Recently identified eczema comorbidities include anemia, obesity

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Recently identified eczema comorbidities include anemia, obesity

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The list of nonatopic comorbid conditions associated with atopic dermatitis is rapidly expanding.

Just in the past year, published studies have linked pediatric atopic dermatitis to increased risks of obesity, high blood pressure, headaches, anemia, and speech disorders. Meanwhile, adult atopic dermatitis was reported to be associated with increased rates of fracture and cardiovascular disease. And in the dermatologic arena, a link between atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, and alopecia areata was identified, Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield noted at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield

Actually, these reported associations published in 2015-2016 might best be termed “emerging comorbidities,” as they are first reports and thus need confirmation, said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego.

Much of this work on emerging comorbidities has been done by dermatologist Dr. Jonathan I. Silverberg of Northwestern University, Chicago, and various coinvestigators. They have been prolific.

For example, in a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 207,007 children and adolescents included in the cross-sectional 1997-2013 U.S. National Health Interview Survey, Dr. Silverberg and coinvestigators found that eczema was independently associated with a 1.83-fold increased odds of anemia. They bolstered this observation with an analysis of more than 30,000 children and adolescents in the 1992-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in which they found that current eczema was associated with a 1.93-fold increased odds of anemia, particularly microcytic anemia. The underlying mechanism is unknown; however, the investigators noted that chronic inflammation and systemic immunosuppressant drugs have been shown to be associated with anemia (JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170[1]:29-34).

Dr. Silverberg also found in a multivariate logistic regression analysis of data on more than 400,000 pediatric participants in the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey that mild and severe eczema were independently associated with 1.79-fold and 2.72-fold, respectively, increased odds of headaches (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016 Feb;137[2]:492-9).

Using these same two data sources, with multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders, the investigators found that eczema was associated with a 1.81-fold increased risk of speech disorder (J Pediatr. 2016 Jan;168:185-92).

In a case-control study involving 132 children and adolescents with current moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and 143 healthy controls, Dr. Silverberg and coinvestigators found in a logistic regression analysis that atopic dermatitis was independently associated with a doubled risk of having a systolic blood pressure in the 90th percentile or higher – as well as 3.92-fold increased odds of central obesity, as defined by a waist circumference in the 85th percentile or higher (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Feb;151[2]:144-52).

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 published vitiligo studies and 17 published studies of alopecia areata, Dr. Silverberg and medical student Girish C. Mohan found that patients with vitiligo or alopecia areata were respectively 7.8 and 2.6 times more likely to have atopic dermatitis than controls without those disorders (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 May;151[5]:522-8).

In a logistic regression analysis of data on 34,500 adults with a history of eczema within the prior year who participated in the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, Drs. Nitin Garg and Dr. Silverberg concluded that the results suggested that adult atopic dermatitis is a previously unrecognized risk factor for fracture and other bone or joint injuries causing limitation. Adults with atopic dermatitis were at a 1.67-fold increased risk for such injuries in an analysis controlling for sociodemographics, other forms of atopic disease, and psychiatric and behavioral disorders (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Jan;151[1]:33-41).

In another large cross-sectional study, Dr. Silverberg found that adults with atopic dermatitis had significantly higher odds of a history of acute MI, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and stroke (Allergy. 2015 Oct;70[10]:1300-8).

Dr. Eichenfield said that while he would like to see these hot-off-the-presses 2015-2016 findings on nonatopic comorbidities backed up by confirmatory studies in other populations, the evidence is stronger for an association between pediatric atopic dermatitis and several mental health disorders. The initial reports came mainly from Europe, but were then supported by a large study by Dr. Eric L. Simpson and coinvestigators at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

In their analysis of data on nearly 93,000 noninstitutionalized children and adolescents included in the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health, the investigators found after controlling for potential confounders that atopic dermatitis was associated with a 1.87-fold increased risk of having attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, a 3-fold increased risk of diagnosed autism, an adjusted 1.81-fold increase in depression, and 1.87-fold increased odds of conduct disorder. The Oregon group found a clear dose-dependent relationship between the reported severity of the skin disease and the likelihood of those mental health disorders (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013 Feb;131[2]:428-33).

 

 

The hope is that emerging strategies to prevent atopic dermatitis or aggressively treat it early on will reduce the risk of many of these comorbid conditions, Dr. Eichenfield said.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

References

Click for Credit Link
Meeting/Event
Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, ADHD
Sections
Click for Credit Link
Click for Credit Link
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The list of nonatopic comorbid conditions associated with atopic dermatitis is rapidly expanding.

Just in the past year, published studies have linked pediatric atopic dermatitis to increased risks of obesity, high blood pressure, headaches, anemia, and speech disorders. Meanwhile, adult atopic dermatitis was reported to be associated with increased rates of fracture and cardiovascular disease. And in the dermatologic arena, a link between atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, and alopecia areata was identified, Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield noted at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield

Actually, these reported associations published in 2015-2016 might best be termed “emerging comorbidities,” as they are first reports and thus need confirmation, said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego.

Much of this work on emerging comorbidities has been done by dermatologist Dr. Jonathan I. Silverberg of Northwestern University, Chicago, and various coinvestigators. They have been prolific.

For example, in a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 207,007 children and adolescents included in the cross-sectional 1997-2013 U.S. National Health Interview Survey, Dr. Silverberg and coinvestigators found that eczema was independently associated with a 1.83-fold increased odds of anemia. They bolstered this observation with an analysis of more than 30,000 children and adolescents in the 1992-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in which they found that current eczema was associated with a 1.93-fold increased odds of anemia, particularly microcytic anemia. The underlying mechanism is unknown; however, the investigators noted that chronic inflammation and systemic immunosuppressant drugs have been shown to be associated with anemia (JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170[1]:29-34).

Dr. Silverberg also found in a multivariate logistic regression analysis of data on more than 400,000 pediatric participants in the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey that mild and severe eczema were independently associated with 1.79-fold and 2.72-fold, respectively, increased odds of headaches (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016 Feb;137[2]:492-9).

Using these same two data sources, with multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders, the investigators found that eczema was associated with a 1.81-fold increased risk of speech disorder (J Pediatr. 2016 Jan;168:185-92).

In a case-control study involving 132 children and adolescents with current moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and 143 healthy controls, Dr. Silverberg and coinvestigators found in a logistic regression analysis that atopic dermatitis was independently associated with a doubled risk of having a systolic blood pressure in the 90th percentile or higher – as well as 3.92-fold increased odds of central obesity, as defined by a waist circumference in the 85th percentile or higher (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Feb;151[2]:144-52).

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 published vitiligo studies and 17 published studies of alopecia areata, Dr. Silverberg and medical student Girish C. Mohan found that patients with vitiligo or alopecia areata were respectively 7.8 and 2.6 times more likely to have atopic dermatitis than controls without those disorders (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 May;151[5]:522-8).

In a logistic regression analysis of data on 34,500 adults with a history of eczema within the prior year who participated in the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, Drs. Nitin Garg and Dr. Silverberg concluded that the results suggested that adult atopic dermatitis is a previously unrecognized risk factor for fracture and other bone or joint injuries causing limitation. Adults with atopic dermatitis were at a 1.67-fold increased risk for such injuries in an analysis controlling for sociodemographics, other forms of atopic disease, and psychiatric and behavioral disorders (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Jan;151[1]:33-41).

In another large cross-sectional study, Dr. Silverberg found that adults with atopic dermatitis had significantly higher odds of a history of acute MI, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and stroke (Allergy. 2015 Oct;70[10]:1300-8).

Dr. Eichenfield said that while he would like to see these hot-off-the-presses 2015-2016 findings on nonatopic comorbidities backed up by confirmatory studies in other populations, the evidence is stronger for an association between pediatric atopic dermatitis and several mental health disorders. The initial reports came mainly from Europe, but were then supported by a large study by Dr. Eric L. Simpson and coinvestigators at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

In their analysis of data on nearly 93,000 noninstitutionalized children and adolescents included in the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health, the investigators found after controlling for potential confounders that atopic dermatitis was associated with a 1.87-fold increased risk of having attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, a 3-fold increased risk of diagnosed autism, an adjusted 1.81-fold increase in depression, and 1.87-fold increased odds of conduct disorder. The Oregon group found a clear dose-dependent relationship between the reported severity of the skin disease and the likelihood of those mental health disorders (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013 Feb;131[2]:428-33).

 

 

The hope is that emerging strategies to prevent atopic dermatitis or aggressively treat it early on will reduce the risk of many of these comorbid conditions, Dr. Eichenfield said.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The list of nonatopic comorbid conditions associated with atopic dermatitis is rapidly expanding.

Just in the past year, published studies have linked pediatric atopic dermatitis to increased risks of obesity, high blood pressure, headaches, anemia, and speech disorders. Meanwhile, adult atopic dermatitis was reported to be associated with increased rates of fracture and cardiovascular disease. And in the dermatologic arena, a link between atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, and alopecia areata was identified, Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield noted at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield

Actually, these reported associations published in 2015-2016 might best be termed “emerging comorbidities,” as they are first reports and thus need confirmation, said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego.

Much of this work on emerging comorbidities has been done by dermatologist Dr. Jonathan I. Silverberg of Northwestern University, Chicago, and various coinvestigators. They have been prolific.

For example, in a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 207,007 children and adolescents included in the cross-sectional 1997-2013 U.S. National Health Interview Survey, Dr. Silverberg and coinvestigators found that eczema was independently associated with a 1.83-fold increased odds of anemia. They bolstered this observation with an analysis of more than 30,000 children and adolescents in the 1992-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in which they found that current eczema was associated with a 1.93-fold increased odds of anemia, particularly microcytic anemia. The underlying mechanism is unknown; however, the investigators noted that chronic inflammation and systemic immunosuppressant drugs have been shown to be associated with anemia (JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170[1]:29-34).

Dr. Silverberg also found in a multivariate logistic regression analysis of data on more than 400,000 pediatric participants in the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey that mild and severe eczema were independently associated with 1.79-fold and 2.72-fold, respectively, increased odds of headaches (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016 Feb;137[2]:492-9).

Using these same two data sources, with multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders, the investigators found that eczema was associated with a 1.81-fold increased risk of speech disorder (J Pediatr. 2016 Jan;168:185-92).

In a case-control study involving 132 children and adolescents with current moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and 143 healthy controls, Dr. Silverberg and coinvestigators found in a logistic regression analysis that atopic dermatitis was independently associated with a doubled risk of having a systolic blood pressure in the 90th percentile or higher – as well as 3.92-fold increased odds of central obesity, as defined by a waist circumference in the 85th percentile or higher (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Feb;151[2]:144-52).

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 published vitiligo studies and 17 published studies of alopecia areata, Dr. Silverberg and medical student Girish C. Mohan found that patients with vitiligo or alopecia areata were respectively 7.8 and 2.6 times more likely to have atopic dermatitis than controls without those disorders (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 May;151[5]:522-8).

In a logistic regression analysis of data on 34,500 adults with a history of eczema within the prior year who participated in the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, Drs. Nitin Garg and Dr. Silverberg concluded that the results suggested that adult atopic dermatitis is a previously unrecognized risk factor for fracture and other bone or joint injuries causing limitation. Adults with atopic dermatitis were at a 1.67-fold increased risk for such injuries in an analysis controlling for sociodemographics, other forms of atopic disease, and psychiatric and behavioral disorders (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Jan;151[1]:33-41).

In another large cross-sectional study, Dr. Silverberg found that adults with atopic dermatitis had significantly higher odds of a history of acute MI, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and stroke (Allergy. 2015 Oct;70[10]:1300-8).

Dr. Eichenfield said that while he would like to see these hot-off-the-presses 2015-2016 findings on nonatopic comorbidities backed up by confirmatory studies in other populations, the evidence is stronger for an association between pediatric atopic dermatitis and several mental health disorders. The initial reports came mainly from Europe, but were then supported by a large study by Dr. Eric L. Simpson and coinvestigators at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

In their analysis of data on nearly 93,000 noninstitutionalized children and adolescents included in the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health, the investigators found after controlling for potential confounders that atopic dermatitis was associated with a 1.87-fold increased risk of having attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, a 3-fold increased risk of diagnosed autism, an adjusted 1.81-fold increase in depression, and 1.87-fold increased odds of conduct disorder. The Oregon group found a clear dose-dependent relationship between the reported severity of the skin disease and the likelihood of those mental health disorders (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013 Feb;131[2]:428-33).

 

 

The hope is that emerging strategies to prevent atopic dermatitis or aggressively treat it early on will reduce the risk of many of these comorbid conditions, Dr. Eichenfield said.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Recently identified eczema comorbidities include anemia, obesity
Display Headline
Recently identified eczema comorbidities include anemia, obesity
Legacy Keywords
atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, ADHD
Legacy Keywords
atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, ADHD
Click for Credit Status
Active
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE SDEF HAWAII DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Team produces heparin using human cells

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Team produces heparin using human cells

Researcher in the lab

Photo by Daniel Sone

SAN DIEGO—Researchers say they have discovered a way to make the anticoagulant heparin using human cells.

The team found they could produce heparin from human embryonic kidney cells transfected with the serglycin gene.

They believe this new method could offer a safer alternative to current heparin production methods, which rely on animal byproducts that are largely sourced in China.

However, the researchers noted that their recombinant human heparin was substantially less potent than porcine heparin. So more work must be done to increase the anticoagulant activity of the human heparin.

John Whitelock, PhD, of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues generated the recombinant human heparin and described their work in a poster presented at Experimental Biology 2016.

“What we’ve done is looked at the way our cells naturally make heparin in our bodies, taken that gene, and expressed it in cells in the laboratory,” Dr Whitelock explained. “The result is a natural product that is not synthetic, which makes it safer than the animal-sourced material.”

Specifically, the researchers increased the expression of serglycin in human embryonic kidney (HEK-293) cells and were able to produce heparin.

The team compared the anticoagulant activity of this heparin and unfractionated porcine mucosal heparin, and they found the porcine heparin was approximately 20 times more potent than the human heparin, on a weight basis.

However, the recombinant human heparin was able to significantly delay fibrin clot formation in plasma when compared to no heparin.

“Frankly, we were surprised that there was any anticoagulant effect at all,” Dr Whitelock said. “People in this field have been working with serglycin for upwards of 20 years, and, usually, you get a sort of heparin ‘cousin’ but not real heparin. It’s been a great source of frustration, and our study is an important step toward an alternative source of heparin that could have distinct advantages for patient safety.”

The team’s next steps are to refine the engineered cells to increase the amount and potency of the heparin they produce.

Dr Whitelock estimates heparin produced with the new method could hit the market within 10 to 15 years, although he cautioned that the drug will likely be more expensive than traditional animal-derived heparin because of the economies of scale that are already built into the existing supply chain.

However, human-cell-derived heparin could potentially be safer, less prone to contamination and adverse reactions, and a better option for patients who cannot use animal-derived heparin due to religious or dietary restrictions.

Publications
Topics

Researcher in the lab

Photo by Daniel Sone

SAN DIEGO—Researchers say they have discovered a way to make the anticoagulant heparin using human cells.

The team found they could produce heparin from human embryonic kidney cells transfected with the serglycin gene.

They believe this new method could offer a safer alternative to current heparin production methods, which rely on animal byproducts that are largely sourced in China.

However, the researchers noted that their recombinant human heparin was substantially less potent than porcine heparin. So more work must be done to increase the anticoagulant activity of the human heparin.

John Whitelock, PhD, of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues generated the recombinant human heparin and described their work in a poster presented at Experimental Biology 2016.

“What we’ve done is looked at the way our cells naturally make heparin in our bodies, taken that gene, and expressed it in cells in the laboratory,” Dr Whitelock explained. “The result is a natural product that is not synthetic, which makes it safer than the animal-sourced material.”

Specifically, the researchers increased the expression of serglycin in human embryonic kidney (HEK-293) cells and were able to produce heparin.

The team compared the anticoagulant activity of this heparin and unfractionated porcine mucosal heparin, and they found the porcine heparin was approximately 20 times more potent than the human heparin, on a weight basis.

However, the recombinant human heparin was able to significantly delay fibrin clot formation in plasma when compared to no heparin.

“Frankly, we were surprised that there was any anticoagulant effect at all,” Dr Whitelock said. “People in this field have been working with serglycin for upwards of 20 years, and, usually, you get a sort of heparin ‘cousin’ but not real heparin. It’s been a great source of frustration, and our study is an important step toward an alternative source of heparin that could have distinct advantages for patient safety.”

The team’s next steps are to refine the engineered cells to increase the amount and potency of the heparin they produce.

Dr Whitelock estimates heparin produced with the new method could hit the market within 10 to 15 years, although he cautioned that the drug will likely be more expensive than traditional animal-derived heparin because of the economies of scale that are already built into the existing supply chain.

However, human-cell-derived heparin could potentially be safer, less prone to contamination and adverse reactions, and a better option for patients who cannot use animal-derived heparin due to religious or dietary restrictions.

Researcher in the lab

Photo by Daniel Sone

SAN DIEGO—Researchers say they have discovered a way to make the anticoagulant heparin using human cells.

The team found they could produce heparin from human embryonic kidney cells transfected with the serglycin gene.

They believe this new method could offer a safer alternative to current heparin production methods, which rely on animal byproducts that are largely sourced in China.

However, the researchers noted that their recombinant human heparin was substantially less potent than porcine heparin. So more work must be done to increase the anticoagulant activity of the human heparin.

