Monitoring immunoglobulin (Ig) levels at baseline and before each cycle of rituximab could reduce the risk of serious infection events (SIEs) in patients needing repeated treatment, according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In a large, single-center, longitudinal study conducted at a tertiary referral center, having low IgG (less than 6 g/L) in particular was associated with a higher rate of SIEs, compared with having normal IgG levels (6-16 g/L). Considering 103 of 700 patients who had low levels of IgG before starting treatment with rituximab for various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), there were 16.4 SIEs per 100 patient-years. In those who developed low IgG during subsequent cycles of rituximab therapy, the SIE rate was even higher, at 21.3 per 100 patient-years. By comparison, the SIE rate for those with normal IgG levels was 9.7 per 100 patient-years.

“We really have to monitor immunoglobulins at baseline and also before we re-treat the patients, because higher IgG level is protective of serious infections,” study first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview.

Low IgG has been linked to a higher risk of SIEs in the first 12 months of rituximab therapy but, until now, there have been limited data on infection predictors during repeated cycles of treatment. While IgG is a consistent marker of SIEs associated with repeated rituximab treatment, IgM and IgA should also be monitored to give a full picture of any hyperglobulinemia that may be present.

“There is no formal guidance on how to safely monitor patients on rituximab,” observed Dr. Md Yusof, who will present these data at the 2019 European Congress of Rheumatology in Madrid. The study’s findings could help to change that, however, as they offer a practical way to help predict and thus prevent SIEs. The study’s findings not only validate previous work, he noted, but also add new insights into why some patients treated with repeat rituximab cycles but not others may experience a higher rate of such infections.

Altogether, the investigators examined data on 700 patients with RMDs treated with rituximab who were consecutively seen during 2012-2017 at Dr. Md Yusof’s institution – the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, which is part of the University of Leeds. Their immunoglobulin levels had been measured before starting rituximab therapy and every 4-6 months after each cycle of rituximab treatment.

Patients with any RMD being treated with at least one cycle of rituximab were eligible for inclusion in the retrospective study, with the majority (72%) taking it for rheumatoid arthritis and some for systemic lupus erythematosus (13%) or antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (7%).

One of the main aims of the study was to look for predictors of SIEs during the first 12 months and during repeated cycles of rituximab. Dr. Md Yusof and his associates also looked at how secondary hypogammaglobulinemia might affect SIE rates and the humoral response to vaccination challenge and its persistence following treatment discontinuation. Their ultimate aim was to see if these findings could then be used to develop a treatment algorithm for rituximab administration in RMDs.

Over a follow-up period encompassing 2,880 patient-years of treatment, 281 SIEs were recorded in 176 patients, giving a rate of 9.8 infections per 100 patient-years. Most (61%) of these were due to lower respiratory tract infections.

The proportion of patients experiencing their first SIE increased with time: 16% within 6 weeks of starting rituximab therapy, 35% at 12 weeks, 72% at 26 weeks, 83% at 38 weeks, and 100% by 1 year of repeated treatment.

Multivariable analysis showed that the presence of several comorbidities at baseline – notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure, and prior cancer – raised the risk for SIEs with repeated rituximab therapy. The biggest factor, however, was a history of SIEs – with a sixfold increased risk of further serious infection.

Higher corticosteroid dose and factors specific to rituximab – low IgG, neutropenia, high IgM, and a longer time to retreatment – were also predictive of SIEs.

“Low IgG also results in poor humoral response to vaccination,” Dr. Md Yusof said, noting that the IgG level remains below the lower limit of normal for several years after rituximab is discontinued in most patients.

In the study, 5 of 8 (64%) patients had impaired humoral response to pneumococcal and haemophilus following vaccination challenge and 4 of 11 patients had IgG normalized after switching to another biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD).

Cyclophosphamide is commonly used as a first-line agent to induce remission in patients with severe and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus and ANCA-associated vasculitis, with patients switched to rituximab at relapse. The effect of this prior treatment was examined in 20 patients in the study, with a marked decline in almost all immunoglobulin classes seen up to 18 months. Prior treatment with immunosuppressants such as intravenous cyclophosphamide could be behind progressive reductions in Ig levels seen with repeated rituximab treatment rather than entirely because of rituximab, Dr. Md Yusof said.

Dr. Md Yusof, who is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Leeds, said the value of the study, compared with others, is that hospital data for all patients treated with rituximab with at least 3 months follow-up were included, making it an almost complete data set.

“By carefully reviewing records of every patient to capture all infection episodes in the largest single-center cohort study to date, our findings provide insights on predictors of SIEs as well as a foundation for safety monitoring of rituximab,” he and his coauthors wrote.

They acknowledge reporting a higher rate of SIEs than seen in registry and clinical studies with rituximab, which may reflect a “channeling bias” as the patients comprised those with multiple comorbidities including those that represent a relative contraindication for bDMARD use. That said, the findings clearly show that Ig levels should be monitored before and after each rituximab cycle, especially in those with comorbid diseases and those with low IgG levels to start with.

They conclude that an “individualized benefit-risk assessment” is needed to determine whether rituximab should be repeated in those with low IgG as this is a “consistent predictor” of SIE and may “increase infection profiles when [rituximab] is switched to different bDMARDs.”

The research was supported by Octapharma, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre based at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest. Several coauthors disclosed financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.

SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 May 27. doi: 10.1002/art.40937.

Monitoring immunoglobulin (Ig) levels at baseline and before each cycle of rituximab could reduce the risk of serious infection events (SIEs) in patients needing repeated treatment, according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In a large, single-center, longitudinal study conducted at a tertiary referral center, having low IgG (less than 6 g/L) in particular was associated with a higher rate of SIEs, compared with having normal IgG levels (6-16 g/L). Considering 103 of 700 patients who had low levels of IgG before starting treatment with rituximab for various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), there were 16.4 SIEs per 100 patient-years. In those who developed low IgG during subsequent cycles of rituximab therapy, the SIE rate was even higher, at 21.3 per 100 patient-years. By comparison, the SIE rate for those with normal IgG levels was 9.7 per 100 patient-years.

“We really have to monitor immunoglobulins at baseline and also before we re-treat the patients, because higher IgG level is protective of serious infections,” study first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview.

Low IgG has been linked to a higher risk of SIEs in the first 12 months of rituximab therapy but, until now, there have been limited data on infection predictors during repeated cycles of treatment. While IgG is a consistent marker of SIEs associated with repeated rituximab treatment, IgM and IgA should also be monitored to give a full picture of any hyperglobulinemia that may be present.

“There is no formal guidance on how to safely monitor patients on rituximab,” observed Dr. Md Yusof, who will present these data at the 2019 European Congress of Rheumatology in Madrid. The study’s findings could help to change that, however, as they offer a practical way to help predict and thus prevent SIEs. The study’s findings not only validate previous work, he noted, but also add new insights into why some patients treated with repeat rituximab cycles but not others may experience a higher rate of such infections.

