Faculty Bibliography

DISCLAIMER/CONCLUSIONS:In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Despite progress in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), more clinical data to support the use of mAbs in outpatients with COVID-19 is needed. This study is designed to determine the impact of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, or casirivimab/imdevimab on clinical outcomes within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS:A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single academic medical center with 3 campuses in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Long Island, NY. Patients 12 years of age or older who tested positive for COVID-19 or were treated with a COVID-19-specific therapy, including COVID-19 mAb therapies, at the study site between November 24, 2020, and May 15, 2021, were included. The primary outcomes included rates of emergency department (ED) visit, inpatient admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or death within 30 days from the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS:A total of 1,344 mAb-treated patients were propensity matched to 1,344 patients with COVID-19 patients who were not treated with mAb therapy. Within 30 days of diagnosis, among the patients who received mAb therapy, 101 (7.5%) presented to the ED and 79 (5.9%) were admitted. Among the patients who did not receive mAb therapy, 165 (12.3%) presented to the ED and 156 (11.6%) were admitted (relative risk [RR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50-0.75] and 0.51 [95% CI, 0.40-0.64], respectively). Four mAb patients (0.3%) and 2.64 control patients (0.2%) were admitted to the ICU (RR, 01.51; 95% CI, 0.45-5.09). Six mAb-treated patients (0.4%) and 3.37 controls (0.3%) died and/or were admitted to hospice (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.54-4.83). mAb therapy in ambulatory patients with COVID-19 decreases the risk of ED presentation and hospital admission within 30 days of diagnosis.

BACKGROUND:Reducing unnecessary routine laboratory testing is a Choosing Wisely® recommendation, and new areas of overuse were noted during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE:To reduce unnecessary repetitive routine laboratory testing for patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic across a large safety net health system. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This quality improvement initiative was initiated by the System High-Value Care Council at New York City Health + Hospitals (H + H), the largest public healthcare system in the United States consisting of 11 acute care hospitals. INTERVENTION/METHODS:four overused laboratory tests in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were identified: C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and procalcitonin. A two-pronged electronic health record intervention was implemented consisting of (1) nonintrusive, informational nudge statements placed on selected order sets, and (2) a forcing function of one consecutive day limit on ordering. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES/METHODS:The average of excess tests per encounter days (ETPED) for each of four target laboratory testing only in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE:Interdisciplinary System High-Value Care Council identified four overused laboratory tests (inflammatory markers) in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19: C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and procalcitonin. Within an 11-hospital safety net health system, a two-pronged electronic health record intervention was implemented consisting of (1) nonintrusive, informational nudge statements placed on selected order sets, and (2) a forcing function of one consecutive day limit on ordering. The preintervention period (March 16, 2020 to January 24, 2021) was compared to the postintervention period (January 25, 2021 to March 22, 2022). RESULTS:Time series linear regression showed decreases in CRP (-17.9%, p < .05), ferritin (-37.6%, p < .001), and LDH (-30.1%, p < .001). Slope differences were significant (CRP, ferritin, and LDH p < 0.001; procalcitonin p < 0.05). Decreases were observed across weekly averages: CRP (-19%, p < .01), ferritin (-37.9%, p < .001), LDH (-28.7%, p < .001), and procalcitonin (-18.4%, p < .05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This intervention was associated with reduced routine inflammatory marker testing in non-intensive care unit COVID-19 hospitalized patients across 11 hospitals. Variation was high among individual hospitals.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Driveline infection (DLI) is a significant source of morbidity and mortality during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support yet limited studies are available to describe the center-level prevalence, preventive practices, and their potential effectiveness. METHODS:We surveyed LVAD centers in the United States to determine program burden and preventive practices for DLI during HeartMate (HM) 3 support. An online, anonymous, question-based survey was sent to expert providers at implanting centers. Only a single respondent completed the survey for each center. As an exploratory analysis, we compared specific DLI preventive practices between centers with low (≤10%) and high (>10%) reported prevalence of DLI. RESULTS:Seventy-eight centers responded to the survey (response rate: 50%). Respondents were comprised of 37 (47%) heart failure cardiologists, 27 (35%) LVAD coordinators, and 14 (18%) cardiothoracic surgeons. The prevalence of DLI during HM3 was reported as ≤10% by 27 (35%), 11%-25% by 36 (46%), and >25% by 16 (19%) centers. Thirteen (17%) centers had a body mass index threshold for device placement, 29 (37%) utilized a counter incision, 66 (81%) placed an anchor stitch, and 69 (88%) used an external device to stabilize the DL. Proportionally, more centers with a low DLI prevalence used a wound vacuum 6 (22%) versus 3 (6%, p = 0.03) than those with high DLI. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Variation exists in reported prevalence and practices of preventing and managing driveline infections across centers during HM3 support. Further studies are warranted to develop and assess the effectiveness of standardized preventive strategies.

