy. “Why would I want a hole in my stomach, if I’m only going to need it for 1-2 weeks and this tube in my nose is working fine and is comfortable?” he pleads with tears in his eyes.

Feeding dysphagic patients after stroke

Dysphagia, potentially leading to aspiration and/or pneumonia, is a common sequela of stroke – up to half of hospitalized patients are affected.¹ When oral intake is contraindicated, patients are often fed by nasogastric tube (NGT) or by surgically or endoscopically placed gastrostomy tube (GT). Without good justification based on outcomes, NGTs are traditionally used when the need for feeding is thought to be short term (<4 weeks) and GTs are used for long term (>4 weeks). However, in 2005, a large multicenter randomized control trial found that the majority of stroke patients with dysphagia that would resolve had resolution within 2-3 weeks. Moreover, outcomes were equivalent or better for patients fed with an NGT versus GT.

The authors concluded by recommending feeding via NGT for 2-3 weeks, after which conversion to GT can be considered if dysphagia persists.¹ Notably, the recommendation allows consideration, and no evidence-based guideline requires or recommends GT be placed based on duration of tube feed dependence. Currently, while nutrition and neurology authorities have adopted these recommendations,^2,3 many authors have noted poor adherence to this guideline, and many find that the median period between stroke and GT placement is 7 days rather than the recommended minimum of 14.^4,5,6 While ignorance can partially explain the lack of widespread compliance,⁶ the policies of posthospital facilities are another culprit. Increasingly, and for a variety of reasons unsupported by the literature, SNFs refuse NGT and require GT.^4,7,8,9

Ethical considerations

The four principles of medical ethics – autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice – can guide clinicians, patients, and family members in decision-making. In our case, by withholding needed and desired treatment (discharge to and treatment by a rehabilitation facility) the patient is being coerced to undergo a procedure he does not want, and clinicians participate in denying him autonomy. Further, given that the evidence, national guidelines, and in fact federal regulations indicate that his preferences are congruent with best practices, pressuring him to accept gastrostomy placement runs afoul of the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Though the mechanism is unclear, early gastrostomy (<14-21 days) is associated with increased risk of death, worse functional outcomes, and a lower rate of return to oral feeding, as well as a significant procedure-specific complication rate.^1,10 By insisting on gastrostomy, we neither act in this patient’s best interests nor “do no harm.”

However, the medical system is complex. The clinician at the bedside can evaluate this scenario, review the national guidelines, discuss the procedure and risks with the patient and family, and conclude that the patient should be discharged with a nasal feeding tube. Nevertheless, if no facility is willing to accept him without a gastrostomy, our decision-making model – previously limited to our patient’s best interests alone – is forced to change. Despite our misgivings, we often conclude that the harm done by an early gastrostomy is outweighed by the harm of remaining unnecessarily in the acute hospital setting. We further worry about other patients lingering in the emergency department for lack of an inpatient bed and the possible – though unknowable – harm done to them.
 

Looking forward

It is an unfortunate fact that medical decision-making must often include factors unrelated to the patient’s best interests, with financial considerations and structural barriers frequently driving deviation from ideal care. Providers and patients navigate these decisions to their best abilities, making compromises when forced. However, with education and professional activism, providers can advocate for the elimination of barriers to providing medically sound and ethically appropriate care. In our experience, delay of gastrostomy placement, until discharge is imminent and planning for postdischarge care is initiated, has resulted in a decrease by half the fraction of patients with tracheostomies who had gastrostomies placed prior to discharge.¹¹ With aggressive outreach and education, we now have nursing homes willing to accept patients with NGTs.

Criteria for admission to discharge facilities can drive medical decision-making that is unethical and unsupported by evidence. Continued efforts to eliminate barriers to appropriate and ethical care have been successful and are encouraged.
 

Dr. Cowan is administrative chief resident in the department of surgery at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dr. Seres is professor of medicine in the Institute of Human Nutrition and associate clinical ethicist at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Dennis MS et al. Lancet. 2005 Feb 26-Mar 4;365(9461):764-72.