Altogether, the investigators examined data on 700 patients with RMDs treated with rituximab who were consecutively seen during 2012-2017 at Dr. Md Yusof’s institution – the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, which is part of the University of Leeds. Their immunoglobulin levels had been measured before starting rituximab therapy and every 4-6 months after each cycle of rituximab treatment.

Patients with any RMD being treated with at least one cycle of rituximab were eligible for inclusion in the retrospective study, with the majority (72%) taking it for rheumatoid arthritis and some for systemic lupus erythematosus (13%) or antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (7%).

One of the main aims of the study was to look for predictors of SIEs during the first 12 months and during repeated cycles of rituximab. Dr. Md Yusof and his associates also looked at how secondary hypogammaglobulinemia might affect SIE rates and the humoral response to vaccination challenge and its persistence following treatment discontinuation. Their ultimate aim was to see if these findings could then be used to develop a treatment algorithm for rituximab administration in RMDs.

Over a follow-up period encompassing 2,880 patient-years of treatment, 281 SIEs were recorded in 176 patients, giving a rate of 9.8 infections per 100 patient-years. Most (61%) of these were due to lower respiratory tract infections.

The proportion of patients experiencing their first SIE increased with time: 16% within 6 weeks of starting rituximab therapy, 35% at 12 weeks, 72% at 26 weeks, 83% at 38 weeks, and 100% by 1 year of repeated treatment.

Multivariable analysis showed that the presence of several comorbidities at baseline – notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure, and prior cancer – raised the risk for SIEs with repeated rituximab therapy. The biggest factor, however, was a history of SIEs – with a sixfold increased risk of further serious infection.

Higher corticosteroid dose and factors specific to rituximab – low IgG, neutropenia, high IgM, and a longer time to retreatment – were also predictive of SIEs.

“Low IgG also results in poor humoral response to vaccination,” Dr. Md Yusof said, noting that the IgG level remains below the lower limit of normal for several years after rituximab is discontinued in most patients.

In the study, 5 of 8 (64%) patients had impaired humoral response to pneumococcal and haemophilus following vaccination challenge and 4 of 11 patients had IgG normalized after switching to another biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD).

Cyclophosphamide is commonly used as a first-line agent to induce remission in patients with severe and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus and ANCA-associated vasculitis, with patients switched to rituximab at relapse. The effect of this prior treatment was examined in 20 patients in the study, with a marked decline in almost all immunoglobulin classes seen up to 18 months. Prior treatment with immunosuppressants such as intravenous cyclophosphamide could be behind progressive reductions in Ig levels seen with repeated rituximab treatment rather than entirely because of rituximab, Dr. Md Yusof said.

Dr. Md Yusof, who is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Leeds, said the value of the study, compared with others, is that hospital data for all patients treated with rituximab with at least 3 months follow-up were included, making it an almost complete data set.

“By carefully reviewing records of every patient to capture all infection episodes in the largest single-center cohort study to date, our findings provide insights on predictors of SIEs as well as a foundation for safety monitoring of rituximab,” he and his coauthors wrote.

They acknowledge reporting a higher rate of SIEs than seen in registry and clinical studies with rituximab, which may reflect a “channeling bias” as the patients comprised those with multiple comorbidities including those that represent a relative contraindication for bDMARD use. That said, the findings clearly show that Ig levels should be monitored before and after each rituximab cycle, especially in those with comorbid diseases and those with low IgG levels to start with.

They conclude that an “individualized benefit-risk assessment” is needed to determine whether rituximab should be repeated in those with low IgG as this is a “consistent predictor” of SIE and may “increase infection profiles when [rituximab] is switched to different bDMARDs.”

The research was supported by Octapharma, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre based at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest. Several coauthors disclosed financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.

SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 May 27. doi: 10.1002/art.40937.

Monitoring immunoglobulin (Ig) levels at baseline and before each cycle of rituximab could reduce the risk of serious infection events (SIEs) in patients needing repeated treatment, according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In a large, single-center, longitudinal study conducted at a tertiary referral center, having low IgG (less than 6 g/L) in particular was associated with a higher rate of SIEs, compared with having normal IgG levels (6-16 g/L). Considering 103 of 700 patients who had low levels of IgG before starting treatment with rituximab for various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), there were 16.4 SIEs per 100 patient-years. In those who developed low IgG during subsequent cycles of rituximab therapy, the SIE rate was even higher, at 21.3 per 100 patient-years. By comparison, the SIE rate for those with normal IgG levels was 9.7 per 100 patient-years.

“We really have to monitor immunoglobulins at baseline and also before we re-treat the patients, because higher IgG level is protective of serious infections,” study first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview.

Low IgG has been linked to a higher risk of SIEs in the first 12 months of rituximab therapy but, until now, there have been limited data on infection predictors during repeated cycles of treatment. While IgG is a consistent marker of SIEs associated with repeated rituximab treatment, IgM and IgA should also be monitored to give a full picture of any hyperglobulinemia that may be present.

“There is no formal guidance on how to safely monitor patients on rituximab,” observed Dr. Md Yusof, who will present these data at the 2019 European Congress of Rheumatology in Madrid. The study’s findings could help to change that, however, as they offer a practical way to help predict and thus prevent SIEs. The study’s findings not only validate previous work, he noted, but also add new insights into why some patients treated with repeat rituximab cycles but not others may experience a higher rate of such infections.

Altogether, the investigators examined data on 700 patients with RMDs treated with rituximab who were consecutively seen during 2012-2017 at Dr. Md Yusof’s institution – the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, which is part of the University of Leeds. Their immunoglobulin levels had been measured before starting rituximab therapy and every 4-6 months after each cycle of rituximab treatment.

Patients with any RMD being treated with at least one cycle of rituximab were eligible for inclusion in the retrospective study, with the majority (72%) taking it for rheumatoid arthritis and some for systemic lupus erythematosus (13%) or antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (7%).

One of the main aims of the study was to look for predictors of SIEs during the first 12 months and during repeated cycles of rituximab. Dr. Md Yusof and his associates also looked at how secondary hypogammaglobulinemia might affect SIE rates and the humoral response to vaccination challenge and its persistence following treatment discontinuation. Their ultimate aim was to see if these findings could then be used to develop a treatment algorithm for rituximab administration in RMDs.

Over a follow-up period encompassing 2,880 patient-years of treatment, 281 SIEs were recorded in 176 patients, giving a rate of 9.8 infections per 100 patient-years. Most (61%) of these were due to lower respiratory tract infections.