OBJECTIVE:The patient-physician relationship impacts patients' experiences and health outcomes. Physician attire is a form of nonverbal communication that influences this relationship. Prior studies examining attire preferences suffered from heterogeneous measurement and limited context. We thus performed a multicentre, cross-sectional study using a standardised survey instrument to compare patient preferences for physician dress in international settings. SETTING:20 hospitals and healthcare practices in Italy, Japan, Switzerland and the USA. PARTICIPANTS:Convenience sample of 9171 adult patients receiving care in academic hospitals, general medicine clinics, specialty clinics and ophthalmology practices. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The survey was randomised and included photographs of a male or female physician dressed in assorted forms of attire. The primary outcome measure was attire preference, comprised of composite ratings across five domains: how knowledgeable, trustworthy, caring and approachable the physician appeared, and how comfortable the respondent felt. Secondary outcome measures included variation in preferences by country, physician type and respondent characteristics. RESULTS:The highest rated forms of attire differed by country, although each most preferred attire with white coat. Low ratings were conferred on attire extremes (casual and business suit). Preferences were more uniform for certain physician types. For example, among all respondents, scrubs garnered the highest rating for emergency department physicians (44.2%) and surgeons (42.4%). However, attire preferences diverged for primary care and hospital physicians. All types of formal attire were more strongly preferred in the USA than elsewhere. Respondent age influenced preferences in Japan and the USA only. CONCLUSIONS:Patients across a myriad of geographies, settings and demographics harbour specific preferences for physician attire. Some preferences are nearly universal, whereas others vary substantially. As a one-size-fits-all dress policy is unlikely to reflect patient desires and expectations, a tailored approach should be sought that attempts to match attire to clinical context.

SOURCE CITATION:JAMA. 2022;327:2326-33. 35727271.

BACKGROUND:Appointment non-attendance has clinical, operational, and financial implications for patients and health systems. How telehealth services are associated with non-attendance in primary care is not well-described, nor are patient characteristics associated with telehealth non-attendance. OBJECTIVE:We sought to compare primary care non-attendance for telehealth versus in-person visits and describe patient characteristics associated with telehealth non-attendance. DESIGN/METHODS:An observational study of electronic health record data. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Patients with primary care encounters at 23 adult primary care clinics at a large, urban public healthcare system from November 1, 2019, to August 31, 2021. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:We analyzed non-attendance by modality (telephone, video, in-person) during three time periods representing different availability of telehealth using hierarchal multiple logistic regression to control for patient demographics and variation within patients and clinics. We stratified by modality and used hierarchal multiple logistic regression to assess for associations between patient characteristics and non-attendance in each modality. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:There were 1,219,781 scheduled adult primary care visits by 329,461 unique patients: 754,149 (61.8%) in-person, 439,295 (36.0%) telephonic, and 26,337 (2.2%) video visits. Non-attendance for telephone visits was initially higher than that for in-person visits (adjusted odds ratio 1.04 [95% CI 1.02, 1.07]) during the early telehealth availability period, but decreased later (0.82 [0.81, 0.83]). Non-attendance for video visits was higher than for in-person visits during the early (4.37 [2.74, 6.97]) and later (2.02 [1.95, 2.08]) periods. Telephone visits had fewer differences in non-attendance by demographics; video visits were associated with increased non-attendance for patients who were older, male, had a primary language other than English or Spanish, and had public or no insurance. CONCLUSIONS:Telephonic visits may improve access to care and be more easily adoptable among diverse populations. Further attention to implementation may be needed to avoid impeding access to care for certain populations using video visits.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and cardiovascular diseases are both highly prevalent conditions around the world, and emerging data have shown an association between them. This review found several longitudinal and cross-sectional studies showing that NAFLD was associated with coronary artery disease, cardiac remodeling, aortic valve remodeling, mitral annulus valve calcifications, diabetic cardiomyopathy, diastolic cardiac dysfunction, arrhythmias, and stroke. Although the specific underlying mechanisms are not clear, many hypotheses have been suggested, including that metabolic syndrome might act as an upstream metabolic defect, leading to end-organ manifestations in both the heart and liver. Management of NAFLD includes weight loss through lifestyle interventions or bariatric surgery, and pharmacological interventions, often targeting comorbidities. Although there are no Food and Drug Administration-approved nonalcoholic steatohepatitis-specific therapies, several drug candidates have demonstrated effect in the improvement in fibrosis or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis resolution. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of those interventions on cardiovascular outcomes, the major cause of mortality in patients with NAFLD. In conclusion, a more comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and management of patients with NAFLD and cardiovascular diseases is needed to optimize clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Social determinants of health (SDOH) refer to the social, economic, and psychosocial conditions that influence health. Lower levels of SDOH factors including income, education, and employment are associated with a higher prevalence of diabetes, poorer glycemic control, and increased diabetes-related mortality. Few studies have conducted a comprehensive evaluation of multiple SDOH factors in a population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to identify the range of SDOH challenges-including diabetes-related distress-that impact patients with insulin-dependent diabetes at an urban safety-net clinic using the 5-domain SDOH framework developed by the Healthy People 2020 initiative. METHODS:The pilot study used a cross-sectional, mixed methods approach. Participants were recruited from 3 programs within a general internal medicine clinic that provides ambulatory care for patients with uncontrolled T2DM. We administered an investigator-developed SDOH survey based on the Healthy People 2020 framework and the validated Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), which assesses 4 domains of diabetes-related distress. One-on-one interviews were conducted to gain in-depth information about challenges. RESULTS:level of 11.0% (SD 2.6%). Overall, 92% (52/57) of participants had a barrier in at least one SDOH domain. SDOH challenges were most commonly reported in the domain of Health and Health Care (84%, 48/57), followed by Economic Stability (54%, n=31), Neighborhood and Built Environment (53%, n=30), Education and Health Literacy (47%, n=27), and Social and Community context (37%, n=21). The mean overall DDS score was 2.09 (SD 0.84), where scores of ≥2 indicate distress. Further, 79% (45/57) of participants had at least moderate diabetes-related distress in one of the 4 DDS domains. General themes that emerged from participant interviews included job interference with healthy behaviors, concerns about burdening others, challenges communicating with providers, and difficulty getting appointments in a timely manner. CONCLUSIONS:We found high levels of SDOH barriers across all 5 domains of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy People 2020 framework, including significant levels of diabetes-related distress. Future programs to address SDOH barriers in patients with uncontrolled insulin-dependent diabetes should consider screening for and focusing on a wide range of challenges.