2. Powers W. et al. Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):e46-e110.

3. Burgos R et al. Clin Nutr. 2018 Feb;37(1):354-96.

4. Wilmskoetter J et al. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016 Nov;25(11):2694-700.

5. George BP et al. Stroke. 2017 Feb;48(2):420-7.

6. Fessler TA. et al. Surg Endosc. 2019 Dec;33(12):4089-97.

7. Burgermaster M et al. Nutr Clin Pract. 2016 Jun;31(3):342-8.

8. Moran C and O’Mahoney S. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2015 Mar;31(2):137-42.

9. Gomes CA et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10;(11):CD008096.

10. Joundi RA et al. Neurology. 2018 Feb 13;90(7):e544-52.

11. Bothra A et al. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2018 Feb;42(2):491.

Clinical scenario

An 83-year-old man is admitted with a hemiplegic cerebrovascular accident. He is found to have dysphagia, and a nasogastric feeding tube is placed. Over the next several days, his strength begins to recover, and he tolerates his tube feeding well. Discharge to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) for subacute rehabilitation is planned. His swallowing is showing signs of recovery; it has not recovered adequately but is expected to continue to improve such that he is predicted to be independent of tube feeding within 7-14 days. None of the facilities in the region are willing to admit a patient with a nasal feeding tube, despite the anticipated short duration. The patient is medically ready for discharge but is refusing the feeding gastrostomy. “Why would I want a hole in my stomach, if I’m only going to need it for 1-2 weeks and this tube in my nose is working fine and is comfortable?” he pleads with tears in his eyes.

Feeding dysphagic patients after stroke

Dysphagia, potentially leading to aspiration and/or pneumonia, is a common sequela of stroke – up to half of hospitalized patients are affected.¹ When oral intake is contraindicated, patients are often fed by nasogastric tube (NGT) or by surgically or endoscopically placed gastrostomy tube (GT). Without good justification based on outcomes, NGTs are traditionally used when the need for feeding is thought to be short term (<4 weeks) and GTs are used for long term (>4 weeks). However, in 2005, a large multicenter randomized control trial found that the majority of stroke patients with dysphagia that would resolve had resolution within 2-3 weeks. Moreover, outcomes were equivalent or better for patients fed with an NGT versus GT.

The authors concluded by recommending feeding via NGT for 2-3 weeks, after which conversion to GT can be considered if dysphagia persists.¹ Notably, the recommendation allows consideration, and no evidence-based guideline requires or recommends GT be placed based on duration of tube feed dependence. Currently, while nutrition and neurology authorities have adopted these recommendations,^2,3 many authors have noted poor adherence to this guideline, and many find that the median period between stroke and GT placement is 7 days rather than the recommended minimum of 14.^4,5,6 While ignorance can partially explain the lack of widespread compliance,⁶ the policies of posthospital facilities are another culprit. Increasingly, and for a variety of reasons unsupported by the literature, SNFs refuse NGT and require GT.^4,7,8,9

Ethical considerations

The four principles of medical ethics – autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice – can guide clinicians, patients, and family members in decision-making. In our case, by withholding needed and desired treatment (discharge to and treatment by a rehabilitation facility) the patient is being coerced to undergo a procedure he does not want, and clinicians participate in denying him autonomy. Further, given that the evidence, national guidelines, and in fact federal regulations indicate that his preferences are congruent with best practices, pressuring him to accept gastrostomy placement runs afoul of the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Though the mechanism is unclear, early gastrostomy (<14-21 days) is associated with increased risk of death, worse functional outcomes, and a lower rate of return to oral feeding, as well as a significant procedure-specific complication rate.^1,10 By insisting on gastrostomy, we neither act in this patient’s best interests nor “do no harm.”

However, the medical system is complex. The clinician at the bedside can evaluate this scenario, review the national guidelines, discuss the procedure and risks with the patient and family, and conclude that the patient should be discharged with a nasal feeding tube. Nevertheless, if no facility is willing to accept him without a gastrostomy, our decision-making model – previously limited to our patient’s best interests alone – is forced to change. Despite our misgivings, we often conclude that the harm done by an early gastrostomy is outweighed by the harm of remaining unnecessarily in the acute hospital setting. We further worry about other patients lingering in the emergency department for lack of an inpatient bed and the possible – though unknowable – harm done to them.
 

Looking forward

It is an unfortunate fact that medical decision-making must often include factors unrelated to the patient’s best interests, with financial considerations and structural barriers frequently driving deviation from ideal care. Providers and patients navigate these decisions to their best abilities, making compromises when forced. However, with education and professional activism, providers can advocate for the elimination of barriers to providing medically sound and ethically appropriate care. In our experience, delay of gastrostomy placement, until discharge is imminent and planning for postdischarge care is initiated, has resulted in a decrease by half the fraction of patients with tracheostomies who had gastrostomies placed prior to discharge.¹¹ With aggressive outreach and education, we now have nursing homes willing to accept patients with NGTs.

Criteria for admission to discharge facilities can drive medical decision-making that is unethical and unsupported by evidence. Continued efforts to eliminate barriers to appropriate and ethical care have been successful and are encouraged.
 

Dr. Cowan is administrative chief resident in the department of surgery at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dr. Seres is professor of medicine in the Institute of Human Nutrition and associate clinical ethicist at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Dennis MS et al. Lancet. 2005 Feb 26-Mar 4;365(9461):764-72.