The proportion of patients experiencing their first SIE increased with time: 16% within 6 weeks of starting rituximab therapy, 35% at 12 weeks, 72% at 26 weeks, 83% at 38 weeks, and 100% by 1 year of repeated treatment.

Multivariable analysis showed that the presence of several comorbidities at baseline – notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure, and prior cancer – raised the risk for SIEs with repeated rituximab therapy. The biggest factor, however, was a history of SIEs – with a sixfold increased risk of further serious infection.

Higher corticosteroid dose and factors specific to rituximab – low IgG, neutropenia, high IgM, and a longer time to retreatment – were also predictive of SIEs.

“Low IgG also results in poor humoral response to vaccination,” Dr. Md Yusof said, noting that the IgG level remains below the lower limit of normal for several years after rituximab is discontinued in most patients.

In the study, 5 of 8 (64%) patients had impaired humoral response to pneumococcal and haemophilus following vaccination challenge and 4 of 11 patients had IgG normalized after switching to another biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD).

Cyclophosphamide is commonly used as a first-line agent to induce remission in patients with severe and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus and ANCA-associated vasculitis, with patients switched to rituximab at relapse. The effect of this prior treatment was examined in 20 patients in the study, with a marked decline in almost all immunoglobulin classes seen up to 18 months. Prior treatment with immunosuppressants such as intravenous cyclophosphamide could be behind progressive reductions in Ig levels seen with repeated rituximab treatment rather than entirely because of rituximab, Dr. Md Yusof said.

Dr. Md Yusof, who is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Leeds, said the value of the study, compared with others, is that hospital data for all patients treated with rituximab with at least 3 months follow-up were included, making it an almost complete data set.

“By carefully reviewing records of every patient to capture all infection episodes in the largest single-center cohort study to date, our findings provide insights on predictors of SIEs as well as a foundation for safety monitoring of rituximab,” he and his coauthors wrote.

They acknowledge reporting a higher rate of SIEs than seen in registry and clinical studies with rituximab, which may reflect a “channeling bias” as the patients comprised those with multiple comorbidities including those that represent a relative contraindication for bDMARD use. That said, the findings clearly show that Ig levels should be monitored before and after each rituximab cycle, especially in those with comorbid diseases and those with low IgG levels to start with.

They conclude that an “individualized benefit-risk assessment” is needed to determine whether rituximab should be repeated in those with low IgG as this is a “consistent predictor” of SIE and may “increase infection profiles when [rituximab] is switched to different bDMARDs.”

The research was supported by Octapharma, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre based at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest. Several coauthors disclosed financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Roche.

SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 May 27. doi: 10.1002/art.40937.

I first heard the term “discharge before noon” (DCBN) as a third-year medical student starting my internal medicine rotation. The basic idea made sense: Get patients out of the hospital early so rooms can be cleaned more quickly and new patients wouldn’t have to wait so long in the ED.

It quickly became apparent, however, that a lot of moving parts had to align perfectly for DCBN. Even if we prioritized rounding on dischargeable patients (starting 8-9 a.m. depending on the service/day), they still needed prescriptions filled, normal clothes to wear, and a way to get home, which wasn’t easy to coordinate while we were still trying to see all the other patients.

Fast forward through 5 years of residency/fellowship experience and DCBN seems even more unrealistic in hospitalized pediatric patients. As a simple example, discharge criteria for dehydration (one of the most common reasons for pediatric hospitalization) include demonstrating the ability to drink enough liquids to stay hydrated. Who’s going to force children to stay up all night sipping fluids (plus changing all those diapers or taking them to the bathroom)? If the child stays on intravenous fluids overnight, we have to monitor at least through breakfast, likely lunch, thus making DCBN nearly impossible.

In a January 2019 article in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Hailey James, MHA, (@Haileyjms on Twitter) and her colleagues demonstrated an association between DCBN and decreased length of stay (LOS) for medical but not surgical pediatric discharges.¹ This made them question if DCBN is an appropriate metric for discharge efficiency, as well as workflow differences between services. Many hospitals, however, still try to push DCBN as a goal (see Destino et al in the same January 2019 issue of JHM²), which could potentially lead to people trying to game the system.

How does your institution try to make discharge processes more efficient? Is it actually possible to do everything more quickly without sacrificing quality or trainee education? Whether your patients are kids, adults, or both, there are likely many issues in common where we could all learn from each other.

We discussed this topic in #JHMChat on April 15 on Twitter. New to Twitter or not familiar with #JHMChat? Since October 2015, JHM has reviewed and discussed dozens of articles spanning a wide variety of topics related to caring for hospitalized patients. All are welcome to join, including medical students, residents, nurses, practicing hospitalists, and more. It’s a great opportunity to virtually meet and learn from others while earning free CME.

To participate in future chats, type #JHMChat in the search box on the top right corner of your Twitter homepage, click on the “Latest” tab at the top left to see the most recent tweets, and join the conversation (don’t forget the hashtag)!
 

Dr. Chen is a pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego. She is one of the cofounders/moderators of #PHMFellowJC, serves as a fellow district representative for the American Academy of Pediatrics, and is an active #tweetiatrician at @DrJenChen4kids. This article appeared originally in SHM's official blog The Hospital Leader. Read more recent posts here.

References

1. James HJ et al. The Association of Discharge Before Noon and Length of Stay in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(1):28-32. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3111.

2. Destino L et al. Improving Patient Flow: Analysis of an Initiative to Improve Early Discharge. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(1):22-7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3133.

I first heard the term “discharge before noon” (DCBN) as a third-year medical student starting my internal medicine rotation. The basic idea made sense: Get patients out of the hospital early so rooms can be cleaned more quickly and new patients wouldn’t have to wait so long in the ED.

It quickly became apparent, however, that a lot of moving parts had to align perfectly for DCBN. Even if we prioritized rounding on dischargeable patients (starting 8-9 a.m. depending on the service/day), they still needed prescriptions filled, normal clothes to wear, and a way to get home, which wasn’t easy to coordinate while we were still trying to see all the other patients.

Fast forward through 5 years of residency/fellowship experience and DCBN seems even more unrealistic in hospitalized pediatric patients. As a simple example, discharge criteria for dehydration (one of the most common reasons for pediatric hospitalization) include demonstrating the ability to drink enough liquids to stay hydrated. Who’s going to force children to stay up all night sipping fluids (plus changing all those diapers or taking them to the bathroom)? If the child stays on intravenous fluids overnight, we have to monitor at least through breakfast, likely lunch, thus making DCBN nearly impossible.

In a January 2019 article in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Hailey James, MHA, (@Haileyjms on Twitter) and her colleagues demonstrated an association between DCBN and decreased length of stay (LOS) for medical but not surgical pediatric discharges.¹ This made them question if DCBN is an appropriate metric for discharge efficiency, as well as workflow differences between services. Many hospitals, however, still try to push DCBN as a goal (see Destino et al in the same January 2019 issue of JHM²), which could potentially lead to people trying to game the system.