John Whitelock, PhD, of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues generated the recombinant human heparin and described their work in a poster presented at Experimental Biology 2016.

“What we’ve done is looked at the way our cells naturally make heparin in our bodies, taken that gene, and expressed it in cells in the laboratory,” Dr Whitelock explained. “The result is a natural product that is not synthetic, which makes it safer than the animal-sourced material.”

Specifically, the researchers increased the expression of serglycin in human embryonic kidney (HEK-293) cells and were able to produce heparin.

The team compared the anticoagulant activity of this heparin and unfractionated porcine mucosal heparin, and they found the porcine heparin was approximately 20 times more potent than the human heparin, on a weight basis.

However, the recombinant human heparin was able to significantly delay fibrin clot formation in plasma when compared to no heparin.

“Frankly, we were surprised that there was any anticoagulant effect at all,” Dr Whitelock said. “People in this field have been working with serglycin for upwards of 20 years, and, usually, you get a sort of heparin ‘cousin’ but not real heparin. It’s been a great source of frustration, and our study is an important step toward an alternative source of heparin that could have distinct advantages for patient safety.”

The team’s next steps are to refine the engineered cells to increase the amount and potency of the heparin they produce.

Dr Whitelock estimates heparin produced with the new method could hit the market within 10 to 15 years, although he cautioned that the drug will likely be more expensive than traditional animal-derived heparin because of the economies of scale that are already built into the existing supply chain.

However, human-cell-derived heparin could potentially be safer, less prone to contamination and adverse reactions, and a better option for patients who cannot use animal-derived heparin due to religious or dietary restrictions.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Team produces heparin using human cells
Display Headline
Team produces heparin using human cells
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

When Should Harm-Reduction Strategies Be Used for Inpatients with Opioid Misuse?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
When Should Harm-Reduction Strategies Be Used for Inpatients with Opioid Misuse?

Case

A 33-year-old male with a history of opioid overdose and opioid use disorder is admitted with IV heroin use complicated by injection site cellulitis. He is started on antibiotics with improvement in his cellulitis; however, his hospitalization is complicated by acute opioid withdrawal. Despite his history of opioid overdose and opioid use disorder, he has never seen a substance use disorder specialist nor received any education or treatment for his addiction. He reports that he will stop using illicit drugs but declines any further addiction treatment.

What strategies can be employed to reduce his risk of future harm from opioid misuse?

Background

Over the past decade, the U.S. has experienced a rapid increase in the rates of opioid prescriptions and opioid misuse.1 Consequently, the number of ED visits and hospitalizations for opioid-related complications has also increased.2 Many complications result from the practice of injection drug use (IDU), which predisposes individuals to serious blood-borne viral infections such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) as well as bacterial infections such as infective endocarditis. In addition, individuals who misuse opioids are at risk of death related to opioid overdose. In 2013, there were more than 24,000 deaths in the U.S. due to opioid overdose (see Figure 1).3

Figure 1. Opioid and Heroin Overdose-Related Deaths in the U.S. SOURCE: Hedergaard H, Chen LH, Warner M. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief. Drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin: United States, 2000–2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db190.htm. Published March 2015.

In response to the opioid epidemic, there have been a number of local, state, and federal public health initiatives to monitor and secure the opioid drug supply, improve treatment resources, and promulgate harm-reduction interventions. At a more individual level, hospitalists have an important role to play in combating the opioid epidemic. As frontline providers, hospitalists have access to hospitalized individuals with opioid misuse who may not otherwise be exposed to the healthcare system. Therefore, inpatient hospitalizations serve as a unique and important opportunity to engage individuals in the management of their addiction.

There are a number of interventions that hospitalists and substance use disorder specialists can pursue. Psychiatric evaluation and initiation of medication-assisted treatment often aim to aid patients in abstaining from further opioid misuse. However, many individuals with opioid use disorder are not ready for treatment or experience relapses of opioid misuse despite treatment. Given this, a secondary goal is to reduce any harm that may result from opioid misuse. This is done through the implementation of harm-reduction strategies. These strategies include teaching safe injection practices, facilitating the use of syringe exchange programs, and providing opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution.

Overview of Data

Safe Injection Education. People who inject drugs are at risk for viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. These infections are often the result of nonsterile injection and may be minimized by the utilization of safe injection practices. In order to educate people who inject drugs on safe injection practices, the hospitalist must first understand the process involved in injecting drugs. In Table 1, the process of injecting heroin is outlined (of note, other illicit drugs can be injected, and processes may vary).4

As evidenced by Table 1, the process of sterile injection can be complicated, especially for an individual who may be withdrawing from opioids. Table 1 is also optimistic in that it recommends new and sterile products be used with every injection. If new and sterile equipment is not available, another option is to clean the equipment after every use, which can be done by using bleach and water. This may mitigate the risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. However, the risk is still present, so users should not share or use another individual’s equipment even if it has been cleaned. Due to the risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections, all hospitalized individuals who inject drugs should receive education on safe injection practices.

 

 

Syringe Exchange Programs. IDU accounts for up to 15% of all new HIV infections and is the primary risk factor for the transmission of HCV.5 These infections occur when people inject using equipment contaminated with blood that contains HIV and/or HCV. Given this, if people who inject drugs could access and consistently use sterile syringes and other injection paraphernalia, the risk of transmitting blood-borne infections would be dramatically reduced. This is the concept behind syringe exchange programs (also known as needle exchange programs), which serve to increase access to sterile syringes while removing contaminated or used syringes from the community.

There is compelling evidence that syringe exchange programs decrease the rate of HIV transmission and likely reduce the rate of HCV transmission as well.6 In addition, syringe exchange programs often provide other beneficial services, such as counseling, testing, and prevention efforts for HIV, HCV, and sexually transmitted infections; distribution of condoms; and referrals to treatment services for substance use disorder.5

Unfortunately, in the U.S., restrictive state laws and lack of funding limit the number of established syringe exchange programs. According to the North American Syringe Exchange Network, there are only 226 programs in 33 states and the District of Columbia. Hospitalists and social workers should be aware of available local resources, including syringe exchange programs, and distribute this information to hospitalized individuals who inject drugs.

Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution. Syringe exchange programs and safe injection education aim to reduce harm by decreasing the transmission of infections; however, they do not address the problem of deaths related to opioid overdose. The primary harm-reduction strategy used to address deaths related to opioid overdose in the U.S is opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND). Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that reverses the respiratory depression and decreased consciousness caused by opioids. The OEND strategy involves educating first responders— including individuals and friends and family of individuals who use opioids—to recognize the signs of an opioid overdose, seek help, provide rescue breathing, administer naloxone, and stay with the individual until emergency medical services arrive.7 This strategy has been observed to decrease rates of death related to opioid overdose.7

Given the evolving opioid epidemic and effectiveness of the OEND strategy, it is not surprising that the number of local opioid overdose prevention programs adopting OEND has risen dramatically. As of 2014, there were 140 organizations, with 644 local sites providing naloxone in 29 states and the District of Columbia. These organizations have distributed 152,000 naloxone kits and have reported more than 26,000 reversals.8 Certainly, OEND has prevented morbidity and mortality in some of these patients.

The adoption of OEND can be performed by individual prescribers as well. Naloxone is U.S. FDA-approved for the treatment of opioid overdose, and thus the liability to prescribers is similar to that of other FDA-approved drugs. However, the distribution of naloxone to third parties, such as friends and family of individuals with opioid misuse, is more complex and regulated by state laws. Many states have created liability protection for naloxone prescription to third parties. Individual state laws and additional information can be found at prescribetoprevent.org.

Hospitalists should provide opioid overdose education to all individuals with opioid misuse and friends and family of individuals with opioid misuse. In addition, hospitalists should prescribe naloxone to individuals with opioid misuse and, in states where the law allows, distribute naloxone to friends and family of individuals with opioid misuse as well.

Controversies. In general, opioid use disorder treatment providers; public health officials; and local, state, and federal government agencies have increasingly embraced harm-reduction strategies. However, some feel that harm-reduction strategies are misguided or even detrimental due to concern that they implicitly condone or enable the use of illicit substances. There have been a number of studies to evaluate the potential unintended consequences of harm-reduction strategies, and overwhelmingly, these have been either neutral or have shown the benefit of harm-reduction interventions. At this point, there is no good evidence to prevent the widespread adoption of harm-reduction strategies for hospitalists.

 

 

Back to the Case

The case involves an individual who has already had at least two complications of his IV heroin use, including cellulitis and opioid overdose. Ideally, this individual would be willing to see an addiction specialist and start medication-assisted treatment. Unfortunately, he is unwilling to be further evaluated by a specialist at this time. Regardless, he remains at risk of future complications, and it is the hospitalist’s responsibility to intervene with a goal of reducing future harm that may result from his IV heroin use.

The hospitalist in this case advises the patient to abstain from heroin and IDU, encourages him to seek treatment for his opioid use disorder, and gives him resources for linkage to care if he becomes interested. In addition, the hospitalist educates the patient on safe injection practices and provides a list of local syringe exchange programs to decrease future risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. Furthermore, the hospitalist provides opioid overdose education and distributes naloxone to the patient, along with friends and family of the patient, to reduce the risk of death related to opioid overdose.

Bottom Line

Hospitalists should utilize harm-reduction interventions in individuals hospitalized with opioid misuse. TH


Dr. Theisen-Toupal is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, both in Washington, D.C.

References

  1. Vital signs: overdoses of prescription opioid pain relievers—United States, 1999–2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6043a4.htm. Published November 4, 2011.
  2. Drug abuse warning network, 2011: national estimates of drug-related emergency department visits. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website. Available at: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED.htm#5. Accessed July 29, 2015.
  3. Hedergaard H, Chen LH, Warner M. Drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin: United States, 2000–2013. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db190.htm. Published March 2015.
  4. Getting off right: a safety manual for injection drug users. Harm Reduction Coalition website. Available at: http://harmreduction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/getting-off-right.pdf.
  5. Syringe exchange programs—United States, 2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5945a4.htm/Syringe-Exchange-Programs-United-States-2008. Published November 19, 2010.
  6. Wodak A, Conney A. Effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programming in reducing HIV/AIDS among injecting drug users. World Health Organization website. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43107/1/9241591641.pdf. Published 2004.
  7. Walley AY, Xuan Z, Hackman HH, et al. Opioid overdose rates and implementation of overdose education and nasal naloxone distribution in Massachusetts: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f174.
  8. Wheeler E, Jones TS, Gilbert MK, Davidson PJ. Opioid overdose prevention programs providing naloxone to laypersons—United States, 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6423a2.htm. Published June 19, 2015.

Key Points

  • The goal of harm-reduction strategies is to mitigate the risk of harm from opioid misuse and/or IDU.
  • Syringe exchange programs and safe injection education decrease the risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections.
  • Opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with opioid overdose.
  • Hospitalists should adopt harm-reduction interventions in hospitalized patients with opioid misuse.

Additional Reading

  1. Haber PS, Demirkol A, Lange K, Murnion B. Management of injecting drug users admitted to hospital. Lancet. 2009;374(9697):1284-1293.
  2. Getting off right: a safety manual for injection drug users. Harm Reduction Coalition website. Available at: http://harmreduction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/getting-off-right.pdf.
  3. SAMHSA opioid overdose prevention toolkit—updated 2016. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website. Available at: http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Opioid-Overdose-Prevention-Toolkit-Updated-2016/SMA16-4742.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(04)
Publications
Sections

Case

A 33-year-old male with a history of opioid overdose and opioid use disorder is admitted with IV heroin use complicated by injection site cellulitis. He is started on antibiotics with improvement in his cellulitis; however, his hospitalization is complicated by acute opioid withdrawal. Despite his history of opioid overdose and opioid use disorder, he has never seen a substance use disorder specialist nor received any education or treatment for his addiction. He reports that he will stop using illicit drugs but declines any further addiction treatment.

What strategies can be employed to reduce his risk of future harm from opioid misuse?

Background

Over the past decade, the U.S. has experienced a rapid increase in the rates of opioid prescriptions and opioid misuse.1 Consequently, the number of ED visits and hospitalizations for opioid-related complications has also increased.2 Many complications result from the practice of injection drug use (IDU), which predisposes individuals to serious blood-borne viral infections such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) as well as bacterial infections such as infective endocarditis. In addition, individuals who misuse opioids are at risk of death related to opioid overdose. In 2013, there were more than 24,000 deaths in the U.S. due to opioid overdose (see Figure 1).3

Figure 1. Opioid and Heroin Overdose-Related Deaths in the U.S. SOURCE: Hedergaard H, Chen LH, Warner M. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief. Drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin: United States, 2000–2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db190.htm. Published March 2015.

In response to the opioid epidemic, there have been a number of local, state, and federal public health initiatives to monitor and secure the opioid drug supply, improve treatment resources, and promulgate harm-reduction interventions. At a more individual level, hospitalists have an important role to play in combating the opioid epidemic. As frontline providers, hospitalists have access to hospitalized individuals with opioid misuse who may not otherwise be exposed to the healthcare system. Therefore, inpatient hospitalizations serve as a unique and important opportunity to engage individuals in the management of their addiction.

There are a number of interventions that hospitalists and substance use disorder specialists can pursue. Psychiatric evaluation and initiation of medication-assisted treatment often aim to aid patients in abstaining from further opioid misuse. However, many individuals with opioid use disorder are not ready for treatment or experience relapses of opioid misuse despite treatment. Given this, a secondary goal is to reduce any harm that may result from opioid misuse. This is done through the implementation of harm-reduction strategies. These strategies include teaching safe injection practices, facilitating the use of syringe exchange programs, and providing opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution.

Overview of Data

Safe Injection Education. People who inject drugs are at risk for viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. These infections are often the result of nonsterile injection and may be minimized by the utilization of safe injection practices. In order to educate people who inject drugs on safe injection practices, the hospitalist must first understand the process involved in injecting drugs. In Table 1, the process of injecting heroin is outlined (of note, other illicit drugs can be injected, and processes may vary).4

As evidenced by Table 1, the process of sterile injection can be complicated, especially for an individual who may be withdrawing from opioids. Table 1 is also optimistic in that it recommends new and sterile products be used with every injection. If new and sterile equipment is not available, another option is to clean the equipment after every use, which can be done by using bleach and water. This may mitigate the risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. However, the risk is still present, so users should not share or use another individual’s equipment even if it has been cleaned. Due to the risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections, all hospitalized individuals who inject drugs should receive education on safe injection practices.

 

 

Syringe Exchange Programs. IDU accounts for up to 15% of all new HIV infections and is the primary risk factor for the transmission of HCV.5 These infections occur when people inject using equipment contaminated with blood that contains HIV and/or HCV. Given this, if people who inject drugs could access and consistently use sterile syringes and other injection paraphernalia, the risk of transmitting blood-borne infections would be dramatically reduced. This is the concept behind syringe exchange programs (also known as needle exchange programs), which serve to increase access to sterile syringes while removing contaminated or used syringes from the community.

There is compelling evidence that syringe exchange programs decrease the rate of HIV transmission and likely reduce the rate of HCV transmission as well.6 In addition, syringe exchange programs often provide other beneficial services, such as counseling, testing, and prevention efforts for HIV, HCV, and sexually transmitted infections; distribution of condoms; and referrals to treatment services for substance use disorder.5

Unfortunately, in the U.S., restrictive state laws and lack of funding limit the number of established syringe exchange programs. According to the North American Syringe Exchange Network, there are only 226 programs in 33 states and the District of Columbia. Hospitalists and social workers should be aware of available local resources, including syringe exchange programs, and distribute this information to hospitalized individuals who inject drugs.

Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution. Syringe exchange programs and safe injection education aim to reduce harm by decreasing the transmission of infections; however, they do not address the problem of deaths related to opioid overdose. The primary harm-reduction strategy used to address deaths related to opioid overdose in the U.S is opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND). Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that reverses the respiratory depression and decreased consciousness caused by opioids. The OEND strategy involves educating first responders— including individuals and friends and family of individuals who use opioids—to recognize the signs of an opioid overdose, seek help, provide rescue breathing, administer naloxone, and stay with the individual until emergency medical services arrive.7 This strategy has been observed to decrease rates of death related to opioid overdose.7

Given the evolving opioid epidemic and effectiveness of the OEND strategy, it is not surprising that the number of local opioid overdose prevention programs adopting OEND has risen dramatically. As of 2014, there were 140 organizations, with 644 local sites providing naloxone in 29 states and the District of Columbia. These organizations have distributed 152,000 naloxone kits and have reported more than 26,000 reversals.8 Certainly, OEND has prevented morbidity and mortality in some of these patients.

The adoption of OEND can be performed by individual prescribers as well. Naloxone is U.S. FDA-approved for the treatment of opioid overdose, and thus the liability to prescribers is similar to that of other FDA-approved drugs. However, the distribution of naloxone to third parties, such as friends and family of individuals with opioid misuse, is more complex and regulated by state laws. Many states have created liability protection for naloxone prescription to third parties. Individual state laws and additional information can be found at prescribetoprevent.org.

Hospitalists should provide opioid overdose education to all individuals with opioid misuse and friends and family of individuals with opioid misuse. In addition, hospitalists should prescribe naloxone to individuals with opioid misuse and, in states where the law allows, distribute naloxone to friends and family of individuals with opioid misuse as well.