2. Powers W. et al. Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):e46-e110.

3. Burgos R et al. Clin Nutr. 2018 Feb;37(1):354-96.

4. Wilmskoetter J et al. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016 Nov;25(11):2694-700.

5. George BP et al. Stroke. 2017 Feb;48(2):420-7.

6. Fessler TA. et al. Surg Endosc. 2019 Dec;33(12):4089-97.

7. Burgermaster M et al. Nutr Clin Pract. 2016 Jun;31(3):342-8.

8. Moran C and O’Mahoney S. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2015 Mar;31(2):137-42.

9. Gomes CA et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10;(11):CD008096.

10. Joundi RA et al. Neurology. 2018 Feb 13;90(7):e544-52.

11. Bothra A et al. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2018 Feb;42(2):491.

Inpatient care utilization for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was higher for Black and Hispanic patients, compared with White patients, in an analysis of the 2012-2017 National Inpatient Sample.

The differences occurred despite Black and Hispanic patients being younger at the time of admission than White patients, and may reflect increased disease severity and management challenges in these patients with skin of color, Nishadh Sutaria, BS, a medical student at Tufts University, Boston, said at the annual Skin of Color Society symposium. “They may also reflect social inequities in access to dermatologists, with racial and ethnic minorities using inpatient services in lieu of outpatient care.”

Mr. Sutaria and coinvestigators, led by Shawn Kwatra, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, identified 8,040 HS admissions for White patients, 16,490 Black patients, and 2,405 for Hispanic patients during the 5-year period.

Black and Hispanic patients were significantly younger than White patients, with a mean age of 38.1 years and 35 years, respectively, compared with 42 years for White patients (P < .001 in each case). Compared with White patients, Black patients had more procedures (2.03 vs. 1.84, P = .006), a longer length of stay (5.82 days vs. 4.97 days, P = .001), and higher cost of care ($46,119 vs. $39,862, P = .010). Compared with White patients, Hispanic patients had higher cost of care ($52,334 vs. $39,862, P = .004).

“In these models, Black patients stayed almost a full day longer and accrued a charge of $8,000 more than White patients, and Hispanic patients stayed about a half-day longer and accrued a charge of almost $15,000 more than White patients,” Mr. Sutaria said.

In a multilinear regression analysis adjusting for age, sex, and insurance type, Black race correlated with more procedures, higher length of stay, and higher cost of care, and Hispanic ethnicity with more procedures and higher cost of care.

Prior research has shown that Black patients may be disproportionately affected by HS. A 2017 analysis of electronic health record data for tens of millions of patients nationally, for instance, showed an incidence of HS that was over 2.5 times greater in Blacks than Whites. And a recent analysis of electronic data in Wisconsin for patients with an HS diagnosis and 3 or more encounters for the disease showed that Blacks are more likely to have HS that is Hurley Stage 3, the most severe type.

Increased severity “has not been explicitly shown in Hispanic patients,” Dr. Kwatra said in an interview, “[but] there is a strong relationship between obesity/metabolic syndrome with HS. Because Hispanic patients have higher rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it’s [thought] that they may have more severe HS.”

HS patients with skin of color are underrepresented in clinical trials, he said. “Severe HS can be difficult to treat because there are few effective treatments,” he said, noting that adalimumab is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy.

The National Inpatient Sample is a publicly available, all-payer inpatient care database developed for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.

Mr. Sutaria is a dermatology research fellow working under the guidance of Dr. Kwatra.

Inpatient care utilization for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was higher for Black and Hispanic patients, compared with White patients, in an analysis of the 2012-2017 National Inpatient Sample.

The differences occurred despite Black and Hispanic patients being younger at the time of admission than White patients, and may reflect increased disease severity and management challenges in these patients with skin of color, Nishadh Sutaria, BS, a medical student at Tufts University, Boston, said at the annual Skin of Color Society symposium. “They may also reflect social inequities in access to dermatologists, with racial and ethnic minorities using inpatient services in lieu of outpatient care.”

Mr. Sutaria and coinvestigators, led by Shawn Kwatra, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, identified 8,040 HS admissions for White patients, 16,490 Black patients, and 2,405 for Hispanic patients during the 5-year period.

Black and Hispanic patients were significantly younger than White patients, with a mean age of 38.1 years and 35 years, respectively, compared with 42 years for White patients (P < .001 in each case). Compared with White patients, Black patients had more procedures (2.03 vs. 1.84, P = .006), a longer length of stay (5.82 days vs. 4.97 days, P = .001), and higher cost of care ($46,119 vs. $39,862, P = .010). Compared with White patients, Hispanic patients had higher cost of care ($52,334 vs. $39,862, P = .004).