How does your institution try to make discharge processes more efficient? Is it actually possible to do everything more quickly without sacrificing quality or trainee education? Whether your patients are kids, adults, or both, there are likely many issues in common where we could all learn from each other.

We discussed this topic in #JHMChat on April 15 on Twitter. New to Twitter or not familiar with #JHMChat? Since October 2015, JHM has reviewed and discussed dozens of articles spanning a wide variety of topics related to caring for hospitalized patients. All are welcome to join, including medical students, residents, nurses, practicing hospitalists, and more. It’s a great opportunity to virtually meet and learn from others while earning free CME.

To participate in future chats, type #JHMChat in the search box on the top right corner of your Twitter homepage, click on the “Latest” tab at the top left to see the most recent tweets, and join the conversation (don’t forget the hashtag)!
 

Dr. Chen is a pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego. She is one of the cofounders/moderators of #PHMFellowJC, serves as a fellow district representative for the American Academy of Pediatrics, and is an active #tweetiatrician at @DrJenChen4kids. This article appeared originally in SHM's official blog The Hospital Leader. Read more recent posts here.

References

1. James HJ et al. The Association of Discharge Before Noon and Length of Stay in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(1):28-32. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3111.

2. Destino L et al. Improving Patient Flow: Analysis of an Initiative to Improve Early Discharge. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(1):22-7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3133.

I first heard the term “discharge before noon” (DCBN) as a third-year medical student starting my internal medicine rotation. The basic idea made sense: Get patients out of the hospital early so rooms can be cleaned more quickly and new patients wouldn’t have to wait so long in the ED.

It quickly became apparent, however, that a lot of moving parts had to align perfectly for DCBN. Even if we prioritized rounding on dischargeable patients (starting 8-9 a.m. depending on the service/day), they still needed prescriptions filled, normal clothes to wear, and a way to get home, which wasn’t easy to coordinate while we were still trying to see all the other patients.

Fast forward through 5 years of residency/fellowship experience and DCBN seems even more unrealistic in hospitalized pediatric patients. As a simple example, discharge criteria for dehydration (one of the most common reasons for pediatric hospitalization) include demonstrating the ability to drink enough liquids to stay hydrated. Who’s going to force children to stay up all night sipping fluids (plus changing all those diapers or taking them to the bathroom)? If the child stays on intravenous fluids overnight, we have to monitor at least through breakfast, likely lunch, thus making DCBN nearly impossible.

In a January 2019 article in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Hailey James, MHA, (@Haileyjms on Twitter) and her colleagues demonstrated an association between DCBN and decreased length of stay (LOS) for medical but not surgical pediatric discharges.¹ This made them question if DCBN is an appropriate metric for discharge efficiency, as well as workflow differences between services. Many hospitals, however, still try to push DCBN as a goal (see Destino et al in the same January 2019 issue of JHM²), which could potentially lead to people trying to game the system.

How does your institution try to make discharge processes more efficient? Is it actually possible to do everything more quickly without sacrificing quality or trainee education? Whether your patients are kids, adults, or both, there are likely many issues in common where we could all learn from each other.

We discussed this topic in #JHMChat on April 15 on Twitter. New to Twitter or not familiar with #JHMChat? Since October 2015, JHM has reviewed and discussed dozens of articles spanning a wide variety of topics related to caring for hospitalized patients. All are welcome to join, including medical students, residents, nurses, practicing hospitalists, and more. It’s a great opportunity to virtually meet and learn from others while earning free CME.

To participate in future chats, type #JHMChat in the search box on the top right corner of your Twitter homepage, click on the “Latest” tab at the top left to see the most recent tweets, and join the conversation (don’t forget the hashtag)!
 

Dr. Chen is a pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego. She is one of the cofounders/moderators of #PHMFellowJC, serves as a fellow district representative for the American Academy of Pediatrics, and is an active #tweetiatrician at @DrJenChen4kids. This article appeared originally in SHM's official blog The Hospital Leader. Read more recent posts here.

References

1. James HJ et al. The Association of Discharge Before Noon and Length of Stay in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(1):28-32. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3111.

2. Destino L et al. Improving Patient Flow: Analysis of an Initiative to Improve Early Discharge. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(1):22-7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3133.

Using daily aspirin treatment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains an individualized decision that needs to balance a person’s risks for ischemic events and bleeding, according to results from a new systematic review of 15 randomized, aspirin-prevention trials, including results from 3 major trials that researchers reported during 2018.

“The findings suggest that the decision to use aspirin for primary prevention should be tailored to the individual patients based on estimated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk and perceived bleeding risk, as well as patient preferences regarding the types of event prevented versus potential bleeding caused,” Jawahar L. Mehta, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published on June 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors also concluded that if a person decides to use aspirin for primary prevention, then a low dose of 100 mg/day or less is recommended.


This new systematic review follows two reviews published earlier in 2019 that reached roughly similar conclusions after analyzing largely the same randomized trial data, including the same three major trials from 2018. One of these prior reviews included data from 13 trials and a total of 164,225 people (JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321[3]:277-87). The second review had data from 11 trials with 157,248 people (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 14;40[7]:607-17). The newly published review used data collected by 15 trials from 165,502 people.

The three 2018 trials that triggered the updated data assessments were the ARRIVE trial, with 12,546 people randomized (Lancet. 2018 Sep 22;392[10152]:1036-46), the ASPREE trial, with 19,114 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1509-18), and the ASCEND trial, with 15,480 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1529-39).

As stated in the new report from Dr. Mehta, a professor of medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and his associates, the recent trial results from 2018 added new data from more than 45,000 additional subjects, a development that warranted a reappraisal of the evidence for aspirin’s efficacy and safety for primary prevention in contemporary practice.

The major findings from the analysis by Dr. Mehta and his associates were that in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease, daily aspirin use reduced the incidence of MIs, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 357; reduced ischemic stroke (NNT, 500), reduced transient ischemic attack (NNT, 370), and reduced the overall, combined rate of all major adverse cardiovascular events (NNT, 263). But on the safety side, daily aspirin led to an increased rate of major bleeding episodes, with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 222, increased intracranial bleeds (NNH, 1,000), and an increase in gastrointestinal bleeds (NNH, 385).

The analysis “demonstrates a potential reduction of net benefit with aspirin in the contemporary era,” the authors concluded. They also noted that the benefits from aspirin prevention were, as expected, “more pronounced” among people with a higher estimated risk from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The systematic review findings came against the backdrop of a recently released primary prevention guideline from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (J Am Coll Card. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010). The guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention “might be considered” for adults aged 40-70 years, but should not be used for people who are older than 70, and also should not be given to people with an increased risk for bleeding. In general, the experts who produced this guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis should be infrequent.