Controversies. In general, opioid use disorder treatment providers; public health officials; and local, state, and federal government agencies have increasingly embraced harm-reduction strategies. However, some feel that harm-reduction strategies are misguided or even detrimental due to concern that they implicitly condone or enable the use of illicit substances. There have been a number of studies to evaluate the potential unintended consequences of harm-reduction strategies, and overwhelmingly, these have been either neutral or have shown the benefit of harm-reduction interventions. At this point, there is no good evidence to prevent the widespread adoption of harm-reduction strategies for hospitalists.

 

 

Back to the Case

The case involves an individual who has already had at least two complications of his IV heroin use, including cellulitis and opioid overdose. Ideally, this individual would be willing to see an addiction specialist and start medication-assisted treatment. Unfortunately, he is unwilling to be further evaluated by a specialist at this time. Regardless, he remains at risk of future complications, and it is the hospitalist’s responsibility to intervene with a goal of reducing future harm that may result from his IV heroin use.

The hospitalist in this case advises the patient to abstain from heroin and IDU, encourages him to seek treatment for his opioid use disorder, and gives him resources for linkage to care if he becomes interested. In addition, the hospitalist educates the patient on safe injection practices and provides a list of local syringe exchange programs to decrease future risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. Furthermore, the hospitalist provides opioid overdose education and distributes naloxone to the patient, along with friends and family of the patient, to reduce the risk of death related to opioid overdose.

Bottom Line

Hospitalists should utilize harm-reduction interventions in individuals hospitalized with opioid misuse. TH


Dr. Theisen-Toupal is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, both in Washington, D.C.

References

  1. Vital signs: overdoses of prescription opioid pain relievers—United States, 1999–2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6043a4.htm. Published November 4, 2011.
  2. Drug abuse warning network, 2011: national estimates of drug-related emergency department visits. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website. Available at: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED.htm#5. Accessed July 29, 2015.
  3. Hedergaard H, Chen LH, Warner M. Drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin: United States, 2000–2013. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db190.htm. Published March 2015.
  4. Getting off right: a safety manual for injection drug users. Harm Reduction Coalition website. Available at: http://harmreduction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/getting-off-right.pdf.
  5. Syringe exchange programs—United States, 2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5945a4.htm/Syringe-Exchange-Programs-United-States-2008. Published November 19, 2010.
  6. Wodak A, Conney A. Effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programming in reducing HIV/AIDS among injecting drug users. World Health Organization website. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43107/1/9241591641.pdf. Published 2004.
  7. Walley AY, Xuan Z, Hackman HH, et al. Opioid overdose rates and implementation of overdose education and nasal naloxone distribution in Massachusetts: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f174.
  8. Wheeler E, Jones TS, Gilbert MK, Davidson PJ. Opioid overdose prevention programs providing naloxone to laypersons—United States, 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6423a2.htm. Published June 19, 2015.

Key Points

  • The goal of harm-reduction strategies is to mitigate the risk of harm from opioid misuse and/or IDU.
  • Syringe exchange programs and safe injection education decrease the risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections.
  • Opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with opioid overdose.
  • Hospitalists should adopt harm-reduction interventions in hospitalized patients with opioid misuse.

Additional Reading

  1. Haber PS, Demirkol A, Lange K, Murnion B. Management of injecting drug users admitted to hospital. Lancet. 2009;374(9697):1284-1293.
  2. Getting off right: a safety manual for injection drug users. Harm Reduction Coalition website. Available at: http://harmreduction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/getting-off-right.pdf.
  3. SAMHSA opioid overdose prevention toolkit—updated 2016. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website. Available at: http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Opioid-Overdose-Prevention-Toolkit-Updated-2016/SMA16-4742.

Case

A 33-year-old male with a history of opioid overdose and opioid use disorder is admitted with IV heroin use complicated by injection site cellulitis. He is started on antibiotics with improvement in his cellulitis; however, his hospitalization is complicated by acute opioid withdrawal. Despite his history of opioid overdose and opioid use disorder, he has never seen a substance use disorder specialist nor received any education or treatment for his addiction. He reports that he will stop using illicit drugs but declines any further addiction treatment.

What strategies can be employed to reduce his risk of future harm from opioid misuse?

Background

Over the past decade, the U.S. has experienced a rapid increase in the rates of opioid prescriptions and opioid misuse.1 Consequently, the number of ED visits and hospitalizations for opioid-related complications has also increased.2 Many complications result from the practice of injection drug use (IDU), which predisposes individuals to serious blood-borne viral infections such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) as well as bacterial infections such as infective endocarditis. In addition, individuals who misuse opioids are at risk of death related to opioid overdose. In 2013, there were more than 24,000 deaths in the U.S. due to opioid overdose (see Figure 1).3

Figure 1. Opioid and Heroin Overdose-Related Deaths in the U.S. SOURCE: Hedergaard H, Chen LH, Warner M. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief. Drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin: United States, 2000–2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db190.htm. Published March 2015.

In response to the opioid epidemic, there have been a number of local, state, and federal public health initiatives to monitor and secure the opioid drug supply, improve treatment resources, and promulgate harm-reduction interventions. At a more individual level, hospitalists have an important role to play in combating the opioid epidemic. As frontline providers, hospitalists have access to hospitalized individuals with opioid misuse who may not otherwise be exposed to the healthcare system. Therefore, inpatient hospitalizations serve as a unique and important opportunity to engage individuals in the management of their addiction.

There are a number of interventions that hospitalists and substance use disorder specialists can pursue. Psychiatric evaluation and initiation of medication-assisted treatment often aim to aid patients in abstaining from further opioid misuse. However, many individuals with opioid use disorder are not ready for treatment or experience relapses of opioid misuse despite treatment. Given this, a secondary goal is to reduce any harm that may result from opioid misuse. This is done through the implementation of harm-reduction strategies. These strategies include teaching safe injection practices, facilitating the use of syringe exchange programs, and providing opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution.

Overview of Data

Safe Injection Education. People who inject drugs are at risk for viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. These infections are often the result of nonsterile injection and may be minimized by the utilization of safe injection practices. In order to educate people who inject drugs on safe injection practices, the hospitalist must first understand the process involved in injecting drugs. In Table 1, the process of injecting heroin is outlined (of note, other illicit drugs can be injected, and processes may vary).4

As evidenced by Table 1, the process of sterile injection can be complicated, especially for an individual who may be withdrawing from opioids. Table 1 is also optimistic in that it recommends new and sterile products be used with every injection. If new and sterile equipment is not available, another option is to clean the equipment after every use, which can be done by using bleach and water. This may mitigate the risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. However, the risk is still present, so users should not share or use another individual’s equipment even if it has been cleaned. Due to the risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections, all hospitalized individuals who inject drugs should receive education on safe injection practices.

 

 

Syringe Exchange Programs. IDU accounts for up to 15% of all new HIV infections and is the primary risk factor for the transmission of HCV.5 These infections occur when people inject using equipment contaminated with blood that contains HIV and/or HCV. Given this, if people who inject drugs could access and consistently use sterile syringes and other injection paraphernalia, the risk of transmitting blood-borne infections would be dramatically reduced. This is the concept behind syringe exchange programs (also known as needle exchange programs), which serve to increase access to sterile syringes while removing contaminated or used syringes from the community.

There is compelling evidence that syringe exchange programs decrease the rate of HIV transmission and likely reduce the rate of HCV transmission as well.6 In addition, syringe exchange programs often provide other beneficial services, such as counseling, testing, and prevention efforts for HIV, HCV, and sexually transmitted infections; distribution of condoms; and referrals to treatment services for substance use disorder.5

Unfortunately, in the U.S., restrictive state laws and lack of funding limit the number of established syringe exchange programs. According to the North American Syringe Exchange Network, there are only 226 programs in 33 states and the District of Columbia. Hospitalists and social workers should be aware of available local resources, including syringe exchange programs, and distribute this information to hospitalized individuals who inject drugs.

Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution. Syringe exchange programs and safe injection education aim to reduce harm by decreasing the transmission of infections; however, they do not address the problem of deaths related to opioid overdose. The primary harm-reduction strategy used to address deaths related to opioid overdose in the U.S is opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND). Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that reverses the respiratory depression and decreased consciousness caused by opioids. The OEND strategy involves educating first responders— including individuals and friends and family of individuals who use opioids—to recognize the signs of an opioid overdose, seek help, provide rescue breathing, administer naloxone, and stay with the individual until emergency medical services arrive.7 This strategy has been observed to decrease rates of death related to opioid overdose.7

Given the evolving opioid epidemic and effectiveness of the OEND strategy, it is not surprising that the number of local opioid overdose prevention programs adopting OEND has risen dramatically. As of 2014, there were 140 organizations, with 644 local sites providing naloxone in 29 states and the District of Columbia. These organizations have distributed 152,000 naloxone kits and have reported more than 26,000 reversals.8 Certainly, OEND has prevented morbidity and mortality in some of these patients.

The adoption of OEND can be performed by individual prescribers as well. Naloxone is U.S. FDA-approved for the treatment of opioid overdose, and thus the liability to prescribers is similar to that of other FDA-approved drugs. However, the distribution of naloxone to third parties, such as friends and family of individuals with opioid misuse, is more complex and regulated by state laws. Many states have created liability protection for naloxone prescription to third parties. Individual state laws and additional information can be found at prescribetoprevent.org.

Hospitalists should provide opioid overdose education to all individuals with opioid misuse and friends and family of individuals with opioid misuse. In addition, hospitalists should prescribe naloxone to individuals with opioid misuse and, in states where the law allows, distribute naloxone to friends and family of individuals with opioid misuse as well.

Controversies. In general, opioid use disorder treatment providers; public health officials; and local, state, and federal government agencies have increasingly embraced harm-reduction strategies. However, some feel that harm-reduction strategies are misguided or even detrimental due to concern that they implicitly condone or enable the use of illicit substances. There have been a number of studies to evaluate the potential unintended consequences of harm-reduction strategies, and overwhelmingly, these have been either neutral or have shown the benefit of harm-reduction interventions. At this point, there is no good evidence to prevent the widespread adoption of harm-reduction strategies for hospitalists.

 

 

Back to the Case

The case involves an individual who has already had at least two complications of his IV heroin use, including cellulitis and opioid overdose. Ideally, this individual would be willing to see an addiction specialist and start medication-assisted treatment. Unfortunately, he is unwilling to be further evaluated by a specialist at this time. Regardless, he remains at risk of future complications, and it is the hospitalist’s responsibility to intervene with a goal of reducing future harm that may result from his IV heroin use.

The hospitalist in this case advises the patient to abstain from heroin and IDU, encourages him to seek treatment for his opioid use disorder, and gives him resources for linkage to care if he becomes interested. In addition, the hospitalist educates the patient on safe injection practices and provides a list of local syringe exchange programs to decrease future risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. Furthermore, the hospitalist provides opioid overdose education and distributes naloxone to the patient, along with friends and family of the patient, to reduce the risk of death related to opioid overdose.

Bottom Line

Hospitalists should utilize harm-reduction interventions in individuals hospitalized with opioid misuse. TH


Dr. Theisen-Toupal is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, both in Washington, D.C.

References

  1. Vital signs: overdoses of prescription opioid pain relievers—United States, 1999–2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6043a4.htm. Published November 4, 2011.
  2. Drug abuse warning network, 2011: national estimates of drug-related emergency department visits. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website. Available at: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED.htm#5. Accessed July 29, 2015.
  3. Hedergaard H, Chen LH, Warner M. Drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin: United States, 2000–2013. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db190.htm. Published March 2015.
  4. Getting off right: a safety manual for injection drug users. Harm Reduction Coalition website. Available at: http://harmreduction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/getting-off-right.pdf.
  5. Syringe exchange programs—United States, 2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5945a4.htm/Syringe-Exchange-Programs-United-States-2008. Published November 19, 2010.
  6. Wodak A, Conney A. Effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programming in reducing HIV/AIDS among injecting drug users. World Health Organization website. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43107/1/9241591641.pdf. Published 2004.
  7. Walley AY, Xuan Z, Hackman HH, et al. Opioid overdose rates and implementation of overdose education and nasal naloxone distribution in Massachusetts: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f174.
  8. Wheeler E, Jones TS, Gilbert MK, Davidson PJ. Opioid overdose prevention programs providing naloxone to laypersons—United States, 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6423a2.htm. Published June 19, 2015.

Key Points

  • The goal of harm-reduction strategies is to mitigate the risk of harm from opioid misuse and/or IDU.
  • Syringe exchange programs and safe injection education decrease the risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections.
  • Opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with opioid overdose.
  • Hospitalists should adopt harm-reduction interventions in hospitalized patients with opioid misuse.

Additional Reading

  1. Haber PS, Demirkol A, Lange K, Murnion B. Management of injecting drug users admitted to hospital. Lancet. 2009;374(9697):1284-1293.
  2. Getting off right: a safety manual for injection drug users. Harm Reduction Coalition website. Available at: http://harmreduction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/getting-off-right.pdf.
  3. SAMHSA opioid overdose prevention toolkit—updated 2016. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website. Available at: http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Opioid-Overdose-Prevention-Toolkit-Updated-2016/SMA16-4742.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(04)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(04)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
When Should Harm-Reduction Strategies Be Used for Inpatients with Opioid Misuse?
Display Headline
When Should Harm-Reduction Strategies Be Used for Inpatients with Opioid Misuse?
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

HM16 Q&A: What Problem Do You Hope Health IT Solves?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
HM16 Q&A: What Problem Do You Hope Health IT Solves?

With the rolling out of the Health IT track on the second full day of HM16, The Hospitalist asked: What problem do you hope health IT solves or helps you solve over the next five years?

Farhanaz Chowdhury, MD

Farhanaz Chowdhury, MD, hospitalist, HSHS St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Belleville, Ill.

“I think that hospital health systems are very primitive. When they make that software, physicians should be more involved so that in everyday life, what we see when we are facing all those problems, you have an algorithm if you want to do something. It should pop up so that you don’t have to write it down and scroll all over.”

Michael Lintner, MD, hospitalist, Aspen Valley Hospital, Colo.

Michael Lintner, MD

“I think probably the main thing would be work flow, facilitating work flow. I think today hospitalists are just getting more and more and more work. Patient loads are getting increasingly bigger. I think with IT, [we need] systems that facilitate and help with the work flow and help the hospitalist’s day go smoother because there are so many things that we do.”

Miguel Lizardo, MD, hospitalist, University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Worcester

“It takes a lot of time to interact with the EMRs and all the technology that we have to use. If they can find a way that we can use it in a more user-friendly [way] so that it takes not a long time, that would be great. At least the EMRs that I’ve been in contact with are too cumbersome, too many clicks to get where you want, a bunch of steps to document what you need to. You really are away from the patient and spending a lot of time trying to document.”

Sandeep Palikhel, PA-C, Baylor University Medical Center, Waco, Tex.

“Definitely accuracy. In Texas, where I practice, we get a lot of transfers from rural areas because we are a Level 1 trauma hospital. We get these discharge summaries or progress notes from other hospitals that are handwritten. A lot of information gets missed whenever we’re reading it because it’s not legible, first thing, and it’s not as detail-oriented as the EHRs would be. So that definitely helps. Even going through a medication list, it helps so much to go through an EHR versus going through a handwritten medication list. That’s what I mean by accuracy.”

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(04)
Publications
Sections

With the rolling out of the Health IT track on the second full day of HM16, The Hospitalist asked: What problem do you hope health IT solves or helps you solve over the next five years?

Farhanaz Chowdhury, MD

Farhanaz Chowdhury, MD, hospitalist, HSHS St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Belleville, Ill.

“I think that hospital health systems are very primitive. When they make that software, physicians should be more involved so that in everyday life, what we see when we are facing all those problems, you have an algorithm if you want to do something. It should pop up so that you don’t have to write it down and scroll all over.”

Michael Lintner, MD, hospitalist, Aspen Valley Hospital, Colo.

Michael Lintner, MD

“I think probably the main thing would be work flow, facilitating work flow. I think today hospitalists are just getting more and more and more work. Patient loads are getting increasingly bigger. I think with IT, [we need] systems that facilitate and help with the work flow and help the hospitalist’s day go smoother because there are so many things that we do.”

Miguel Lizardo, MD, hospitalist, University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Worcester

“It takes a lot of time to interact with the EMRs and all the technology that we have to use. If they can find a way that we can use it in a more user-friendly [way] so that it takes not a long time, that would be great. At least the EMRs that I’ve been in contact with are too cumbersome, too many clicks to get where you want, a bunch of steps to document what you need to. You really are away from the patient and spending a lot of time trying to document.”

Sandeep Palikhel, PA-C, Baylor University Medical Center, Waco, Tex.

“Definitely accuracy. In Texas, where I practice, we get a lot of transfers from rural areas because we are a Level 1 trauma hospital. We get these discharge summaries or progress notes from other hospitals that are handwritten. A lot of information gets missed whenever we’re reading it because it’s not legible, first thing, and it’s not as detail-oriented as the EHRs would be. So that definitely helps. Even going through a medication list, it helps so much to go through an EHR versus going through a handwritten medication list. That’s what I mean by accuracy.”

With the rolling out of the Health IT track on the second full day of HM16, The Hospitalist asked: What problem do you hope health IT solves or helps you solve over the next five years?

Farhanaz Chowdhury, MD

Farhanaz Chowdhury, MD, hospitalist, HSHS St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Belleville, Ill.