“In these models, Black patients stayed almost a full day longer and accrued a charge of $8,000 more than White patients, and Hispanic patients stayed about a half-day longer and accrued a charge of almost $15,000 more than White patients,” Mr. Sutaria said.

In a multilinear regression analysis adjusting for age, sex, and insurance type, Black race correlated with more procedures, higher length of stay, and higher cost of care, and Hispanic ethnicity with more procedures and higher cost of care.

Prior research has shown that Black patients may be disproportionately affected by HS. A 2017 analysis of electronic health record data for tens of millions of patients nationally, for instance, showed an incidence of HS that was over 2.5 times greater in Blacks than Whites. And a recent analysis of electronic data in Wisconsin for patients with an HS diagnosis and 3 or more encounters for the disease showed that Blacks are more likely to have HS that is Hurley Stage 3, the most severe type.

Increased severity “has not been explicitly shown in Hispanic patients,” Dr. Kwatra said in an interview, “[but] there is a strong relationship between obesity/metabolic syndrome with HS. Because Hispanic patients have higher rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it’s [thought] that they may have more severe HS.”

HS patients with skin of color are underrepresented in clinical trials, he said. “Severe HS can be difficult to treat because there are few effective treatments,” he said, noting that adalimumab is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy.

The National Inpatient Sample is a publicly available, all-payer inpatient care database developed for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.

Mr. Sutaria is a dermatology research fellow working under the guidance of Dr. Kwatra.

Inpatient care utilization for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was higher for Black and Hispanic patients, compared with White patients, in an analysis of the 2012-2017 National Inpatient Sample.

The differences occurred despite Black and Hispanic patients being younger at the time of admission than White patients, and may reflect increased disease severity and management challenges in these patients with skin of color, Nishadh Sutaria, BS, a medical student at Tufts University, Boston, said at the annual Skin of Color Society symposium. “They may also reflect social inequities in access to dermatologists, with racial and ethnic minorities using inpatient services in lieu of outpatient care.”

Mr. Sutaria and coinvestigators, led by Shawn Kwatra, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, identified 8,040 HS admissions for White patients, 16,490 Black patients, and 2,405 for Hispanic patients during the 5-year period.

Black and Hispanic patients were significantly younger than White patients, with a mean age of 38.1 years and 35 years, respectively, compared with 42 years for White patients (P < .001 in each case). Compared with White patients, Black patients had more procedures (2.03 vs. 1.84, P = .006), a longer length of stay (5.82 days vs. 4.97 days, P = .001), and higher cost of care ($46,119 vs. $39,862, P = .010). Compared with White patients, Hispanic patients had higher cost of care ($52,334 vs. $39,862, P = .004).

“In these models, Black patients stayed almost a full day longer and accrued a charge of $8,000 more than White patients, and Hispanic patients stayed about a half-day longer and accrued a charge of almost $15,000 more than White patients,” Mr. Sutaria said.

In a multilinear regression analysis adjusting for age, sex, and insurance type, Black race correlated with more procedures, higher length of stay, and higher cost of care, and Hispanic ethnicity with more procedures and higher cost of care.

Prior research has shown that Black patients may be disproportionately affected by HS. A 2017 analysis of electronic health record data for tens of millions of patients nationally, for instance, showed an incidence of HS that was over 2.5 times greater in Blacks than Whites. And a recent analysis of electronic data in Wisconsin for patients with an HS diagnosis and 3 or more encounters for the disease showed that Blacks are more likely to have HS that is Hurley Stage 3, the most severe type.

Increased severity “has not been explicitly shown in Hispanic patients,” Dr. Kwatra said in an interview, “[but] there is a strong relationship between obesity/metabolic syndrome with HS. Because Hispanic patients have higher rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it’s [thought] that they may have more severe HS.”

HS patients with skin of color are underrepresented in clinical trials, he said. “Severe HS can be difficult to treat because there are few effective treatments,” he said, noting that adalimumab is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy.

The National Inpatient Sample is a publicly available, all-payer inpatient care database developed for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.

Mr. Sutaria is a dermatology research fellow working under the guidance of Dr. Kwatra.

The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.

Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
 

A promising start

Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.

Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.

The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.

The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.

“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.

The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.

Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.

ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
 

A ‘strong’ recommendation

The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.

But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.

Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.

Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.

The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.

The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.

[email protected]

The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.

Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
 

A promising start

Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.

Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.

The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.

The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.

“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.

The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.

Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.

ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
 

A ‘strong’ recommendation

The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.

But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.

Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.

Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.

The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.

The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.

[email protected]

The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.

Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
 

A promising start

Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.

Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.

The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.

The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.

“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.

The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.

Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.

ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
 

A ‘strong’ recommendation

The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.

But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.

Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.

Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.

The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.

The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.

[email protected]