The new analysis also found no reduction in the incidence of cancer or cancer-related death linked with aspirin use for primary prevention. The systematic review published earlier in 2019 in JAMA also found no link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality. The review from the European Heart Journal did not report on the link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality.

Dr. Mehta has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medimmune, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Abdelaziz HK et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.501.




 

Using daily aspirin treatment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains an individualized decision that needs to balance a person’s risks for ischemic events and bleeding, according to results from a new systematic review of 15 randomized, aspirin-prevention trials, including results from 3 major trials that researchers reported during 2018.

“The findings suggest that the decision to use aspirin for primary prevention should be tailored to the individual patients based on estimated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk and perceived bleeding risk, as well as patient preferences regarding the types of event prevented versus potential bleeding caused,” Jawahar L. Mehta, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published on June 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors also concluded that if a person decides to use aspirin for primary prevention, then a low dose of 100 mg/day or less is recommended.


This new systematic review follows two reviews published earlier in 2019 that reached roughly similar conclusions after analyzing largely the same randomized trial data, including the same three major trials from 2018. One of these prior reviews included data from 13 trials and a total of 164,225 people (JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321[3]:277-87). The second review had data from 11 trials with 157,248 people (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 14;40[7]:607-17). The newly published review used data collected by 15 trials from 165,502 people.

The three 2018 trials that triggered the updated data assessments were the ARRIVE trial, with 12,546 people randomized (Lancet. 2018 Sep 22;392[10152]:1036-46), the ASPREE trial, with 19,114 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1509-18), and the ASCEND trial, with 15,480 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1529-39).

As stated in the new report from Dr. Mehta, a professor of medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and his associates, the recent trial results from 2018 added new data from more than 45,000 additional subjects, a development that warranted a reappraisal of the evidence for aspirin’s efficacy and safety for primary prevention in contemporary practice.

The major findings from the analysis by Dr. Mehta and his associates were that in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease, daily aspirin use reduced the incidence of MIs, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 357; reduced ischemic stroke (NNT, 500), reduced transient ischemic attack (NNT, 370), and reduced the overall, combined rate of all major adverse cardiovascular events (NNT, 263). But on the safety side, daily aspirin led to an increased rate of major bleeding episodes, with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 222, increased intracranial bleeds (NNH, 1,000), and an increase in gastrointestinal bleeds (NNH, 385).

The analysis “demonstrates a potential reduction of net benefit with aspirin in the contemporary era,” the authors concluded. They also noted that the benefits from aspirin prevention were, as expected, “more pronounced” among people with a higher estimated risk from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The systematic review findings came against the backdrop of a recently released primary prevention guideline from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (J Am Coll Card. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010). The guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention “might be considered” for adults aged 40-70 years, but should not be used for people who are older than 70, and also should not be given to people with an increased risk for bleeding. In general, the experts who produced this guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis should be infrequent.

The new analysis also found no reduction in the incidence of cancer or cancer-related death linked with aspirin use for primary prevention. The systematic review published earlier in 2019 in JAMA also found no link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality. The review from the European Heart Journal did not report on the link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality.

Dr. Mehta has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medimmune, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Abdelaziz HK et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.501.




 

Using daily aspirin treatment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains an individualized decision that needs to balance a person’s risks for ischemic events and bleeding, according to results from a new systematic review of 15 randomized, aspirin-prevention trials, including results from 3 major trials that researchers reported during 2018.

“The findings suggest that the decision to use aspirin for primary prevention should be tailored to the individual patients based on estimated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk and perceived bleeding risk, as well as patient preferences regarding the types of event prevented versus potential bleeding caused,” Jawahar L. Mehta, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published on June 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors also concluded that if a person decides to use aspirin for primary prevention, then a low dose of 100 mg/day or less is recommended.


This new systematic review follows two reviews published earlier in 2019 that reached roughly similar conclusions after analyzing largely the same randomized trial data, including the same three major trials from 2018. One of these prior reviews included data from 13 trials and a total of 164,225 people (JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321[3]:277-87). The second review had data from 11 trials with 157,248 people (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 14;40[7]:607-17). The newly published review used data collected by 15 trials from 165,502 people.

The three 2018 trials that triggered the updated data assessments were the ARRIVE trial, with 12,546 people randomized (Lancet. 2018 Sep 22;392[10152]:1036-46), the ASPREE trial, with 19,114 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1509-18), and the ASCEND trial, with 15,480 people randomized (New Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1529-39).

As stated in the new report from Dr. Mehta, a professor of medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and his associates, the recent trial results from 2018 added new data from more than 45,000 additional subjects, a development that warranted a reappraisal of the evidence for aspirin’s efficacy and safety for primary prevention in contemporary practice.

The major findings from the analysis by Dr. Mehta and his associates were that in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease, daily aspirin use reduced the incidence of MIs, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 357; reduced ischemic stroke (NNT, 500), reduced transient ischemic attack (NNT, 370), and reduced the overall, combined rate of all major adverse cardiovascular events (NNT, 263). But on the safety side, daily aspirin led to an increased rate of major bleeding episodes, with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 222, increased intracranial bleeds (NNH, 1,000), and an increase in gastrointestinal bleeds (NNH, 385).

The analysis “demonstrates a potential reduction of net benefit with aspirin in the contemporary era,” the authors concluded. They also noted that the benefits from aspirin prevention were, as expected, “more pronounced” among people with a higher estimated risk from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The systematic review findings came against the backdrop of a recently released primary prevention guideline from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (J Am Coll Card. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010). The guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis for primary prevention “might be considered” for adults aged 40-70 years, but should not be used for people who are older than 70, and also should not be given to people with an increased risk for bleeding. In general, the experts who produced this guideline said that aspirin prophylaxis should be infrequent.

The new analysis also found no reduction in the incidence of cancer or cancer-related death linked with aspirin use for primary prevention. The systematic review published earlier in 2019 in JAMA also found no link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality. The review from the European Heart Journal did not report on the link between aspirin use and cancer incidence or mortality.

Dr. Mehta has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medimmune, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Abdelaziz HK et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.501.




 

Calling it a landmark initiative, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has launched its “new and improved” Veterans Community Care Program, implementing portions of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (MISSION Act). The initiative both ends the Veterans Choice Program, which expired June 6, and establishes a new Veterans Community Care Program. Senior VA leaders will visit > 30 VA hospitals across the country to support the rollout.

The MISSION Act is intended to provide veterans with more health care options. It also strengthens the VA’s ability to recruit and retain clinicians, authorizes “Anywhere to Anywhere” telehealth across state lines, gives veterans better access to community care, and establishes a new urgent care benefit.