“I think that hospital health systems are very primitive. When they make that software, physicians should be more involved so that in everyday life, what we see when we are facing all those problems, you have an algorithm if you want to do something. It should pop up so that you don’t have to write it down and scroll all over.”

Michael Lintner, MD, hospitalist, Aspen Valley Hospital, Colo.

Michael Lintner, MD

“I think probably the main thing would be work flow, facilitating work flow. I think today hospitalists are just getting more and more and more work. Patient loads are getting increasingly bigger. I think with IT, [we need] systems that facilitate and help with the work flow and help the hospitalist’s day go smoother because there are so many things that we do.”

Miguel Lizardo, MD, hospitalist, University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Worcester

“It takes a lot of time to interact with the EMRs and all the technology that we have to use. If they can find a way that we can use it in a more user-friendly [way] so that it takes not a long time, that would be great. At least the EMRs that I’ve been in contact with are too cumbersome, too many clicks to get where you want, a bunch of steps to document what you need to. You really are away from the patient and spending a lot of time trying to document.”

Sandeep Palikhel, PA-C, Baylor University Medical Center, Waco, Tex.

“Definitely accuracy. In Texas, where I practice, we get a lot of transfers from rural areas because we are a Level 1 trauma hospital. We get these discharge summaries or progress notes from other hospitals that are handwritten. A lot of information gets missed whenever we’re reading it because it’s not legible, first thing, and it’s not as detail-oriented as the EHRs would be. So that definitely helps. Even going through a medication list, it helps so much to go through an EHR versus going through a handwritten medication list. That’s what I mean by accuracy.”

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(04)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(04)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
HM16 Q&A: What Problem Do You Hope Health IT Solves?
Display Headline
HM16 Q&A: What Problem Do You Hope Health IT Solves?
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

New Findings Show: Factors Contributing to the Prevalence in readmission for Bariatric Surgery Patients

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
New Findings Show: Factors Contributing to the Prevalence in readmission for Bariatric Surgery Patients

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - About one in 20 bariatric surgery patients are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of having the procedure, according to new findings.

Readmissions are increasingly being used as a quality metric for surgical procedures, Dr. John Morton of Stanford University in California and colleagues note in their report, published online March 19 in the American Journal of Surgery.

"While (the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) has not addressed bariatric surgery readmissions to date, other payors have made readmissions a priority," they add. "Data regarding bariatric surgery readmissions are critical to help better understand and drive quality improvement in this area.

"To investigate the prevalence, causes and risk factors for readmission following bariatric surgery, the researchers looked at data from the 2012 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Public Use File dataset on nearly 18,300 bariatric patients, of whom 55% had laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), 10% had laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), and 35% had laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

There were 955 readmissions (5.22%), most commonly for gastrointestinal causes (45%), dietary reasons (34%) and bleeding (7%). Readmission rates were nearly 7% for LRYGB; just under 2% for LAGB; and 4% for LSG.

The patients who were readmitted had a significantly longer average operating time (132 vs. 115 minutes) and length of stay (2.76 days vs. 2.23). Forty percent had a complication, versus 4% of patients who were not readmitted. Patients who were readmitted were also more likely to have a body mass index above 50, preoperative diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypertension.

Factors independently associated with readmission included African-American race (odds ratio, 1.53), complication (OR, 11.3) and resident involvement (OR, 0.53).

"Other studies have also demonstrated similar predictors of readmission and have also demonstrated that length of stay may also play a role in readmission rates," Dr. Morton and his team state. "This study helps demonstrate that bariatric surgery readmissions are prevalent and potentially preventable."

 

 

 

 

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(04)
Publications
Topics
Sections

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - About one in 20 bariatric surgery patients are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of having the procedure, according to new findings.

Readmissions are increasingly being used as a quality metric for surgical procedures, Dr. John Morton of Stanford University in California and colleagues note in their report, published online March 19 in the American Journal of Surgery.

"While (the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) has not addressed bariatric surgery readmissions to date, other payors have made readmissions a priority," they add. "Data regarding bariatric surgery readmissions are critical to help better understand and drive quality improvement in this area.

"To investigate the prevalence, causes and risk factors for readmission following bariatric surgery, the researchers looked at data from the 2012 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Public Use File dataset on nearly 18,300 bariatric patients, of whom 55% had laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), 10% had laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), and 35% had laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

There were 955 readmissions (5.22%), most commonly for gastrointestinal causes (45%), dietary reasons (34%) and bleeding (7%). Readmission rates were nearly 7% for LRYGB; just under 2% for LAGB; and 4% for LSG.

The patients who were readmitted had a significantly longer average operating time (132 vs. 115 minutes) and length of stay (2.76 days vs. 2.23). Forty percent had a complication, versus 4% of patients who were not readmitted. Patients who were readmitted were also more likely to have a body mass index above 50, preoperative diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypertension.

Factors independently associated with readmission included African-American race (odds ratio, 1.53), complication (OR, 11.3) and resident involvement (OR, 0.53).

"Other studies have also demonstrated similar predictors of readmission and have also demonstrated that length of stay may also play a role in readmission rates," Dr. Morton and his team state. "This study helps demonstrate that bariatric surgery readmissions are prevalent and potentially preventable."

 

 

 

 

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - About one in 20 bariatric surgery patients are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of having the procedure, according to new findings.

Readmissions are increasingly being used as a quality metric for surgical procedures, Dr. John Morton of Stanford University in California and colleagues note in their report, published online March 19 in the American Journal of Surgery.

"While (the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) has not addressed bariatric surgery readmissions to date, other payors have made readmissions a priority," they add. "Data regarding bariatric surgery readmissions are critical to help better understand and drive quality improvement in this area.

"To investigate the prevalence, causes and risk factors for readmission following bariatric surgery, the researchers looked at data from the 2012 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Public Use File dataset on nearly 18,300 bariatric patients, of whom 55% had laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), 10% had laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), and 35% had laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

There were 955 readmissions (5.22%), most commonly for gastrointestinal causes (45%), dietary reasons (34%) and bleeding (7%). Readmission rates were nearly 7% for LRYGB; just under 2% for LAGB; and 4% for LSG.

The patients who were readmitted had a significantly longer average operating time (132 vs. 115 minutes) and length of stay (2.76 days vs. 2.23). Forty percent had a complication, versus 4% of patients who were not readmitted. Patients who were readmitted were also more likely to have a body mass index above 50, preoperative diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypertension.

Factors independently associated with readmission included African-American race (odds ratio, 1.53), complication (OR, 11.3) and resident involvement (OR, 0.53).

"Other studies have also demonstrated similar predictors of readmission and have also demonstrated that length of stay may also play a role in readmission rates," Dr. Morton and his team state. "This study helps demonstrate that bariatric surgery readmissions are prevalent and potentially preventable."

 

 

 

 

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(04)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2016(04)
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
New Findings Show: Factors Contributing to the Prevalence in readmission for Bariatric Surgery Patients
Display Headline
New Findings Show: Factors Contributing to the Prevalence in readmission for Bariatric Surgery Patients
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

EMA recommends orphan designation for cancer vaccine

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
EMA recommends orphan designation for cancer vaccine

Micrograph showing AML

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended orphan designation for the WT1 cancer vaccine galinpepimut-S as a treatment for patients

with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

The EMA’s opinion has been forwarded to the European Commission (EC), which makes the final decision.

The EC grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, prevent, or diagnose a life-threatening condition affecting up to 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union. The product must provide significant benefit to those affected by the condition.

Orphan designation from the EC provides companies with certain development incentives, including protocol assistance, a type of scientific advice specific for orphan drugs, and 10 years of market exclusivity once the drug is approved for use.

About the vaccine

The WT1 vaccine consists of 4 modified peptide chains that induce an innate immune response (CD4+/CD8+ T cells) against the WT1 antigen. The vaccine is administered in combination with an adjuvant and an immune modulator to improve the immune response to the target.

Based on the vaccine’s mechanism and the accumulating evidence of activity in mid-stage trials, researchers believe the WT1 vaccine may have the potential to complement currently available therapies by destroying residual tumor cells of cancers in remission and providing ongoing immune surveillance for recurrent tumors.

The WT1 vaccine could potentially target more than 20 cancers that overexpress WT1, many of which are associated with relapse rates of up to 80% or more, as seen in patients with AML and MPM.

The vaccine is being developed by SELLAS Life Sciences Group. The company said that, in a phase 1 study, AML patients treated with the vaccine had a median overall survival of more than 3 years.

In a phase 2 trial of the vaccine, adult AML patients had a median overall survival of around 4 years. Data from the phase 2 trial are scheduled to be presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting.

SELLAS said it expects to begin a phase 3 trial of the vaccine in AML patients later this year.

Publications
Topics

Micrograph showing AML

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended orphan designation for the WT1 cancer vaccine galinpepimut-S as a treatment for patients

with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

The EMA’s opinion has been forwarded to the European Commission (EC), which makes the final decision.

The EC grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, prevent, or diagnose a life-threatening condition affecting up to 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union. The product must provide significant benefit to those affected by the condition.

Orphan designation from the EC provides companies with certain development incentives, including protocol assistance, a type of scientific advice specific for orphan drugs, and 10 years of market exclusivity once the drug is approved for use.

About the vaccine

The WT1 vaccine consists of 4 modified peptide chains that induce an innate immune response (CD4+/CD8+ T cells) against the WT1 antigen. The vaccine is administered in combination with an adjuvant and an immune modulator to improve the immune response to the target.

Based on the vaccine’s mechanism and the accumulating evidence of activity in mid-stage trials, researchers believe the WT1 vaccine may have the potential to complement currently available therapies by destroying residual tumor cells of cancers in remission and providing ongoing immune surveillance for recurrent tumors.

The WT1 vaccine could potentially target more than 20 cancers that overexpress WT1, many of which are associated with relapse rates of up to 80% or more, as seen in patients with AML and MPM.

The vaccine is being developed by SELLAS Life Sciences Group. The company said that, in a phase 1 study, AML patients treated with the vaccine had a median overall survival of more than 3 years.

In a phase 2 trial of the vaccine, adult AML patients had a median overall survival of around 4 years. Data from the phase 2 trial are scheduled to be presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting.

SELLAS said it expects to begin a phase 3 trial of the vaccine in AML patients later this year.

Micrograph showing AML

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended orphan designation for the WT1 cancer vaccine galinpepimut-S as a treatment for patients

with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

The EMA’s opinion has been forwarded to the European Commission (EC), which makes the final decision.

The EC grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, prevent, or diagnose a life-threatening condition affecting up to 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union. The product must provide significant benefit to those affected by the condition.

Orphan designation from the EC provides companies with certain development incentives, including protocol assistance, a type of scientific advice specific for orphan drugs, and 10 years of market exclusivity once the drug is approved for use.

About the vaccine

The WT1 vaccine consists of 4 modified peptide chains that induce an innate immune response (CD4+/CD8+ T cells) against the WT1 antigen. The vaccine is administered in combination with an adjuvant and an immune modulator to improve the immune response to the target.

Based on the vaccine’s mechanism and the accumulating evidence of activity in mid-stage trials, researchers believe the WT1 vaccine may have the potential to complement currently available therapies by destroying residual tumor cells of cancers in remission and providing ongoing immune surveillance for recurrent tumors.

The WT1 vaccine could potentially target more than 20 cancers that overexpress WT1, many of which are associated with relapse rates of up to 80% or more, as seen in patients with AML and MPM.

The vaccine is being developed by SELLAS Life Sciences Group. The company said that, in a phase 1 study, AML patients treated with the vaccine had a median overall survival of more than 3 years.

In a phase 2 trial of the vaccine, adult AML patients had a median overall survival of around 4 years. Data from the phase 2 trial are scheduled to be presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting.

SELLAS said it expects to begin a phase 3 trial of the vaccine in AML patients later this year.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
EMA recommends orphan designation for cancer vaccine
Display Headline
EMA recommends orphan designation for cancer vaccine
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Haplo-HSCT approach appears safe, effective for nonmalignant disorders

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Haplo-HSCT approach appears safe, effective for nonmalignant disorders

T cells

Image courtesy of NIAID

VALENCIA, SPAIN—Interim results of a phase 1/2 trial suggest the adjunct T-cell therapy BPX-501 can safely accelerate immune recovery after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplant (haplo-HSCT) in pediatric patients with nonmalignant disorders.

Twenty-four such patients received BPX-501 after haplo-HSCT on this trial.

At a median follow-up of 7 months, all 24 were still alive and disease-free.

In addition, the incidence of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was considered “very low.”

Pietro Merli, MD, of Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome, Italy, presented these results during the Presidential Symposium of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) as abstract O007.*

The trial, known as BP-004, was sponsored by Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, the company developing BPX-501.

About BPX-501

BPX-501 consists of genetically modified donor T cells incorporating the CaspaCIDe safety switch, which is designed to eliminate cells in the event of toxicity.

The goal is to allow physicians to more safely perform haplo-HSCTs by giving patients BPX-501 to speed immune reconstitution and provide control over viral infections. But the technology is designed to provide a safety net to eliminate BPX-501 alloreactive T cells if severe GVHD occurs.

The CaspaCIDe switch consists of the CID-binding domain coupled to the signaling domain of caspase-9, an enzyme that is part of the apoptotic pathway. The idea is that, if a patient develops severe GVHD, he can receive an infusion with the small molecule rimiducid. And this will trigger activation of the domain of caspase-9, which leads to selective apoptosis of the CaspaCIDe-containing cells.

About BP-004

In late 2014, Bellicum initiated BP-004, a phase 1/2 trial in children with leukemias, lymphomas, or orphan inherited blood disorders. The trial is being conducted in European and US pediatric transplant centers and is set to enroll up to 90 patients.

At the EBMT meeting, investigators reported results in 41 patients treated on this trial.

Dr Merli presented data on the 24 patients with nonmalignant disorders, including Fanconi anemia (n=5), beta-thalassemia major (n=5), severe combined immunodeficiency (n=5), Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (n=4), Diamond-Blackfan anemia (n=1), hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (n=1), immune deficiency due to mutation of XIAP gene (n=1), osteopetrosis (n=1), and sickle cell disease (n=1).

All of these patients received a T-cell-depleted haplo-HSCT without post-transplant GVHD prophylaxis.

The patients received BPX-501 within 14 ± 4 days after haplo-HSCT. The phase 1 portion of the trial consisted of a classical 3+3 design, with 3 cohorts receiving escalating doses of BPX-501 cells—2.5 x 105, 5 x 105, and 1 x 106 cells/kg.

In the phase 2 portion, patients received 1 X 106 BPX-501 cells/kg. Rimiducid was only to be used in the event of uncontrollable GVHD.

Results

The median time to platelet recovery was 10 days (range, 7-16), and the median time to neutrophil recovery was 15 days (range, 10-33).

At a median follow-up of 220 days (range, 61-486), there were no reports of transplant-related mortality.

All 24 patients were still alive and disease-free. And none of the patients developed post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

The cumulative incidence of skin-only acute GVHD was 16.6% (n=4), and the cumulative incidence of mild chronic GVHD was 5% (n=1).

This trial also included 17 patients with acute leukemias. Results in these patients were presented at the EBMT meeting as abstract WP16.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

Publications
Topics

T cells

Image courtesy of NIAID

VALENCIA, SPAIN—Interim results of a phase 1/2 trial suggest the adjunct T-cell therapy BPX-501 can safely accelerate immune recovery after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplant (haplo-HSCT) in pediatric patients with nonmalignant disorders.

Twenty-four such patients received BPX-501 after haplo-HSCT on this trial.

At a median follow-up of 7 months, all 24 were still alive and disease-free.

In addition, the incidence of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was considered “very low.”

Pietro Merli, MD, of Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome, Italy, presented these results during the Presidential Symposium of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) as abstract O007.*

The trial, known as BP-004, was sponsored by Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, the company developing BPX-501.

About BPX-501

BPX-501 consists of genetically modified donor T cells incorporating the CaspaCIDe safety switch, which is designed to eliminate cells in the event of toxicity.

The goal is to allow physicians to more safely perform haplo-HSCTs by giving patients BPX-501 to speed immune reconstitution and provide control over viral infections. But the technology is designed to provide a safety net to eliminate BPX-501 alloreactive T cells if severe GVHD occurs.

The CaspaCIDe switch consists of the CID-binding domain coupled to the signaling domain of caspase-9, an enzyme that is part of the apoptotic pathway. The idea is that, if a patient develops severe GVHD, he can receive an infusion with the small molecule rimiducid. And this will trigger activation of the domain of caspase-9, which leads to selective apoptosis of the CaspaCIDe-containing cells.

About BP-004

In late 2014, Bellicum initiated BP-004, a phase 1/2 trial in children with leukemias, lymphomas, or orphan inherited blood disorders. The trial is being conducted in European and US pediatric transplant centers and is set to enroll up to 90 patients.

At the EBMT meeting, investigators reported results in 41 patients treated on this trial.

Dr Merli presented data on the 24 patients with nonmalignant disorders, including Fanconi anemia (n=5), beta-thalassemia major (n=5), severe combined immunodeficiency (n=5), Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (n=4), Diamond-Blackfan anemia (n=1), hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (n=1), immune deficiency due to mutation of XIAP gene (n=1), osteopetrosis (n=1), and sickle cell disease (n=1).

All of these patients received a T-cell-depleted haplo-HSCT without post-transplant GVHD prophylaxis.