 “The changes not only improve our ability to provide the health care veterans need, but also when and where they need it,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “It will also put veterans at the center of their care and offer options, including expanded telehealth and urgent care, so they can find the balance in the system that is right for them.”

Eligibility for community care does not require veterans to receive that care in the community; they can still choose to have VA care. A veteran may elect to receive care in the community if he or she:

• needs a service not available at any VA medical facility;
• lives in a US state or territory without a full-service VA medical facility (applies to veterans living in Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin Islands);
• qualifies under the “grandfather” provision related to distance eligibility under the Veterans Choice Program; and/or
• meets specific access standards for average drive time or appointment wait times.

The veteran also is eligible if he or she and the referring clinician agree that it is in the best medical interest of the veteran to receive community care based on defined factors, or if the VA has determined that a VA medical service line is not providing care in a manner that complies with VA’s standards for quality based on specific conditions.

In addition to the new eligibility rules, the VA says it has made a variety of improvements that will “make community care work better for veterans.”

One is that existing programs will be combined into a single community care program, to reduce complexity and the “likelihood of errors and problems.” The VA also is streamlining internal processes and modernizing IT systems, aiming to “speed up all aspects of community care—eligibility, authorizations, appointments, care coordination, claims, payments—while improving overall communication between veterans, community providers, and VA staff members.”

 The VA has announced, as well, that 2 final regulations of the Veterans Community Care Program have been published in the Federal Register. One concerns the new urgent care benefit that provides eligible veterans with greater choice and access to timely, high-quality care for minor injuries and illnesses. The second regulation governs how eligible veterans receive necessary hospital care, medical services, and extended-care services from non-VA entities or providers in the community.

The VA will purchase most community care for veterans through its contracted network with third-party administrators (currently TriWest Healthcare Alliance and Optum Public). When the new Community Care Network of community providers is implemented, VA staff will work directly with veterans to schedule appointments and support care coordination.

A complete rollout of all 6 regions of the Community Care Network is expected by 2020. More detailed information is available at www.missionact.va.gov.

Calling it a landmark initiative, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has launched its “new and improved” Veterans Community Care Program, implementing portions of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (MISSION Act). The initiative both ends the Veterans Choice Program, which expired June 6, and establishes a new Veterans Community Care Program. Senior VA leaders will visit > 30 VA hospitals across the country to support the rollout.

The MISSION Act is intended to provide veterans with more health care options. It also strengthens the VA’s ability to recruit and retain clinicians, authorizes “Anywhere to Anywhere” telehealth across state lines, gives veterans better access to community care, and establishes a new urgent care benefit.

 “The changes not only improve our ability to provide the health care veterans need, but also when and where they need it,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “It will also put veterans at the center of their care and offer options, including expanded telehealth and urgent care, so they can find the balance in the system that is right for them.”

Eligibility for community care does not require veterans to receive that care in the community; they can still choose to have VA care. A veteran may elect to receive care in the community if he or she:

• needs a service not available at any VA medical facility;
• lives in a US state or territory without a full-service VA medical facility (applies to veterans living in Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin Islands);
• qualifies under the “grandfather” provision related to distance eligibility under the Veterans Choice Program; and/or
• meets specific access standards for average drive time or appointment wait times.

The veteran also is eligible if he or she and the referring clinician agree that it is in the best medical interest of the veteran to receive community care based on defined factors, or if the VA has determined that a VA medical service line is not providing care in a manner that complies with VA’s standards for quality based on specific conditions.

In addition to the new eligibility rules, the VA says it has made a variety of improvements that will “make community care work better for veterans.”

One is that existing programs will be combined into a single community care program, to reduce complexity and the “likelihood of errors and problems.” The VA also is streamlining internal processes and modernizing IT systems, aiming to “speed up all aspects of community care—eligibility, authorizations, appointments, care coordination, claims, payments—while improving overall communication between veterans, community providers, and VA staff members.”

 The VA has announced, as well, that 2 final regulations of the Veterans Community Care Program have been published in the Federal Register. One concerns the new urgent care benefit that provides eligible veterans with greater choice and access to timely, high-quality care for minor injuries and illnesses. The second regulation governs how eligible veterans receive necessary hospital care, medical services, and extended-care services from non-VA entities or providers in the community.

The VA will purchase most community care for veterans through its contracted network with third-party administrators (currently TriWest Healthcare Alliance and Optum Public). When the new Community Care Network of community providers is implemented, VA staff will work directly with veterans to schedule appointments and support care coordination.

A complete rollout of all 6 regions of the Community Care Network is expected by 2020. More detailed information is available at www.missionact.va.gov.

Calling it a landmark initiative, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has launched its “new and improved” Veterans Community Care Program, implementing portions of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (MISSION Act). The initiative both ends the Veterans Choice Program, which expired June 6, and establishes a new Veterans Community Care Program. Senior VA leaders will visit > 30 VA hospitals across the country to support the rollout.

The MISSION Act is intended to provide veterans with more health care options. It also strengthens the VA’s ability to recruit and retain clinicians, authorizes “Anywhere to Anywhere” telehealth across state lines, gives veterans better access to community care, and establishes a new urgent care benefit.

 “The changes not only improve our ability to provide the health care veterans need, but also when and where they need it,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “It will also put veterans at the center of their care and offer options, including expanded telehealth and urgent care, so they can find the balance in the system that is right for them.”

Eligibility for community care does not require veterans to receive that care in the community; they can still choose to have VA care. A veteran may elect to receive care in the community if he or she:

• needs a service not available at any VA medical facility;
• lives in a US state or territory without a full-service VA medical facility (applies to veterans living in Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin Islands);
• qualifies under the “grandfather” provision related to distance eligibility under the Veterans Choice Program; and/or
• meets specific access standards for average drive time or appointment wait times.

The veteran also is eligible if he or she and the referring clinician agree that it is in the best medical interest of the veteran to receive community care based on defined factors, or if the VA has determined that a VA medical service line is not providing care in a manner that complies with VA’s standards for quality based on specific conditions.

In addition to the new eligibility rules, the VA says it has made a variety of improvements that will “make community care work better for veterans.”

One is that existing programs will be combined into a single community care program, to reduce complexity and the “likelihood of errors and problems.” The VA also is streamlining internal processes and modernizing IT systems, aiming to “speed up all aspects of community care—eligibility, authorizations, appointments, care coordination, claims, payments—while improving overall communication between veterans, community providers, and VA staff members.”

 The VA has announced, as well, that 2 final regulations of the Veterans Community Care Program have been published in the Federal Register. One concerns the new urgent care benefit that provides eligible veterans with greater choice and access to timely, high-quality care for minor injuries and illnesses. The second regulation governs how eligible veterans receive necessary hospital care, medical services, and extended-care services from non-VA entities or providers in the community.