The patients received BPX-501 within 14 ± 4 days after haplo-HSCT. The phase 1 portion of the trial consisted of a classical 3+3 design, with 3 cohorts receiving escalating doses of BPX-501 cells—2.5 x 105, 5 x 105, and 1 x 106 cells/kg.

In the phase 2 portion, patients received 1 X 106 BPX-501 cells/kg. Rimiducid was only to be used in the event of uncontrollable GVHD.

Results

The median time to platelet recovery was 10 days (range, 7-16), and the median time to neutrophil recovery was 15 days (range, 10-33).

At a median follow-up of 220 days (range, 61-486), there were no reports of transplant-related mortality.

All 24 patients were still alive and disease-free. And none of the patients developed post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

The cumulative incidence of skin-only acute GVHD was 16.6% (n=4), and the cumulative incidence of mild chronic GVHD was 5% (n=1).

This trial also included 17 patients with acute leukemias. Results in these patients were presented at the EBMT meeting as abstract WP16.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

T cells

Image courtesy of NIAID

VALENCIA, SPAIN—Interim results of a phase 1/2 trial suggest the adjunct T-cell therapy BPX-501 can safely accelerate immune recovery after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplant (haplo-HSCT) in pediatric patients with nonmalignant disorders.

Twenty-four such patients received BPX-501 after haplo-HSCT on this trial.

At a median follow-up of 7 months, all 24 were still alive and disease-free.

In addition, the incidence of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was considered “very low.”

Pietro Merli, MD, of Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome, Italy, presented these results during the Presidential Symposium of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) as abstract O007.*

The trial, known as BP-004, was sponsored by Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, the company developing BPX-501.

About BPX-501

BPX-501 consists of genetically modified donor T cells incorporating the CaspaCIDe safety switch, which is designed to eliminate cells in the event of toxicity.

The goal is to allow physicians to more safely perform haplo-HSCTs by giving patients BPX-501 to speed immune reconstitution and provide control over viral infections. But the technology is designed to provide a safety net to eliminate BPX-501 alloreactive T cells if severe GVHD occurs.

The CaspaCIDe switch consists of the CID-binding domain coupled to the signaling domain of caspase-9, an enzyme that is part of the apoptotic pathway. The idea is that, if a patient develops severe GVHD, he can receive an infusion with the small molecule rimiducid. And this will trigger activation of the domain of caspase-9, which leads to selective apoptosis of the CaspaCIDe-containing cells.

About BP-004

In late 2014, Bellicum initiated BP-004, a phase 1/2 trial in children with leukemias, lymphomas, or orphan inherited blood disorders. The trial is being conducted in European and US pediatric transplant centers and is set to enroll up to 90 patients.

At the EBMT meeting, investigators reported results in 41 patients treated on this trial.

Dr Merli presented data on the 24 patients with nonmalignant disorders, including Fanconi anemia (n=5), beta-thalassemia major (n=5), severe combined immunodeficiency (n=5), Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (n=4), Diamond-Blackfan anemia (n=1), hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (n=1), immune deficiency due to mutation of XIAP gene (n=1), osteopetrosis (n=1), and sickle cell disease (n=1).

All of these patients received a T-cell-depleted haplo-HSCT without post-transplant GVHD prophylaxis.

The patients received BPX-501 within 14 ± 4 days after haplo-HSCT. The phase 1 portion of the trial consisted of a classical 3+3 design, with 3 cohorts receiving escalating doses of BPX-501 cells—2.5 x 105, 5 x 105, and 1 x 106 cells/kg.

In the phase 2 portion, patients received 1 X 106 BPX-501 cells/kg. Rimiducid was only to be used in the event of uncontrollable GVHD.

Results

The median time to platelet recovery was 10 days (range, 7-16), and the median time to neutrophil recovery was 15 days (range, 10-33).

At a median follow-up of 220 days (range, 61-486), there were no reports of transplant-related mortality.

All 24 patients were still alive and disease-free. And none of the patients developed post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

The cumulative incidence of skin-only acute GVHD was 16.6% (n=4), and the cumulative incidence of mild chronic GVHD was 5% (n=1).

This trial also included 17 patients with acute leukemias. Results in these patients were presented at the EBMT meeting as abstract WP16.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Haplo-HSCT approach appears safe, effective for nonmalignant disorders
Display Headline
Haplo-HSCT approach appears safe, effective for nonmalignant disorders
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Therapy may improve haplo-HSCT in leukemia patients

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Therapy may improve haplo-HSCT in leukemia patients

Leukemia patient

Photo by Bill Branson

VALENCIA, SPAIN—The adjunct T-cell therapy BPX-501 can make haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplant (haplo-HSCT) an “attractive option” for pediatric patients with acute leukemia, according to a presentation at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT).

Acute leukemia patients who received BPX-501 after haplo-HSCT in a phase 1/2 trial tended to have favorable outcomes.

At a median follow-up of 7 months, 16 of the 17 patients were alive and disease-free.

There were several cases of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), but nearly all of these resolved.

Franco Locatelli, MD, PhD, of Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome, Italy, presented these results at the EBMT meeting as abstract WP16.*

The trial, known as BP-004, was sponsored by Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, the company developing BPX-501.

About BPX-501

BPX-501 consists of genetically modified donor T cells incorporating the CaspaCIDe safety switch, which is designed to eliminate cells in the event of toxicity.

The goal is to allow physicians to more safely perform haplo-HSCTs by giving patients BPX-501 to speed immune reconstitution and provide control over viral infections. But the technology is designed to provide a safety net to eliminate BPX-501 alloreactive T cells if severe GVHD occurs.

The CaspaCIDe switch consists of the CID-binding domain coupled to the signaling domain of caspase-9, an enzyme that is part of the apoptotic pathway. The idea is that, if a patient develops severe GVHD, he can receive an infusion with the small molecule rimiducid. And this will trigger activation of the domain of caspase-9, which leads to selective apoptosis of the CaspaCIDe-containing cells.

About BP-004

In late 2014, Bellicum initiated BP-004, a phase 1/2 trial in children with leukemias, lymphomas, or orphan inherited blood disorders. The trial is being conducted in European and US pediatric transplant centers and is set to enroll up to 90 patients.

At the EBMT meeting, researchers reported results in 41 patients treated on this trial.

Dr Locatelli presented data on 17 patients with acute leukemias—13 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and 4 with acute myeloid leukemia. Their median age at HSCT was 6.5 years (range, 0.9-16.1)

All of these patients received a T-cell-depleted haplo-HSCT without post-transplant GVHD prophylaxis. All were in complete remission at the time of transplant.

The patients received BPX-501 within 14 ± 4 days after haplo-HSCT. The phase 1 portion of the trial consisted of a classical 3+3 design, with 3 cohorts receiving escalating doses of BPX-501 cells—2.5 x 105, 5 x 105, and 1 x 106 cells/kg.

In the phase 2 portion, patients received 1 X 106 BPX-501 cells/kg. Rimiducid was only used in the event of uncontrollable GVHD.

Results

The median follow-up was 7 months (range, 1-15.6). The median time to platelet recovery was 11 days (range, 9-13), and the median time to neutrophil recovery was 17 days (range, 10-22).

Three patients developed skin-only acute GVHD, were treated with topical steroids, and the GVHD resolved. Two patients developed acute grade 3 GVHD, were treated with systemic steroids, and the GVHD resolved.

Two patients developed mild chronic GVHD, received systemic steroids, and the GVHD resolved. And 1 patient developed severe chronic GVHD, received systemic steroids and rimiducid, and the GVHD improved.

One patient relapsed. The estimated 1-year disease-free survival was 92.9%. Dr Locatelli noted that, although the follow-up is still limited, these results compare favorably to results in historical controls.

“These interim results continue to be very encouraging and indicate that a haploidentical transplant, with the addition of BPX-501-modified donor T cells, can be an attractive option for children in need of a transplant,” he said.

 

 

“Future studies will address the role of repeated infusions or higher numbers of BPX-501 cells in malignant patients with resistant disease.”

The BP-004 trial also included 24 patients with nonmalignant disorders. Results in these patients were presented at the EBMT meeting as abstract O007.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

Publications
Topics

Leukemia patient

Photo by Bill Branson

VALENCIA, SPAIN—The adjunct T-cell therapy BPX-501 can make haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplant (haplo-HSCT) an “attractive option” for pediatric patients with acute leukemia, according to a presentation at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT).

Acute leukemia patients who received BPX-501 after haplo-HSCT in a phase 1/2 trial tended to have favorable outcomes.

At a median follow-up of 7 months, 16 of the 17 patients were alive and disease-free.

There were several cases of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), but nearly all of these resolved.

Franco Locatelli, MD, PhD, of Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome, Italy, presented these results at the EBMT meeting as abstract WP16.*

The trial, known as BP-004, was sponsored by Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, the company developing BPX-501.

About BPX-501

BPX-501 consists of genetically modified donor T cells incorporating the CaspaCIDe safety switch, which is designed to eliminate cells in the event of toxicity.

The goal is to allow physicians to more safely perform haplo-HSCTs by giving patients BPX-501 to speed immune reconstitution and provide control over viral infections. But the technology is designed to provide a safety net to eliminate BPX-501 alloreactive T cells if severe GVHD occurs.

The CaspaCIDe switch consists of the CID-binding domain coupled to the signaling domain of caspase-9, an enzyme that is part of the apoptotic pathway. The idea is that, if a patient develops severe GVHD, he can receive an infusion with the small molecule rimiducid. And this will trigger activation of the domain of caspase-9, which leads to selective apoptosis of the CaspaCIDe-containing cells.

About BP-004

In late 2014, Bellicum initiated BP-004, a phase 1/2 trial in children with leukemias, lymphomas, or orphan inherited blood disorders. The trial is being conducted in European and US pediatric transplant centers and is set to enroll up to 90 patients.

At the EBMT meeting, researchers reported results in 41 patients treated on this trial.

Dr Locatelli presented data on 17 patients with acute leukemias—13 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and 4 with acute myeloid leukemia. Their median age at HSCT was 6.5 years (range, 0.9-16.1)

All of these patients received a T-cell-depleted haplo-HSCT without post-transplant GVHD prophylaxis. All were in complete remission at the time of transplant.

The patients received BPX-501 within 14 ± 4 days after haplo-HSCT. The phase 1 portion of the trial consisted of a classical 3+3 design, with 3 cohorts receiving escalating doses of BPX-501 cells—2.5 x 105, 5 x 105, and 1 x 106 cells/kg.

In the phase 2 portion, patients received 1 X 106 BPX-501 cells/kg. Rimiducid was only used in the event of uncontrollable GVHD.

Results

The median follow-up was 7 months (range, 1-15.6). The median time to platelet recovery was 11 days (range, 9-13), and the median time to neutrophil recovery was 17 days (range, 10-22).

Three patients developed skin-only acute GVHD, were treated with topical steroids, and the GVHD resolved. Two patients developed acute grade 3 GVHD, were treated with systemic steroids, and the GVHD resolved.

Two patients developed mild chronic GVHD, received systemic steroids, and the GVHD resolved. And 1 patient developed severe chronic GVHD, received systemic steroids and rimiducid, and the GVHD improved.

One patient relapsed. The estimated 1-year disease-free survival was 92.9%. Dr Locatelli noted that, although the follow-up is still limited, these results compare favorably to results in historical controls.

“These interim results continue to be very encouraging and indicate that a haploidentical transplant, with the addition of BPX-501-modified donor T cells, can be an attractive option for children in need of a transplant,” he said.

 

 

“Future studies will address the role of repeated infusions or higher numbers of BPX-501 cells in malignant patients with resistant disease.”

The BP-004 trial also included 24 patients with nonmalignant disorders. Results in these patients were presented at the EBMT meeting as abstract O007.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

Leukemia patient

Photo by Bill Branson

VALENCIA, SPAIN—The adjunct T-cell therapy BPX-501 can make haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplant (haplo-HSCT) an “attractive option” for pediatric patients with acute leukemia, according to a presentation at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT).

Acute leukemia patients who received BPX-501 after haplo-HSCT in a phase 1/2 trial tended to have favorable outcomes.

At a median follow-up of 7 months, 16 of the 17 patients were alive and disease-free.

There were several cases of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), but nearly all of these resolved.

Franco Locatelli, MD, PhD, of Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome, Italy, presented these results at the EBMT meeting as abstract WP16.*

The trial, known as BP-004, was sponsored by Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, the company developing BPX-501.

About BPX-501

BPX-501 consists of genetically modified donor T cells incorporating the CaspaCIDe safety switch, which is designed to eliminate cells in the event of toxicity.

The goal is to allow physicians to more safely perform haplo-HSCTs by giving patients BPX-501 to speed immune reconstitution and provide control over viral infections. But the technology is designed to provide a safety net to eliminate BPX-501 alloreactive T cells if severe GVHD occurs.

The CaspaCIDe switch consists of the CID-binding domain coupled to the signaling domain of caspase-9, an enzyme that is part of the apoptotic pathway. The idea is that, if a patient develops severe GVHD, he can receive an infusion with the small molecule rimiducid. And this will trigger activation of the domain of caspase-9, which leads to selective apoptosis of the CaspaCIDe-containing cells.

About BP-004

In late 2014, Bellicum initiated BP-004, a phase 1/2 trial in children with leukemias, lymphomas, or orphan inherited blood disorders. The trial is being conducted in European and US pediatric transplant centers and is set to enroll up to 90 patients.

At the EBMT meeting, researchers reported results in 41 patients treated on this trial.

Dr Locatelli presented data on 17 patients with acute leukemias—13 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and 4 with acute myeloid leukemia. Their median age at HSCT was 6.5 years (range, 0.9-16.1)

All of these patients received a T-cell-depleted haplo-HSCT without post-transplant GVHD prophylaxis. All were in complete remission at the time of transplant.

The patients received BPX-501 within 14 ± 4 days after haplo-HSCT. The phase 1 portion of the trial consisted of a classical 3+3 design, with 3 cohorts receiving escalating doses of BPX-501 cells—2.5 x 105, 5 x 105, and 1 x 106 cells/kg.

In the phase 2 portion, patients received 1 X 106 BPX-501 cells/kg. Rimiducid was only used in the event of uncontrollable GVHD.

Results

The median follow-up was 7 months (range, 1-15.6). The median time to platelet recovery was 11 days (range, 9-13), and the median time to neutrophil recovery was 17 days (range, 10-22).

Three patients developed skin-only acute GVHD, were treated with topical steroids, and the GVHD resolved. Two patients developed acute grade 3 GVHD, were treated with systemic steroids, and the GVHD resolved.

Two patients developed mild chronic GVHD, received systemic steroids, and the GVHD resolved. And 1 patient developed severe chronic GVHD, received systemic steroids and rimiducid, and the GVHD improved.

One patient relapsed. The estimated 1-year disease-free survival was 92.9%. Dr Locatelli noted that, although the follow-up is still limited, these results compare favorably to results in historical controls.

“These interim results continue to be very encouraging and indicate that a haploidentical transplant, with the addition of BPX-501-modified donor T cells, can be an attractive option for children in need of a transplant,” he said.

 

 

“Future studies will address the role of repeated infusions or higher numbers of BPX-501 cells in malignant patients with resistant disease.”

The BP-004 trial also included 24 patients with nonmalignant disorders. Results in these patients were presented at the EBMT meeting as abstract O007.

*Information in the abstract differs from that presented at the meeting.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Therapy may improve haplo-HSCT in leukemia patients
Display Headline
Therapy may improve haplo-HSCT in leukemia patients
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Interdisciplinary Rounds

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Do interdisciplinary rounds improve patient outcomes? only if they improve teamwork

Care of hospitalized patients requires effective teamwork within groups composed of physicians (eg, residents, hospitalists, specialists), advanced practice providers, nurses, patient‐care technicians, pharmacists, social workers, and therapists. Sadly, hospital‐based team members often fail to communicate. For example, 2 studies found that nurses and physicians communicated with one another on only 50% to 60% of their patients' hospital days, resulting in a lack of a mutual understanding of the plan of care.[1, 2]

Failure to communicate effectively may be because the hospital setting poses important challenges to teamwork, including the use of large teams with membership that changes frequently because of the need to provide care around the clock. Furthermore, individual team members often have high workloads, care for multiple patients simultaneously, and are seldom in the same place at the same time.

Interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) are a microsystem‐level solution with the goal to share information, achieve mutual understanding, and collaboratively revise the plan of care within care teams. Though common, IDR look very different across hospitals, making studies that evaluate novel strategies to improve IDR and measure their impact of great interest to hospital medicine.

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Bhamidipati and colleagues present a systematic review of published studies evaluating the effect of IDR on patient outcomes.[3] The systematic review included 22 studies, including 12 experimental/quasiexperimental and 10 observational studies. Overall, 13 studies were of low to medium quality, and 9 were high quality. Importantly, relatively few studies reported the degree to which IDR were implemented as planned. The investigators found evidence that IDR had a positive effect on length of stay (LOS) and staff satisfaction, but little evidence to support an effect on patient safety or satisfaction. Furthermore, the investigators found significant variability in IDR design and team composition. Some of this variation is to be expected, as IDR, like other interventions to improve quality and safety of patient care in complex settings, should be implemented with an expectation that the team may need to make adaptations based on local contextual factors such as workload (eg, daily census), environment (eg, open vs closed intensive care unit), local politics (eg, uniquely strong support for/against the intervention), and prior experience (eg, prior failed, similar interventions).[4, 5] Moreover, objectives for IDR may differ across settings. Some hospitals may have room (and a need) to improve LOS, whereas others may prioritize improving patient safety or patient experience metrics.

Bhamidipati and colleagues explain that their review did not reveal a causal pathway between IDR design and outcomes. We believe this lack of association is because most of the included studies did not propose a causal pathway between the IDR components implemented and the outcomes assessed. That is, few studies referred to conceptual models that explain how components of the IDR intervention might influence downstream patient outcomes.

IDR have the potential to influence a number of patient outcomes, including those reflecting efficiency (eg, length of stay), patient safety (eg, adverse events), and patient centeredness (eg, patient satisfaction). However, these outcomes are influenced by many factors, including patient characteristics and other efforts to improve care. As explained by the investigators, the results of many of the included studies may have been confounded due to relatively weak study designs and statistical analyses. Importantly, few of the studies included in this review report the more proximal measure of teamwork. If we hypothesize that IDR improve patient outcomes, they do so by improving teamwork. After all, the purpose of IDR is to assemble team members so they can communicate about and coordinate care. Measuring teamwork behaviors is difficult, especially on medical services. Measuring teamwork climate, the measurable aspects of team culture, is relatively easy. A recent systematic review of teamwork climate assessments in internal medicine identified the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire and the Team Climate Inventory as having substantial validity evidence and association with improved patient outcomes.[6]

Bhamidipati and colleagues proposed a definition for IDR and taxonomy for IDR design and reporting based on their systematic review. Although very useful, the IDR definition may be too limiting as evidenced by the fact that very few studies would be included in a systematic review using this definition as the inclusion criteria. Their proposed taxonomy should serve as a useful framework for future research efforts and appropriately recommends reporting of site characteristics, components of IDR design, and outcomes.

The systematic review by Bhamidipati et al. must also be interpreted in conjunction with another recently published systematic review by Pannick and colleagues assessing the effect of interdisciplinary team care interventions on general medical wards.[7] Contrary to the findings of the Bhamidipati et al. study, Pannick and colleagues found that most interdisciplinary team care interventions had no effect on LOS, but that half of the studies found an improvement in complications of care. Importantly, Pannick and colleagues included only experimental and quasiexperimental studies in their systematic review (ie, no observational studies).

There is clearly more work to be done in researching IDR and other interventions to improve teamwork in general medical settings. Larger studies are needed to provide sufficient power to detect improvement in outcomes. Future studies need to report the degree to which interventions are implemented as planned and need to use stronger study designs (eg, cluster randomized control or interrupted time series) to avoid the influence of confounders. Qualitative methods should be used to assess the influence of contextual factors on the success of interventions.[4] Most importantly, future studies should be based on conceptual models that explain how components of the intervention influence proximal measures of teamwork and downstream patient outcomes.

In the meantime, what is a hospital leader to do? We believe efforts to improve IDR are warranted, but that IDR program leaders need to first specify their primary objective(s). For example, in some hospitals, there may be little room to further reduce LOS, so another goalreducing preventable readmissions or reducing adverse eventsmight be specified as the key performance indicator. This crucial first step of creating a shared goal informs the design, implementation, and evaluation of IDR. We also believe that geographic localization of physicians to specific units is foundational to improving IDR. Physicians cannot feasibly attend IDR if their patients are spread across multiple units (or buildings). Finally, hospital leaders also need to view IDR as part of a larger set of interventions to improve teamwork. Leaders need to assess the adequacy of staffing levels, workflow, and team composition.[8] Unit‐based interdisciplinary leadership models should be used to help link efforts at various levels within a larger system.[9] These models designate a unit medical director and nurse manager who are jointly responsible for unit performance.

In conclusion, IDR play an important role in improving patient outcomes, but only do so by improving teamwork. In redesigning IDR, leaders need to be thoughtful about what outcomes IDR can affect, how IDR affect them, and how IDR fit into larger‐scale efforts to improve performance.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Files
References
  1. Evanoff B, Potter P, Wolf L, Grayson D, Dunagan C, Boxerman S. Can we talk? Priorities for patient care differed among health care providers. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Marks ES, Lewin DI, eds. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation. Volume 1: Research Findings. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005.
  2. O'Leary KJ, Thompson JA, Landler MP, et al. Patterns of nurse‐physician communication and agreement on the plan of care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(3):195199.
  3. Bhamidipati VS, Elliott DJ, Justice EM, Belleh E, Sonnad SS, Robinson EJ. Structure and outcomes of inter‐disciplinary rounds in hospitalized medicine patients: a systematic review and suggested taxonomny. J Hosp Med. 2016;11:513523.
  4. Shekelle PG, Pronovost PJ, Wachter RM, et al. Advancing the science of patient safety. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(10):693696.
  5. Davidoff F. Improvement interventions are social treatments, not pills. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(7):526527.
  6. Havyer RD, Wingo MT, Comfere NI, et al. Teamwork assessment in internal medicine: a systematic review of validity evidence and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(6):894910.
  7. Pannick S, Davis R, Ashrafian H, et al. Effects of interdisciplinary team care interventions on general medical wards: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):12881298.
  8. Pannick S, Beveridge I, Wachter RM, Sevdalis N. Improving the quality and safety of care on the medical ward: A review and synthesis of the evidence base. Eur J Intern Med. 2014;25(10):874887.
  9. Kim CS, King E, Stein J, Robinson E, Salameh M, O'Leary KJ. Unit‐based interprofessional leadership models in six US hospitals. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(8):545550.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(7)
Page Number
524-525
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

Care of hospitalized patients requires effective teamwork within groups composed of physicians (eg, residents, hospitalists, specialists), advanced practice providers, nurses, patient‐care technicians, pharmacists, social workers, and therapists. Sadly, hospital‐based team members often fail to communicate. For example, 2 studies found that nurses and physicians communicated with one another on only 50% to 60% of their patients' hospital days, resulting in a lack of a mutual understanding of the plan of care.[1, 2]

Failure to communicate effectively may be because the hospital setting poses important challenges to teamwork, including the use of large teams with membership that changes frequently because of the need to provide care around the clock. Furthermore, individual team members often have high workloads, care for multiple patients simultaneously, and are seldom in the same place at the same time.

Interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) are a microsystem‐level solution with the goal to share information, achieve mutual understanding, and collaboratively revise the plan of care within care teams. Though common, IDR look very different across hospitals, making studies that evaluate novel strategies to improve IDR and measure their impact of great interest to hospital medicine.

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Bhamidipati and colleagues present a systematic review of published studies evaluating the effect of IDR on patient outcomes.[3] The systematic review included 22 studies, including 12 experimental/quasiexperimental and 10 observational studies. Overall, 13 studies were of low to medium quality, and 9 were high quality. Importantly, relatively few studies reported the degree to which IDR were implemented as planned. The investigators found evidence that IDR had a positive effect on length of stay (LOS) and staff satisfaction, but little evidence to support an effect on patient safety or satisfaction. Furthermore, the investigators found significant variability in IDR design and team composition. Some of this variation is to be expected, as IDR, like other interventions to improve quality and safety of patient care in complex settings, should be implemented with an expectation that the team may need to make adaptations based on local contextual factors such as workload (eg, daily census), environment (eg, open vs closed intensive care unit), local politics (eg, uniquely strong support for/against the intervention), and prior experience (eg, prior failed, similar interventions).[4, 5] Moreover, objectives for IDR may differ across settings. Some hospitals may have room (and a need) to improve LOS, whereas others may prioritize improving patient safety or patient experience metrics.

Bhamidipati and colleagues explain that their review did not reveal a causal pathway between IDR design and outcomes. We believe this lack of association is because most of the included studies did not propose a causal pathway between the IDR components implemented and the outcomes assessed. That is, few studies referred to conceptual models that explain how components of the IDR intervention might influence downstream patient outcomes.

IDR have the potential to influence a number of patient outcomes, including those reflecting efficiency (eg, length of stay), patient safety (eg, adverse events), and patient centeredness (eg, patient satisfaction). However, these outcomes are influenced by many factors, including patient characteristics and other efforts to improve care. As explained by the investigators, the results of many of the included studies may have been confounded due to relatively weak study designs and statistical analyses. Importantly, few of the studies included in this review report the more proximal measure of teamwork. If we hypothesize that IDR improve patient outcomes, they do so by improving teamwork. After all, the purpose of IDR is to assemble team members so they can communicate about and coordinate care. Measuring teamwork behaviors is difficult, especially on medical services. Measuring teamwork climate, the measurable aspects of team culture, is relatively easy. A recent systematic review of teamwork climate assessments in internal medicine identified the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire and the Team Climate Inventory as having substantial validity evidence and association with improved patient outcomes.[6]

Bhamidipati and colleagues proposed a definition for IDR and taxonomy for IDR design and reporting based on their systematic review. Although very useful, the IDR definition may be too limiting as evidenced by the fact that very few studies would be included in a systematic review using this definition as the inclusion criteria. Their proposed taxonomy should serve as a useful framework for future research efforts and appropriately recommends reporting of site characteristics, components of IDR design, and outcomes.

The systematic review by Bhamidipati et al. must also be interpreted in conjunction with another recently published systematic review by Pannick and colleagues assessing the effect of interdisciplinary team care interventions on general medical wards.[7] Contrary to the findings of the Bhamidipati et al. study, Pannick and colleagues found that most interdisciplinary team care interventions had no effect on LOS, but that half of the studies found an improvement in complications of care. Importantly, Pannick and colleagues included only experimental and quasiexperimental studies in their systematic review (ie, no observational studies).

There is clearly more work to be done in researching IDR and other interventions to improve teamwork in general medical settings. Larger studies are needed to provide sufficient power to detect improvement in outcomes. Future studies need to report the degree to which interventions are implemented as planned and need to use stronger study designs (eg, cluster randomized control or interrupted time series) to avoid the influence of confounders. Qualitative methods should be used to assess the influence of contextual factors on the success of interventions.[4] Most importantly, future studies should be based on conceptual models that explain how components of the intervention influence proximal measures of teamwork and downstream patient outcomes.

In the meantime, what is a hospital leader to do? We believe efforts to improve IDR are warranted, but that IDR program leaders need to first specify their primary objective(s). For example, in some hospitals, there may be little room to further reduce LOS, so another goalreducing preventable readmissions or reducing adverse eventsmight be specified as the key performance indicator. This crucial first step of creating a shared goal informs the design, implementation, and evaluation of IDR. We also believe that geographic localization of physicians to specific units is foundational to improving IDR. Physicians cannot feasibly attend IDR if their patients are spread across multiple units (or buildings). Finally, hospital leaders also need to view IDR as part of a larger set of interventions to improve teamwork. Leaders need to assess the adequacy of staffing levels, workflow, and team composition.[8] Unit‐based interdisciplinary leadership models should be used to help link efforts at various levels within a larger system.[9] These models designate a unit medical director and nurse manager who are jointly responsible for unit performance.

In conclusion, IDR play an important role in improving patient outcomes, but only do so by improving teamwork. In redesigning IDR, leaders need to be thoughtful about what outcomes IDR can affect, how IDR affect them, and how IDR fit into larger‐scale efforts to improve performance.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Care of hospitalized patients requires effective teamwork within groups composed of physicians (eg, residents, hospitalists, specialists), advanced practice providers, nurses, patient‐care technicians, pharmacists, social workers, and therapists. Sadly, hospital‐based team members often fail to communicate. For example, 2 studies found that nurses and physicians communicated with one another on only 50% to 60% of their patients' hospital days, resulting in a lack of a mutual understanding of the plan of care.[1, 2]

Failure to communicate effectively may be because the hospital setting poses important challenges to teamwork, including the use of large teams with membership that changes frequently because of the need to provide care around the clock. Furthermore, individual team members often have high workloads, care for multiple patients simultaneously, and are seldom in the same place at the same time.

Interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) are a microsystem‐level solution with the goal to share information, achieve mutual understanding, and collaboratively revise the plan of care within care teams. Though common, IDR look very different across hospitals, making studies that evaluate novel strategies to improve IDR and measure their impact of great interest to hospital medicine.

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Bhamidipati and colleagues present a systematic review of published studies evaluating the effect of IDR on patient outcomes.[3] The systematic review included 22 studies, including 12 experimental/quasiexperimental and 10 observational studies. Overall, 13 studies were of low to medium quality, and 9 were high quality. Importantly, relatively few studies reported the degree to which IDR were implemented as planned. The investigators found evidence that IDR had a positive effect on length of stay (LOS) and staff satisfaction, but little evidence to support an effect on patient safety or satisfaction. Furthermore, the investigators found significant variability in IDR design and team composition. Some of this variation is to be expected, as IDR, like other interventions to improve quality and safety of patient care in complex settings, should be implemented with an expectation that the team may need to make adaptations based on local contextual factors such as workload (eg, daily census), environment (eg, open vs closed intensive care unit), local politics (eg, uniquely strong support for/against the intervention), and prior experience (eg, prior failed, similar interventions).[4, 5] Moreover, objectives for IDR may differ across settings. Some hospitals may have room (and a need) to improve LOS, whereas others may prioritize improving patient safety or patient experience metrics.

Bhamidipati and colleagues explain that their review did not reveal a causal pathway between IDR design and outcomes. We believe this lack of association is because most of the included studies did not propose a causal pathway between the IDR components implemented and the outcomes assessed. That is, few studies referred to conceptual models that explain how components of the IDR intervention might influence downstream patient outcomes.

IDR have the potential to influence a number of patient outcomes, including those reflecting efficiency (eg, length of stay), patient safety (eg, adverse events), and patient centeredness (eg, patient satisfaction). However, these outcomes are influenced by many factors, including patient characteristics and other efforts to improve care. As explained by the investigators, the results of many of the included studies may have been confounded due to relatively weak study designs and statistical analyses. Importantly, few of the studies included in this review report the more proximal measure of teamwork. If we hypothesize that IDR improve patient outcomes, they do so by improving teamwork. After all, the purpose of IDR is to assemble team members so they can communicate about and coordinate care. Measuring teamwork behaviors is difficult, especially on medical services. Measuring teamwork climate, the measurable aspects of team culture, is relatively easy. A recent systematic review of teamwork climate assessments in internal medicine identified the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire and the Team Climate Inventory as having substantial validity evidence and association with improved patient outcomes.[6]

Bhamidipati and colleagues proposed a definition for IDR and taxonomy for IDR design and reporting based on their systematic review. Although very useful, the IDR definition may be too limiting as evidenced by the fact that very few studies would be included in a systematic review using this definition as the inclusion criteria. Their proposed taxonomy should serve as a useful framework for future research efforts and appropriately recommends reporting of site characteristics, components of IDR design, and outcomes.

The systematic review by Bhamidipati et al. must also be interpreted in conjunction with another recently published systematic review by Pannick and colleagues assessing the effect of interdisciplinary team care interventions on general medical wards.[7] Contrary to the findings of the Bhamidipati et al. study, Pannick and colleagues found that most interdisciplinary team care interventions had no effect on LOS, but that half of the studies found an improvement in complications of care. Importantly, Pannick and colleagues included only experimental and quasiexperimental studies in their systematic review (ie, no observational studies).

There is clearly more work to be done in researching IDR and other interventions to improve teamwork in general medical settings. Larger studies are needed to provide sufficient power to detect improvement in outcomes. Future studies need to report the degree to which interventions are implemented as planned and need to use stronger study designs (eg, cluster randomized control or interrupted time series) to avoid the influence of confounders. Qualitative methods should be used to assess the influence of contextual factors on the success of interventions.[4] Most importantly, future studies should be based on conceptual models that explain how components of the intervention influence proximal measures of teamwork and downstream patient outcomes.

In the meantime, what is a hospital leader to do? We believe efforts to improve IDR are warranted, but that IDR program leaders need to first specify their primary objective(s). For example, in some hospitals, there may be little room to further reduce LOS, so another goalreducing preventable readmissions or reducing adverse eventsmight be specified as the key performance indicator. This crucial first step of creating a shared goal informs the design, implementation, and evaluation of IDR. We also believe that geographic localization of physicians to specific units is foundational to improving IDR. Physicians cannot feasibly attend IDR if their patients are spread across multiple units (or buildings). Finally, hospital leaders also need to view IDR as part of a larger set of interventions to improve teamwork. Leaders need to assess the adequacy of staffing levels, workflow, and team composition.[8] Unit‐based interdisciplinary leadership models should be used to help link efforts at various levels within a larger system.[9] These models designate a unit medical director and nurse manager who are jointly responsible for unit performance.