The VA will purchase most community care for veterans through its contracted network with third-party administrators (currently TriWest Healthcare Alliance and Optum Public). When the new Community Care Network of community providers is implemented, VA staff will work directly with veterans to schedule appointments and support care coordination.

A complete rollout of all 6 regions of the Community Care Network is expected by 2020. More detailed information is available at www.missionact.va.gov.

Graphic by National Suicide Prevention Lifeline

Many physicians work long hours and may ignore the fatigue and emotional toll that comes with those pressures. The stress cannot only lead to crippling depression but also to declined mental health and even thoughts of suicide.

Each year, an estimated 400 physicians take their own lives, mostly because of depression and stress, according to the West Journal of Emergency Medicine.

MDedge Internal Medicine recently hosted a Twitter conversation (#MDedgeChats) on how the health care community can address this emerging crisis and help their colleagues understand that they are not alone. Two primary care physicians — Sarah Candler, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD — led the conversation­­­, with guests Michael Rose, MD, Arghavan Salles, MD, Richard M. Wardrop III, MD, Jessica Gold, MD, and Janae Sharp.

Throughout the conversation, physicians encouraged other medical professionals to seek help if it is needed. “If you don’t feel comfortable sharing with your team, feel free to share with folks you met here,” Dr. Candler wrote. “Please seek professional solace with a therapist! That’s what this is about – the support to do what you need for yourself. Good doctors take care of themselves, too.”

These issues are not just important in the medical community “because everyone will get sick, and we are failing each other. We are failing our patients and our communities when we won’t fight for change. The center will not hold here,” said Dr. Elizabeth Poorman.  

The following is an edited version of the discussion.

Question 2: "How can we end stigma against seeking mental health treatment among physicians?" is on the next page.

Question 3: "How can we prevent depression and suicide among medical students and physicians" is on the next page.

Question 4: "Which institutions or programs are exemplars in providing resources to improve mental health?" is on the next page.

Question 5: "What organizational and political changes are likely to reduce physician suicides?" is on the next page.

Graphic by National Suicide Prevention Lifeline

Many physicians work long hours and may ignore the fatigue and emotional toll that comes with those pressures. The stress cannot only lead to crippling depression but also to declined mental health and even thoughts of suicide.

Each year, an estimated 400 physicians take their own lives, mostly because of depression and stress, according to the West Journal of Emergency Medicine.

MDedge Internal Medicine recently hosted a Twitter conversation (#MDedgeChats) on how the health care community can address this emerging crisis and help their colleagues understand that they are not alone. Two primary care physicians — Sarah Candler, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD — led the conversation­­­, with guests Michael Rose, MD, Arghavan Salles, MD, Richard M. Wardrop III, MD, Jessica Gold, MD, and Janae Sharp.

Throughout the conversation, physicians encouraged other medical professionals to seek help if it is needed. “If you don’t feel comfortable sharing with your team, feel free to share with folks you met here,” Dr. Candler wrote. “Please seek professional solace with a therapist! That’s what this is about – the support to do what you need for yourself. Good doctors take care of themselves, too.”

These issues are not just important in the medical community “because everyone will get sick, and we are failing each other. We are failing our patients and our communities when we won’t fight for change. The center will not hold here,” said Dr. Elizabeth Poorman.  

The following is an edited version of the discussion.

Question 2: "How can we end stigma against seeking mental health treatment among physicians?" is on the next page.

Question 3: "How can we prevent depression and suicide among medical students and physicians" is on the next page.

Question 4: "Which institutions or programs are exemplars in providing resources to improve mental health?" is on the next page.

Question 5: "What organizational and political changes are likely to reduce physician suicides?" is on the next page.

Graphic by National Suicide Prevention Lifeline

Many physicians work long hours and may ignore the fatigue and emotional toll that comes with those pressures. The stress cannot only lead to crippling depression but also to declined mental health and even thoughts of suicide.

Each year, an estimated 400 physicians take their own lives, mostly because of depression and stress, according to the West Journal of Emergency Medicine.

MDedge Internal Medicine recently hosted a Twitter conversation (#MDedgeChats) on how the health care community can address this emerging crisis and help their colleagues understand that they are not alone. Two primary care physicians — Sarah Candler, MD, and Elisabeth Poorman, MD — led the conversation­­­, with guests Michael Rose, MD, Arghavan Salles, MD, Richard M. Wardrop III, MD, Jessica Gold, MD, and Janae Sharp.

Throughout the conversation, physicians encouraged other medical professionals to seek help if it is needed. “If you don’t feel comfortable sharing with your team, feel free to share with folks you met here,” Dr. Candler wrote. “Please seek professional solace with a therapist! That’s what this is about – the support to do what you need for yourself. Good doctors take care of themselves, too.”

These issues are not just important in the medical community “because everyone will get sick, and we are failing each other. We are failing our patients and our communities when we won’t fight for change. The center will not hold here,” said Dr. Elizabeth Poorman.  

The following is an edited version of the discussion.

Question 2: "How can we end stigma against seeking mental health treatment among physicians?" is on the next page.

Question 3: "How can we prevent depression and suicide among medical students and physicians" is on the next page.

Question 4: "Which institutions or programs are exemplars in providing resources to improve mental health?" is on the next page.

Question 5: "What organizational and political changes are likely to reduce physician suicides?" is on the next page.

In its inaugural year, the Excellence in Community service award will be presented this Friday at VAM during the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ Gala. This year’s winners are Drs. Richard Lynn, Carlo Dall’Olmo and Joseph Anain. These members have all exhibited outstanding leadership within their community as practicing vascular surgeons and are recognized for their sustained contributions to patients and their communities. Read more about the Excellence in Community Service award here.

In its inaugural year, the Excellence in Community service award will be presented this Friday at VAM during the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ Gala. This year’s winners are Drs. Richard Lynn, Carlo Dall’Olmo and Joseph Anain. These members have all exhibited outstanding leadership within their community as practicing vascular surgeons and are recognized for their sustained contributions to patients and their communities. Read more about the Excellence in Community Service award here.

In its inaugural year, the Excellence in Community service award will be presented this Friday at VAM during the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ Gala. This year’s winners are Drs. Richard Lynn, Carlo Dall’Olmo and Joseph Anain. These members have all exhibited outstanding leadership within their community as practicing vascular surgeons and are recognized for their sustained contributions to patients and their communities. Read more about the Excellence in Community Service award here.

Join others in placing bids on items available in the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ gala’s silent auction. Items include, but are not limited to, artwork, fine wines, travel experiences and sports memorabilia. Bidding will be open until this Friday, June 14, so be sure to bid early and often. The Gala will take place at the Vascular Annual Meeting and all proceeds benefit the work of the SVS Foundation. Sign up to participate here.