In conclusion, IDR play an important role in improving patient outcomes, but only do so by improving teamwork. In redesigning IDR, leaders need to be thoughtful about what outcomes IDR can affect, how IDR affect them, and how IDR fit into larger‐scale efforts to improve performance.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

References
  1. Evanoff B, Potter P, Wolf L, Grayson D, Dunagan C, Boxerman S. Can we talk? Priorities for patient care differed among health care providers. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Marks ES, Lewin DI, eds. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation. Volume 1: Research Findings. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005.
  2. O'Leary KJ, Thompson JA, Landler MP, et al. Patterns of nurse‐physician communication and agreement on the plan of care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(3):195199.
  3. Bhamidipati VS, Elliott DJ, Justice EM, Belleh E, Sonnad SS, Robinson EJ. Structure and outcomes of inter‐disciplinary rounds in hospitalized medicine patients: a systematic review and suggested taxonomny. J Hosp Med. 2016;11:513523.
  4. Shekelle PG, Pronovost PJ, Wachter RM, et al. Advancing the science of patient safety. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(10):693696.
  5. Davidoff F. Improvement interventions are social treatments, not pills. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(7):526527.
  6. Havyer RD, Wingo MT, Comfere NI, et al. Teamwork assessment in internal medicine: a systematic review of validity evidence and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(6):894910.
  7. Pannick S, Davis R, Ashrafian H, et al. Effects of interdisciplinary team care interventions on general medical wards: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):12881298.
  8. Pannick S, Beveridge I, Wachter RM, Sevdalis N. Improving the quality and safety of care on the medical ward: A review and synthesis of the evidence base. Eur J Intern Med. 2014;25(10):874887.
  9. Kim CS, King E, Stein J, Robinson E, Salameh M, O'Leary KJ. Unit‐based interprofessional leadership models in six US hospitals. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(8):545550.
References
  1. Evanoff B, Potter P, Wolf L, Grayson D, Dunagan C, Boxerman S. Can we talk? Priorities for patient care differed among health care providers. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Marks ES, Lewin DI, eds. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation. Volume 1: Research Findings. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005.
  2. O'Leary KJ, Thompson JA, Landler MP, et al. Patterns of nurse‐physician communication and agreement on the plan of care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(3):195199.
  3. Bhamidipati VS, Elliott DJ, Justice EM, Belleh E, Sonnad SS, Robinson EJ. Structure and outcomes of inter‐disciplinary rounds in hospitalized medicine patients: a systematic review and suggested taxonomny. J Hosp Med. 2016;11:513523.
  4. Shekelle PG, Pronovost PJ, Wachter RM, et al. Advancing the science of patient safety. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(10):693696.
  5. Davidoff F. Improvement interventions are social treatments, not pills. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(7):526527.
  6. Havyer RD, Wingo MT, Comfere NI, et al. Teamwork assessment in internal medicine: a systematic review of validity evidence and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(6):894910.
  7. Pannick S, Davis R, Ashrafian H, et al. Effects of interdisciplinary team care interventions on general medical wards: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):12881298.
  8. Pannick S, Beveridge I, Wachter RM, Sevdalis N. Improving the quality and safety of care on the medical ward: A review and synthesis of the evidence base. Eur J Intern Med. 2014;25(10):874887.
  9. Kim CS, King E, Stein J, Robinson E, Salameh M, O'Leary KJ. Unit‐based interprofessional leadership models in six US hospitals. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(8):545550.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(7)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(7)
Page Number
524-525
Page Number
524-525
Article Type
Display Headline
Do interdisciplinary rounds improve patient outcomes? only if they improve teamwork
Display Headline
Do interdisciplinary rounds improve patient outcomes? only if they improve teamwork
Sections
Article Source
© 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine
Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Kevin J. O'Leary, MD, Division of Hospital Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 211 E. Ontario St., Suite 700, Chicago, IL 60611; Fax: 312-926-4588; E‐mail: [email protected]
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Article PDF Media
Media Files

Medicare Insurance Reduces Cost

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Supplemental insurance reduces out‐of‐pocket costs in medicare observation services

Up to 10% of the acutely ill patients in hospitals today are not admitted, but cared for under outpatient observation.[1, 2] Hospitals use observation services to replace inpatient services for patients who do not meet inpatient illness standards. Use of this technique for Medicare beneficiaries has grown in recent years, and future policy changes may further increase the percentage of hospital stays classified as observation.[3, 4]

Increased use of observation services has cost‐sharing implications for Medicare beneficiaries. Because hospital observation stays are paid through Medicare's outpatient (Part B) rather than inpatient (Part A) benefit, beneficiaries do not have an out‐of‐pocket maximum per hospital stay.[3] Although prior analyses documented mean out‐of‐pocket costs of $400 to $600 per stay, out‐of‐pocket costs may exceed the Part A deductible and leave beneficiaries responsible for hospital costs that may have been reimbursed by Part A in an inpatient stay.[5, 6, 7] Approximately 6% to 10% of Medicare observation stays result in out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible nationally, and recent work in this journal documented that 26.6% of beneficiaries with repeat observation stays within a 60‐day period may pay more than the 1‐time deductible‐based payment that beneficiaries are responsible for under Medicare Part A.[5, 6, 7]

However, prior analyses of beneficiary out‐of‐pocket costs did not account for supplemental insurance payments. Approximately 80% to 90% of fee‐for‐service Medicare beneficiaries who use either a private (Medigap or employer based) or state‐based (Medicaid or other plans) supplemental insurance plan.[8, 9, 10] The effect of supplemental insurance on out‐of‐pocket costs has been documented for inpatient stays, yet has not been explored for observation stays.[9] We sought to describe Medicare beneficiaries' out‐of‐pocket costs by accounting for payments from all insurers.

METHODS

We obtained payment data from 2 affiliated hospitals for all Medicare observation hospital stays between April 2013 and March 2014. Stays insured by Medicare Advantage plans (Part C) were excluded, and charges from skilled nursing facility (SNF) stays were not available. Although the exact origin of each stay was not available, the majority of stays at these hospitals came from emergency visits, direct placement from outpatient providers, and postoutpatient procedural monitoring. The dataset included charges, insurance adjustments and payments from all sources, diagnoses, and demographics. Insurance adjustments represented the reductions applied to total stay charges by each insurer in congruence with their contract with the health system. Our dataset included charges for all hospital materials and services usually billed under Part A, including medications. Out‐of‐pocket costs were calculated by subtracting insurance adjustments and payments from the total charges for each stay. To identify potential cost‐shifting from Medicare to beneficiaries, we compared out‐of‐pocket costs to the Part A deductible ($1184 for stays in 2013 and $1216 for 2014). Household income data were estimated using zip code and Internal Revenue Service data for 2013.[11]

The University of California Los Angeles institutional review board approved this study. Statistical significance was calculated using a 2‐tailed unpaired t test for means and 2 for percentages.

RESULTS

There were 2029 total observation stays during the study period, representing 5.0% of all discharges from both hospitals. Medicare beneficiaries accounted for 722 of those observation stays. Among the 498 finalized Medicare observation stays, the median patient age was 73 years, and median household income was $50,591. The median length of stay was 25 hours, with 1.8% of stays lasting longer than 2 midnights. Seventy percent of beneficiaries had private supplemental insurance, whereas 6% had state‐based supplemental plans. Table 1 presents detailed costs. Out‐of‐pocket costs ranged from $0 to $16,196. Stays without supplemental insurance had mean and median out of pocket costs of $537 and $286, respectively. The mean out‐of‐pocket costs for stays with private supplemental insurance decreased to $45 (P 0.01) and $168 (P = 0.21) for stays with state‐based supplemental insurance, with a median below $1 for both. On average, beneficiaries without supplemental insurance were responsible for $654 less than the Part A deductible. Thirteen beneficiaries had multiple finalized stays within 60 days, with a mean out‐of‐pocket cost of $119, median of $20, and 1 stay produced an out‐of‐pocket cost exceeding the Part A deductible. An additional 224 Medicare stays not finalized because of missing supplemental payments had a mean out‐of‐pocket cost of $125 (P 0.01) and median of $5 after applying supplemental insurer adjustments (not shown in Table 1).

Insurer Payments and Beneficiary Out‐of‐Pocket Costs
Medicare Stays, N = 498
Mean (SD) Median (IQR) Range
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation. *Out‐of‐pocket costs in this study represent the maximum possible value. Hospitals often write off excessive costs or they remain uncollected.[14] P 0.01 compared to stays without supplemental insurance.

Payments by Medicare $2,533 (2,883) $1521 (1,898) $4$29,633
Payments by supplemental insurers
Private insurers (N = 351) $454 (384) $324 (332) $0$2,590
State‐based insurers (N = 29) $222(402) $43 (102) $2$1,229
Beneficiary out‐of‐pocket costs
Without supplemental insurer (N = 118) $537 (1,557) $286 (440) $0$16,196*
With private supplemental insurer (N = 351) $45 (414) $0.39 (16) $0$7,670*
With state‐based supplemental insurer (N = 29) $168 (412) $0.15 (27) $01,870*

A minority of observation stays produced out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible. Those percentages were 7.6% for stays without a supplemental insurer, 3.5% (P 0.01) for stays with a state‐based supplemental insurer, and 0.3% (P 0.01) for stays with a private supplemental insurer. Of the 224 nonfinalized Medicare stays, 1.3% (P 0.01) exceeded the Part A deductible after supplemental insurer adjustments.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that supplemental insurance can dramatically reduce Medicare beneficiaries' out‐of‐pocket costs in observation services. Mean out‐of‐pocket costs of $45 and $168 for stays with private and state‐based supplemental insurer plans are significantly lower than prior estimates calculated without supplemental insurance information, as are the percentages of stays with out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible, at 0.3% and 3.5%, respectively.[5, 6, 7] Because the majority of Medicare beneficiaries use supplemental insurance, excessive out‐of‐pockets in observation services may occur less frequently than previously reported.[9, 10] Clinicians concerned about excessive out‐of‐pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries can be reassured they are usually modest for beneficiaries with supplemental insurance.

This study's mean out‐of‐pocket cost and percentage of stays with out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible for beneficiaries without supplemental insurance are similar to results from prior national analyses performed without supplemental insurer information.[5, 6, 7] But this study was limited by a small sample size from 2 affiliated hospitals, with few repeat observation stays within a 60‐day period. In addition, posthospitalization SNF fees were not included, which traditionally have been a significant source of out‐of‐pocket costs in observation services.[3, 7] Populations with supplemental insurance treated elsewhere may incur hospital out‐of‐pocket costs differing from these results due to dissimilarities in the presence and quality of supplemental insurance.

However, most Medigap plans are federally regulated to cover the majority of out‐of‐pockets unpaid by Medicare.[12] Medicaid plans usually place limits on out‐of‐pocket costs, and any other state or employer‐based supplemental plans will also reduce out‐of‐pocket costs.[13] Thus, it is likely accurate to assume mean observation services out‐of‐pocket costs for hospital fees are lower than previously reported by national analyses performed without supplemental insurance information. Attempts at estimating beneficiary out‐of‐pocket costs in the future should account for supplemental insurance adjustments and payments.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Andrew Kaufman for his work in obtaining these data.

Disclosures: Dr. Doyle's time was supported by a National Research Service Award from the National Institutes of Health and administered through the University of California Los Angeles. Drs. Ettner and Nuckols received no support for this work. There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Files
References
  1. Sheehy AM, Graf B, Gangireddy S, et al. Hospitalized but not admitted: characteristics of patients with “observation status” at an academic medical center. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(21):19911998.
  2. Coffey R, Barret M, Steiner S. Final report observation status related to hospital records. Available at: https://www.hcup‐us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/FinalReportonObservationStatus_v2Final.pdf. Published September 27, 2002.
  3. Cassidy A. The two‐midnight rule. Health Policy Briefs. Health Affairs website. Available at: http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=133. Published January 22, 2015.
  4. Feng Z, Wright B, Mor V. Sharp rise in Medicare enrollees being held in hospitals for observation raises concerns about causes and consequences. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(6):12511259.
  5. Kangovi S, Cafardi SG, Smith RA, Kulkarni R, Grande D. Patient financial responsibility for observation care. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(11):718723.
  6. Lind K, Noel‐Miller C, L. Zhao CS. Observation status: Financial Implications for Medicare Beneficiaries. AARP Public Policy Institute. Available at: http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2015/Hosp Obs Financial Impact Paper.pdf. Published April 2015.
  7. Wright S. Hospitals' use of observation stays and short inpatient stays for Medicare beneficiaries. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General. Available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei‐02‐12‐00040.pdf. Published July 29, 2013.
  8. Laschober M. Trends in Medicare supplemental insurance and prescription drug benefits, 1996–2001: Data update. Available at: http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/Trends‐in‐Medicare‐Supplemental‐Insurance‐and‐Prescription‐Drug‐Benefits‐1996–2001Data‐Update.pdf.
  9. Noel‐Miller CP. Medicare beneficiaries' out‐of‐pocket spending for health care. AARP Public Policy Institute. Available at: http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/health/medicare‐beneficiaries‐out‐of‐pocket‐spending‐AARP‐ppi‐health.pdf. Published May 2012.
  10. Cubanski J, Swoope C, Boccuti C, et al. A primer on Medicare: key facts about the Medicare program and the people it covers. What types of supplemental insurance do beneficiaries have? Kaiser Family Foundation website. Available at: http://kff.org/report‐section/a‐primer‐on‐medicare‐what‐types‐of‐supplemental‐insurance‐do‐beneficiaries‐have. Published March 20, 2015.
  11. SOI tax stats—individual income tax statistics—ZIP code data (SOI). Available at: https://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI‐Tax‐Stats‐Individual‐Income‐Tax‐Statistics‐ZIP‐Code‐Data‐(SOI). Accessed January 1, 2016.
  12. How to compare Medigap policies. Medicare.gov website. Available at: https://www.medicare.gov/supplement‐other‐insurance/compare‐medigap/compare‐medigap.html.
  13. Cost sharing out of pocket costs. Medicaid.gov website. Available at: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid‐chip‐program‐information/by‐topics/cost‐sharing/cost‐sharing‐out‐of‐pocket‐costs.html. Accessed January 26, 2016.
  14. Staiti AB, Hurley RE, Cunningham PJ. Balancing margin and mission: hospitals alter billing and collection practices for uninsured patients. Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2005;(99):14.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(7)
Page Number
502-504
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

Up to 10% of the acutely ill patients in hospitals today are not admitted, but cared for under outpatient observation.[1, 2] Hospitals use observation services to replace inpatient services for patients who do not meet inpatient illness standards. Use of this technique for Medicare beneficiaries has grown in recent years, and future policy changes may further increase the percentage of hospital stays classified as observation.[3, 4]

Increased use of observation services has cost‐sharing implications for Medicare beneficiaries. Because hospital observation stays are paid through Medicare's outpatient (Part B) rather than inpatient (Part A) benefit, beneficiaries do not have an out‐of‐pocket maximum per hospital stay.[3] Although prior analyses documented mean out‐of‐pocket costs of $400 to $600 per stay, out‐of‐pocket costs may exceed the Part A deductible and leave beneficiaries responsible for hospital costs that may have been reimbursed by Part A in an inpatient stay.[5, 6, 7] Approximately 6% to 10% of Medicare observation stays result in out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible nationally, and recent work in this journal documented that 26.6% of beneficiaries with repeat observation stays within a 60‐day period may pay more than the 1‐time deductible‐based payment that beneficiaries are responsible for under Medicare Part A.[5, 6, 7]

However, prior analyses of beneficiary out‐of‐pocket costs did not account for supplemental insurance payments. Approximately 80% to 90% of fee‐for‐service Medicare beneficiaries who use either a private (Medigap or employer based) or state‐based (Medicaid or other plans) supplemental insurance plan.[8, 9, 10] The effect of supplemental insurance on out‐of‐pocket costs has been documented for inpatient stays, yet has not been explored for observation stays.[9] We sought to describe Medicare beneficiaries' out‐of‐pocket costs by accounting for payments from all insurers.

METHODS

We obtained payment data from 2 affiliated hospitals for all Medicare observation hospital stays between April 2013 and March 2014. Stays insured by Medicare Advantage plans (Part C) were excluded, and charges from skilled nursing facility (SNF) stays were not available. Although the exact origin of each stay was not available, the majority of stays at these hospitals came from emergency visits, direct placement from outpatient providers, and postoutpatient procedural monitoring. The dataset included charges, insurance adjustments and payments from all sources, diagnoses, and demographics. Insurance adjustments represented the reductions applied to total stay charges by each insurer in congruence with their contract with the health system. Our dataset included charges for all hospital materials and services usually billed under Part A, including medications. Out‐of‐pocket costs were calculated by subtracting insurance adjustments and payments from the total charges for each stay. To identify potential cost‐shifting from Medicare to beneficiaries, we compared out‐of‐pocket costs to the Part A deductible ($1184 for stays in 2013 and $1216 for 2014). Household income data were estimated using zip code and Internal Revenue Service data for 2013.[11]

The University of California Los Angeles institutional review board approved this study. Statistical significance was calculated using a 2‐tailed unpaired t test for means and 2 for percentages.

RESULTS

There were 2029 total observation stays during the study period, representing 5.0% of all discharges from both hospitals. Medicare beneficiaries accounted for 722 of those observation stays. Among the 498 finalized Medicare observation stays, the median patient age was 73 years, and median household income was $50,591. The median length of stay was 25 hours, with 1.8% of stays lasting longer than 2 midnights. Seventy percent of beneficiaries had private supplemental insurance, whereas 6% had state‐based supplemental plans. Table 1 presents detailed costs. Out‐of‐pocket costs ranged from $0 to $16,196. Stays without supplemental insurance had mean and median out of pocket costs of $537 and $286, respectively. The mean out‐of‐pocket costs for stays with private supplemental insurance decreased to $45 (P 0.01) and $168 (P = 0.21) for stays with state‐based supplemental insurance, with a median below $1 for both. On average, beneficiaries without supplemental insurance were responsible for $654 less than the Part A deductible. Thirteen beneficiaries had multiple finalized stays within 60 days, with a mean out‐of‐pocket cost of $119, median of $20, and 1 stay produced an out‐of‐pocket cost exceeding the Part A deductible. An additional 224 Medicare stays not finalized because of missing supplemental payments had a mean out‐of‐pocket cost of $125 (P 0.01) and median of $5 after applying supplemental insurer adjustments (not shown in Table 1).

Insurer Payments and Beneficiary Out‐of‐Pocket Costs
Medicare Stays, N = 498
Mean (SD) Median (IQR) Range
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation. *Out‐of‐pocket costs in this study represent the maximum possible value. Hospitals often write off excessive costs or they remain uncollected.[14] P 0.01 compared to stays without supplemental insurance.

Payments by Medicare $2,533 (2,883) $1521 (1,898) $4$29,633
Payments by supplemental insurers
Private insurers (N = 351) $454 (384) $324 (332) $0$2,590
State‐based insurers (N = 29) $222(402) $43 (102) $2$1,229
Beneficiary out‐of‐pocket costs
Without supplemental insurer (N = 118) $537 (1,557) $286 (440) $0$16,196*
With private supplemental insurer (N = 351) $45 (414) $0.39 (16) $0$7,670*
With state‐based supplemental insurer (N = 29) $168 (412) $0.15 (27) $01,870*

A minority of observation stays produced out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible. Those percentages were 7.6% for stays without a supplemental insurer, 3.5% (P 0.01) for stays with a state‐based supplemental insurer, and 0.3% (P 0.01) for stays with a private supplemental insurer. Of the 224 nonfinalized Medicare stays, 1.3% (P 0.01) exceeded the Part A deductible after supplemental insurer adjustments.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that supplemental insurance can dramatically reduce Medicare beneficiaries' out‐of‐pocket costs in observation services. Mean out‐of‐pocket costs of $45 and $168 for stays with private and state‐based supplemental insurer plans are significantly lower than prior estimates calculated without supplemental insurance information, as are the percentages of stays with out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible, at 0.3% and 3.5%, respectively.[5, 6, 7] Because the majority of Medicare beneficiaries use supplemental insurance, excessive out‐of‐pockets in observation services may occur less frequently than previously reported.[9, 10] Clinicians concerned about excessive out‐of‐pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries can be reassured they are usually modest for beneficiaries with supplemental insurance.

This study's mean out‐of‐pocket cost and percentage of stays with out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible for beneficiaries without supplemental insurance are similar to results from prior national analyses performed without supplemental insurer information.[5, 6, 7] But this study was limited by a small sample size from 2 affiliated hospitals, with few repeat observation stays within a 60‐day period. In addition, posthospitalization SNF fees were not included, which traditionally have been a significant source of out‐of‐pocket costs in observation services.[3, 7] Populations with supplemental insurance treated elsewhere may incur hospital out‐of‐pocket costs differing from these results due to dissimilarities in the presence and quality of supplemental insurance.

However, most Medigap plans are federally regulated to cover the majority of out‐of‐pockets unpaid by Medicare.[12] Medicaid plans usually place limits on out‐of‐pocket costs, and any other state or employer‐based supplemental plans will also reduce out‐of‐pocket costs.[13] Thus, it is likely accurate to assume mean observation services out‐of‐pocket costs for hospital fees are lower than previously reported by national analyses performed without supplemental insurance information. Attempts at estimating beneficiary out‐of‐pocket costs in the future should account for supplemental insurance adjustments and payments.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Andrew Kaufman for his work in obtaining these data.

Disclosures: Dr. Doyle's time was supported by a National Research Service Award from the National Institutes of Health and administered through the University of California Los Angeles. Drs. Ettner and Nuckols received no support for this work. There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Up to 10% of the acutely ill patients in hospitals today are not admitted, but cared for under outpatient observation.[1, 2] Hospitals use observation services to replace inpatient services for patients who do not meet inpatient illness standards. Use of this technique for Medicare beneficiaries has grown in recent years, and future policy changes may further increase the percentage of hospital stays classified as observation.[3, 4]

Increased use of observation services has cost‐sharing implications for Medicare beneficiaries. Because hospital observation stays are paid through Medicare's outpatient (Part B) rather than inpatient (Part A) benefit, beneficiaries do not have an out‐of‐pocket maximum per hospital stay.[3] Although prior analyses documented mean out‐of‐pocket costs of $400 to $600 per stay, out‐of‐pocket costs may exceed the Part A deductible and leave beneficiaries responsible for hospital costs that may have been reimbursed by Part A in an inpatient stay.[5, 6, 7] Approximately 6% to 10% of Medicare observation stays result in out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible nationally, and recent work in this journal documented that 26.6% of beneficiaries with repeat observation stays within a 60‐day period may pay more than the 1‐time deductible‐based payment that beneficiaries are responsible for under Medicare Part A.[5, 6, 7]

However, prior analyses of beneficiary out‐of‐pocket costs did not account for supplemental insurance payments. Approximately 80% to 90% of fee‐for‐service Medicare beneficiaries who use either a private (Medigap or employer based) or state‐based (Medicaid or other plans) supplemental insurance plan.[8, 9, 10] The effect of supplemental insurance on out‐of‐pocket costs has been documented for inpatient stays, yet has not been explored for observation stays.[9] We sought to describe Medicare beneficiaries' out‐of‐pocket costs by accounting for payments from all insurers.

METHODS

We obtained payment data from 2 affiliated hospitals for all Medicare observation hospital stays between April 2013 and March 2014. Stays insured by Medicare Advantage plans (Part C) were excluded, and charges from skilled nursing facility (SNF) stays were not available. Although the exact origin of each stay was not available, the majority of stays at these hospitals came from emergency visits, direct placement from outpatient providers, and postoutpatient procedural monitoring. The dataset included charges, insurance adjustments and payments from all sources, diagnoses, and demographics. Insurance adjustments represented the reductions applied to total stay charges by each insurer in congruence with their contract with the health system. Our dataset included charges for all hospital materials and services usually billed under Part A, including medications. Out‐of‐pocket costs were calculated by subtracting insurance adjustments and payments from the total charges for each stay. To identify potential cost‐shifting from Medicare to beneficiaries, we compared out‐of‐pocket costs to the Part A deductible ($1184 for stays in 2013 and $1216 for 2014). Household income data were estimated using zip code and Internal Revenue Service data for 2013.[11]

The University of California Los Angeles institutional review board approved this study. Statistical significance was calculated using a 2‐tailed unpaired t test for means and 2 for percentages.

RESULTS

There were 2029 total observation stays during the study period, representing 5.0% of all discharges from both hospitals. Medicare beneficiaries accounted for 722 of those observation stays. Among the 498 finalized Medicare observation stays, the median patient age was 73 years, and median household income was $50,591. The median length of stay was 25 hours, with 1.8% of stays lasting longer than 2 midnights. Seventy percent of beneficiaries had private supplemental insurance, whereas 6% had state‐based supplemental plans. Table 1 presents detailed costs. Out‐of‐pocket costs ranged from $0 to $16,196. Stays without supplemental insurance had mean and median out of pocket costs of $537 and $286, respectively. The mean out‐of‐pocket costs for stays with private supplemental insurance decreased to $45 (P 0.01) and $168 (P = 0.21) for stays with state‐based supplemental insurance, with a median below $1 for both. On average, beneficiaries without supplemental insurance were responsible for $654 less than the Part A deductible. Thirteen beneficiaries had multiple finalized stays within 60 days, with a mean out‐of‐pocket cost of $119, median of $20, and 1 stay produced an out‐of‐pocket cost exceeding the Part A deductible. An additional 224 Medicare stays not finalized because of missing supplemental payments had a mean out‐of‐pocket cost of $125 (P 0.01) and median of $5 after applying supplemental insurer adjustments (not shown in Table 1).

Insurer Payments and Beneficiary Out‐of‐Pocket Costs
Medicare Stays, N = 498
Mean (SD) Median (IQR) Range
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation. *Out‐of‐pocket costs in this study represent the maximum possible value. Hospitals often write off excessive costs or they remain uncollected.[14] P 0.01 compared to stays without supplemental insurance.

Payments by Medicare $2,533 (2,883) $1521 (1,898) $4$29,633
Payments by supplemental insurers
Private insurers (N = 351) $454 (384) $324 (332) $0$2,590
State‐based insurers (N = 29) $222(402) $43 (102) $2$1,229
Beneficiary out‐of‐pocket costs
Without supplemental insurer (N = 118) $537 (1,557) $286 (440) $0$16,196*
With private supplemental insurer (N = 351) $45 (414) $0.39 (16) $0$7,670*
With state‐based supplemental insurer (N = 29) $168 (412) $0.15 (27) $01,870*

A minority of observation stays produced out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible. Those percentages were 7.6% for stays without a supplemental insurer, 3.5% (P 0.01) for stays with a state‐based supplemental insurer, and 0.3% (P 0.01) for stays with a private supplemental insurer. Of the 224 nonfinalized Medicare stays, 1.3% (P 0.01) exceeded the Part A deductible after supplemental insurer adjustments.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that supplemental insurance can dramatically reduce Medicare beneficiaries' out‐of‐pocket costs in observation services. Mean out‐of‐pocket costs of $45 and $168 for stays with private and state‐based supplemental insurer plans are significantly lower than prior estimates calculated without supplemental insurance information, as are the percentages of stays with out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible, at 0.3% and 3.5%, respectively.[5, 6, 7] Because the majority of Medicare beneficiaries use supplemental insurance, excessive out‐of‐pockets in observation services may occur less frequently than previously reported.[9, 10] Clinicians concerned about excessive out‐of‐pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries can be reassured they are usually modest for beneficiaries with supplemental insurance.

This study's mean out‐of‐pocket cost and percentage of stays with out‐of‐pocket costs exceeding the Part A deductible for beneficiaries without supplemental insurance are similar to results from prior national analyses performed without supplemental insurer information.[5, 6, 7] But this study was limited by a small sample size from 2 affiliated hospitals, with few repeat observation stays within a 60‐day period. In addition, posthospitalization SNF fees were not included, which traditionally have been a significant source of out‐of‐pocket costs in observation services.[3, 7] Populations with supplemental insurance treated elsewhere may incur hospital out‐of‐pocket costs differing from these results due to dissimilarities in the presence and quality of supplemental insurance.

However, most Medigap plans are federally regulated to cover the majority of out‐of‐pockets unpaid by Medicare.[12] Medicaid plans usually place limits on out‐of‐pocket costs, and any other state or employer‐based supplemental plans will also reduce out‐of‐pocket costs.[13] Thus, it is likely accurate to assume mean observation services out‐of‐pocket costs for hospital fees are lower than previously reported by national analyses performed without supplemental insurance information. Attempts at estimating beneficiary out‐of‐pocket costs in the future should account for supplemental insurance adjustments and payments.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Andrew Kaufman for his work in obtaining these data.

Disclosures: Dr. Doyle's time was supported by a National Research Service Award from the National Institutes of Health and administered through the University of California Los Angeles. Drs. Ettner and Nuckols received no support for this work. There are no conflicts of interest to report.

References
  1. Sheehy AM, Graf B, Gangireddy S, et al. Hospitalized but not admitted: characteristics of patients with “observation status” at an academic medical center. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(21):19911998.
  2. Coffey R, Barret M, Steiner S. Final report observation status related to hospital records. Available at: https://www.hcup‐us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/FinalReportonObservationStatus_v2Final.pdf. Published September 27, 2002.
  3. Cassidy A. The two‐midnight rule. Health Policy Briefs. Health Affairs website. Available at: http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=133. Published January 22, 2015.
  4. Feng Z, Wright B, Mor V. Sharp rise in Medicare enrollees being held in hospitals for observation raises concerns about causes and consequences. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(6):12511259.
  5. Kangovi S, Cafardi SG, Smith RA, Kulkarni R, Grande D. Patient financial responsibility for observation care. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(11):718723.
  6. Lind K, Noel‐Miller C, L. Zhao CS. Observation status: Financial Implications for Medicare Beneficiaries. AARP Public Policy Institute. Available at: http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2015/Hosp Obs Financial Impact Paper.pdf. Published April 2015.
  7. Wright S. Hospitals' use of observation stays and short inpatient stays for Medicare beneficiaries. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General. Available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei‐02‐12‐00040.pdf. Published July 29, 2013.
  8. Laschober M. Trends in Medicare supplemental insurance and prescription drug benefits, 1996–2001: Data update. Available at: http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/Trends‐in‐Medicare‐Supplemental‐Insurance‐and‐Prescription‐Drug‐Benefits‐1996–2001Data‐Update.pdf.
  9. Noel‐Miller CP. Medicare beneficiaries' out‐of‐pocket spending for health care. AARP Public Policy Institute. Available at: http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/health/medicare‐beneficiaries‐out‐of‐pocket‐spending‐AARP‐ppi‐health.pdf. Published May 2012.
  10. Cubanski J, Swoope C, Boccuti C, et al. A primer on Medicare: key facts about the Medicare program and the people it covers. What types of supplemental insurance do beneficiaries have? Kaiser Family Foundation website. Available at: http://kff.org/report‐section/a‐primer‐on‐medicare‐what‐types‐of‐supplemental‐insurance‐do‐beneficiaries‐have. Published March 20, 2015.
  11. SOI tax stats—individual income tax statistics—ZIP code data (SOI). Available at: https://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI‐Tax‐Stats‐Individual‐Income‐Tax‐Statistics‐ZIP‐Code‐Data‐(SOI). Accessed January 1, 2016.
  12. How to compare Medigap policies. Medicare.gov website. Available at: https://www.medicare.gov/supplement‐other‐insurance/compare‐medigap/compare‐medigap.html.
  13. Cost sharing out of pocket costs. Medicaid.gov website. Available at: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid‐chip‐program‐information/by‐topics/cost‐sharing/cost‐sharing‐out‐of‐pocket‐costs.html. Accessed January 26, 2016.
  14. Staiti AB, Hurley RE, Cunningham PJ. Balancing margin and mission: hospitals alter billing and collection practices for uninsured patients. Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2005;(99):14.
References
  1. Sheehy AM, Graf B, Gangireddy S, et al. Hospitalized but not admitted: characteristics of patients with “observation status” at an academic medical center. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(21):19911998.
  2. Coffey R, Barret M, Steiner S. Final report observation status related to hospital records. Available at: https://www.hcup‐us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/FinalReportonObservationStatus_v2Final.pdf. Published September 27, 2002.
  3. Cassidy A. The two‐midnight rule. Health Policy Briefs. Health Affairs website. Available at: http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=133. Published January 22, 2015.
  4. Feng Z, Wright B, Mor V. Sharp rise in Medicare enrollees being held in hospitals for observation raises concerns about causes and consequences. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(6):12511259.
  5. Kangovi S, Cafardi SG, Smith RA, Kulkarni R, Grande D. Patient financial responsibility for observation care. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(11):718723.
  6. Lind K, Noel‐Miller C, L. Zhao CS. Observation status: Financial Implications for Medicare Beneficiaries. AARP Public Policy Institute. Available at: http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2015/Hosp Obs Financial Impact Paper.pdf. Published April 2015.
  7. Wright S. Hospitals' use of observation stays and short inpatient stays for Medicare beneficiaries. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General. Available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei‐02‐12‐00040.pdf. Published July 29, 2013.
  8. Laschober M. Trends in Medicare supplemental insurance and prescription drug benefits, 1996–2001: Data update. Available at: http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/Trends‐in‐Medicare‐Supplemental‐Insurance‐and‐Prescription‐Drug‐Benefits‐1996–2001Data‐Update.pdf.
  9. Noel‐Miller CP. Medicare beneficiaries' out‐of‐pocket spending for health care. AARP Public Policy Institute. Available at: http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/health/medicare‐beneficiaries‐out‐of‐pocket‐spending‐AARP‐ppi‐health.pdf. Published May 2012.
  10. Cubanski J, Swoope C, Boccuti C, et al. A primer on Medicare: key facts about the Medicare program and the people it covers. What types of supplemental insurance do beneficiaries have? Kaiser Family Foundation website. Available at: http://kff.org/report‐section/a‐primer‐on‐medicare‐what‐types‐of‐supplemental‐insurance‐do‐beneficiaries‐have. Published March 20, 2015.
  11. SOI tax stats—individual income tax statistics—ZIP code data (SOI). Available at: https://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI‐Tax‐Stats‐Individual‐Income‐Tax‐Statistics‐ZIP‐Code‐Data‐(SOI). Accessed January 1, 2016.
  12. How to compare Medigap policies. Medicare.gov website. Available at: https://www.medicare.gov/supplement‐other‐insurance/compare‐medigap/compare‐medigap.html.
  13. Cost sharing out of pocket costs. Medicaid.gov website. Available at: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid‐chip‐program‐information/by‐topics/cost‐sharing/cost‐sharing‐out‐of‐pocket‐costs.html. Accessed January 26, 2016.
  14. Staiti AB, Hurley RE, Cunningham PJ. Balancing margin and mission: hospitals alter billing and collection practices for uninsured patients. Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2005;(99):14.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(7)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(7)
Page Number
502-504
Page Number
502-504
Article Type
Display Headline
Supplemental insurance reduces out‐of‐pocket costs in medicare observation services
Display Headline
Supplemental insurance reduces out‐of‐pocket costs in medicare observation services
Sections
Article Source
© 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine
Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Brian Doyle, MD, 911 Broxton Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90024; Telephone: 267‐270‐2117; E‐mail: [email protected]
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Article PDF Media
Media Files