Join others in placing bids on items available in the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ gala’s silent auction. Items include, but are not limited to, artwork, fine wines, travel experiences and sports memorabilia. Bidding will be open until this Friday, June 14, so be sure to bid early and often. The Gala will take place at the Vascular Annual Meeting and all proceeds benefit the work of the SVS Foundation. Sign up to participate here.

Join others in placing bids on items available in the ‘Vascular Spectacular’ gala’s silent auction. Items include, but are not limited to, artwork, fine wines, travel experiences and sports memorabilia. Bidding will be open until this Friday, June 14, so be sure to bid early and often. The Gala will take place at the Vascular Annual Meeting and all proceeds benefit the work of the SVS Foundation. Sign up to participate here.

On May 31, new global guidelines on the best ways to treat Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia were co-published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery and the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. This comes after four years of collaboration between vascular experts from around the world. According to the SVS’ own Dr. Conte, a co-editor, the group created a unique practice guideline that reflects the spectrum of the diseases and the approaches seen worldwide. Read the guidelines in the JVS here.

On May 31, new global guidelines on the best ways to treat Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia were co-published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery and the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. This comes after four years of collaboration between vascular experts from around the world. According to the SVS’ own Dr. Conte, a co-editor, the group created a unique practice guideline that reflects the spectrum of the diseases and the approaches seen worldwide. Read the guidelines in the JVS here.

On May 31, new global guidelines on the best ways to treat Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia were co-published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery and the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. This comes after four years of collaboration between vascular experts from around the world. According to the SVS’ own Dr. Conte, a co-editor, the group created a unique practice guideline that reflects the spectrum of the diseases and the approaches seen worldwide. Read the guidelines in the JVS here.

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

Seizures induced by cortical stimulation are as effective as spontaneous seizures in identifying the epileptogenic zone, according to a study of patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy.

“This finding might lead to a more time-efficient intracranial presurgical investigation of focal epilepsy by reducing the need to record spontaneous seizures,” wrote Carolina Cuello Oderiz, MD, formerly of McGill University, and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine if cortical stimulation-induced seizures and subsequent removal of the informed seizure-onset zone (SOZ) could lead to good surgical outcomes, the researchers selected 103 patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). All participants had to have undergone cortical stimulation during SEEG, followed by open epilepsy surgical procedure with a minimum 1-year follow-up. In addition, complete brain imaging for exact localization of individual electrode contacts and resection cavity was also required.

Of the 103 patients, 59 (57.3%) had cortical stimulation-induced seizures. The percentage of these patients in the good outcome group was higher than in the poor outcome group (70.5% versus 47.5%). The median percentage of resected cortical stimulation-informed SOZ contacts was also higher in the good than in the poor outcome group (63.2% versus 33.3%). The results were similar for spontaneous seizures, where the median percentage of resected contacts of the spontaneous SOZ was 57.1% in the good outcome group and 32.7% in the poor outcome group.

The coauthors noted their study’s limitations, including the exclusion of many patients due to the need for hi-resolution neuroimaging and sufficient postsurgical imaging and follow-up. They added that the strict criteria were “key to the main outcome of this study,” however, and noted that generalizability of the data was supported by similar rates in excluded patients.

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Savoy Epilepsy Foundation. Numerous authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and other funding from organizations like the Montreal Neurological Institute and various pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Cuello Oderiz is now at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, N.Y.

SOURCE: Cuello Oderiz C et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1464.

Seizures induced by cortical stimulation are as effective as spontaneous seizures in identifying the epileptogenic zone, according to a study of patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy.

“This finding might lead to a more time-efficient intracranial presurgical investigation of focal epilepsy by reducing the need to record spontaneous seizures,” wrote Carolina Cuello Oderiz, MD, formerly of McGill University, and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine if cortical stimulation-induced seizures and subsequent removal of the informed seizure-onset zone (SOZ) could lead to good surgical outcomes, the researchers selected 103 patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). All participants had to have undergone cortical stimulation during SEEG, followed by open epilepsy surgical procedure with a minimum 1-year follow-up. In addition, complete brain imaging for exact localization of individual electrode contacts and resection cavity was also required.

Of the 103 patients, 59 (57.3%) had cortical stimulation-induced seizures. The percentage of these patients in the good outcome group was higher than in the poor outcome group (70.5% versus 47.5%). The median percentage of resected cortical stimulation-informed SOZ contacts was also higher in the good than in the poor outcome group (63.2% versus 33.3%). The results were similar for spontaneous seizures, where the median percentage of resected contacts of the spontaneous SOZ was 57.1% in the good outcome group and 32.7% in the poor outcome group.

The coauthors noted their study’s limitations, including the exclusion of many patients due to the need for hi-resolution neuroimaging and sufficient postsurgical imaging and follow-up. They added that the strict criteria were “key to the main outcome of this study,” however, and noted that generalizability of the data was supported by similar rates in excluded patients.

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Savoy Epilepsy Foundation. Numerous authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and other funding from organizations like the Montreal Neurological Institute and various pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Cuello Oderiz is now at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, N.Y.

SOURCE: Cuello Oderiz C et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1464.

Seizures induced by cortical stimulation are as effective as spontaneous seizures in identifying the epileptogenic zone, according to a study of patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy.

“This finding might lead to a more time-efficient intracranial presurgical investigation of focal epilepsy by reducing the need to record spontaneous seizures,” wrote Carolina Cuello Oderiz, MD, formerly of McGill University, and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine if cortical stimulation-induced seizures and subsequent removal of the informed seizure-onset zone (SOZ) could lead to good surgical outcomes, the researchers selected 103 patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). All participants had to have undergone cortical stimulation during SEEG, followed by open epilepsy surgical procedure with a minimum 1-year follow-up. In addition, complete brain imaging for exact localization of individual electrode contacts and resection cavity was also required.

Of the 103 patients, 59 (57.3%) had cortical stimulation-induced seizures. The percentage of these patients in the good outcome group was higher than in the poor outcome group (70.5% versus 47.5%). The median percentage of resected cortical stimulation-informed SOZ contacts was also higher in the good than in the poor outcome group (63.2% versus 33.3%). The results were similar for spontaneous seizures, where the median percentage of resected contacts of the spontaneous SOZ was 57.1% in the good outcome group and 32.7% in the poor outcome group.

The coauthors noted their study’s limitations, including the exclusion of many patients due to the need for hi-resolution neuroimaging and sufficient postsurgical imaging and follow-up. They added that the strict criteria were “key to the main outcome of this study,” however, and noted that generalizability of the data was supported by similar rates in excluded patients.

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Savoy Epilepsy Foundation. Numerous authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and other funding from organizations like the Montreal Neurological Institute and various pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Cuello Oderiz is now at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, N.Y.

SOURCE: Cuello Oderiz C et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1464.