Ms. Jones brings her 15-year-old daughter, Angela, to the resident clinic. Angela is becoming increasingly anxious, withdrawn, and difficult to manage. As part of the initial interview, the resident, Dr. Sota, asks about the sociocultural background of the family. Ms. Jones is African American and recently began a relationship with a white man. Her daughter, Angela, is biracial; her biological father is white and has moved out of state with little ongoing contact with Angela and her mother.

At interview, Angela expresses a lot of anger at her mother, her biological father, and her new “stepfather.” Ms. Jones says: “I do not want Angela growing up as an ‘angry black woman.’ ” When asked for an explanation, she stated that she doesn’t want her daughter to be stereotyped, to be perceived as an angry black person. “She needs to fit in with our new life. She has lots of opportunities if only she would take them.”

Dr. Sota recognizes that Angela’s struggle, and perhaps also the struggle of Ms. Jones, has a component of internalized racism. How should Dr. Sota proceed? Dr. Sota puts herself in Angela’s shoes: How does Angela see herself? Angela has light brown skin, and Dr. Sota wonders whether Angela wants to present as white or whether asserting her black heritage is important.

The term internalized racism (IR) first appeared in the 1980s. IR was compared to the oppression of black people in the 1800s: “The slavery that captures the mind and incarcerates the motivation, perception, aspiration, and identity in a web of anti-self images, generating a personal and collective self destruction, is more cruel than the shackles on the wrists and ankles.”¹ According to Susanne Lipsky,² IR “in African Americans manifests as internalizing stereotypes, mistrusting the self and other Blacks, and narrows one’s view of authentic Black culture.”

IR refers to the internalization and acceptance of the dominant white culture’s actions and beliefs, while rejecting one’s own cultural background. There is a long history of negative cultural representations of African Americans in popular American culture, and IR has a detrimental impact on the emotional well-being of African Americans.³

IR is associated with poorer metabolic health⁴ and psychological distress, depression and anxiety,^5-8 and decreased self-esteem.⁹ However, protective processes can reduce one’s response to risk and can be developed through the psychotherapeutic relationship.
 

Interventions at an individual, family, or community levels

Angela: Tell me about yourself: What type of person are you? How do you identify? How do you feel about yourself/your appearance/your language?

Tell me about your friends/family? What interests do you have?

“Tell me more” questions can reveal conflicted feelings, etc., even if Angela does not answer. A good therapist can talk about IR; even if Angela does not bring it up, it is important for the therapist to find language suitable for the age of the patient.

Dr. Sota has some luck with Angela, who nods her head but says little. Dr. Sota then turns to Ms. Jones and asks whether she can answer these questions, too, and rephrases the questions for an adult. Interviewing parents in the presence of their children gives Dr. Sota and Angela an idea of what is permitted to talk about in the family.

A therapist can also note other permissions in the family: How do Angela and her mother use language? Do they claim or reject words and phrases such as “angry black woman” and choose, instead, to use language to “fit in” with the dominant white culture?

Dr. Sota notices that Ms. Jones presents herself as keen to fit in with her new future husband’s life. She wants Angela to do likewise. Dr. Sota notices that Angela vacillates between wanting to claim her black identity and having to navigate what that means in this family (not a good thing) – and wanting to assimilate into white culture. Her peers fall into two separate groups: a set of black friends and a set of white friends. Her mother prefers that she see her white friends, mistrusting her black friends.

Dr. Sota’s supervisor suggests that she introduce IR more forcefully because this seems to be a major course of conflict for Angela and encourage a frank discussion between mother and daughter. Dr. Sota starts the next session in the following way: “I noticed last week that the way you each identify yourselves is quite different. Ms. Jones, you want Angela to ‘fit in’ and perhaps just embrace white culture, whereas Angela, perhaps you vacillate between a white identity and a black identity?”

The following questions can help Dr. Sota elicit IR:

• What information about yourself would you like others to know – about your heritage, country of origin, family, class background, and so on?
• What makes you proud about being a member of this group, and what do you love about other members of this group?
• What has been hard about being a member of this group, and what don’t you like about others in this group?
• What were your early life experiences with people in this group? How were you treated? How did you feel about others in your group when you were young?

At a community level, family workshops support positive cultural identities that strengthen family functioning and reducing behavioral health risks. In a study of 575 urban American Indian (AI) families from diverse tribal backgrounds, the AI families who participated in such a workshop had significant increases in their ethnic identity, improved sense of spirituality, and a more positive cultural identification. The workshops provided culturally adaptive parenting interventions.¹⁰

IR is a serious determinant of both physical and mental health. Assessment of IR can be done using rating scales, such as the Nadanolitization Scale¹¹ or the Internalized Racial Oppression Scale.¹² IR also can also be assessed using a more formalized interview guide, such as the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI).¹³ This 16-question interview guide helps behavioral health providers better understand the way service users and their social networks (e.g., families, friends) understand what is happening to them and why, as well as the barriers they experience, such as racism, discrimination, stigma, and financial stressors.

Individuals’ cultures and experiences have a profound impact on their understanding of their symptoms and their engagement in care. The American Psychiatric Association considers it to be part of mental health providers’ duty of care to engage all individuals in culturally relevant conversations about their past experiences and care expectations. More relevant, I submit that you cannot treat someone without having made this inquiry. A cultural assessment improves understanding but also shifts power relationships between providers and patients. The DSM-5 CFI and training guides are widely available and provide additional information for those who want to improve their cultural literacy.
 

Conclusion

Internalized racism is the component of racism that is the most difficult to discern. Psychiatrists and mental health professionals are uniquely poised to address IR, and any subsequent internal conflict and identity difficulties. Each program, office, and clinic can easily find the resources to do this through the APA. If you would like help providing education, contact me at alisonheru@gmail.com.
 

References

1. Akbar N. J Black Studies. 1984. doi: 10.11771002193478401400401.

2. Lipsky S. Internalized Racism. Seattle: Rational Island Publishers, 1987.

3. Williams DR and Mohammed SA. Am Behav Sci. 2013 May 8. doi: 10.1177/00027642134873340.

4. DeLilly CR and Flaskerud JH. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2012 Nov;33(11):804-11.

5. Molina KM and James D. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2016 Jul;19(4):439-61.

6. Szymanski D and Obiri O. Couns Psychologist. 2011;39(3):438-62.

7. Carter RT et al. J Multicul Couns Dev. 2017 Oct 5;45(4):232-59.

8. Mouzon DM and McLean JS. Ethn Health. 2017 Feb;22(1):36-48.

9. Szymanski DM and Gupta A. J Couns Psychol. 2009;56(1):110-18.

10. Kulis SS et al. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychol. 2019. doi: 10.1037/cpd000315.

11. Taylor J and Grundy C. “Measuring black internalization of white stereotypes about African Americans: The Nadanolization Scale.” In: Jones RL, ed. Handbook of Tests and Measurements of Black Populations. Hampton, Va.: Cobb & Henry, 1996.

12. Bailey T-K M et al. J Couns Psychol. 2011 Oct;58(4):481-93.

13. American Psychiatric Association. Cultural Formulation Interview. DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association Publishing: Arlington, Va. 2013.



Various aspects about the case described above have been changed to protect the clinician’s and patients’ identities. Thanks to the following individuals for their contributions to this article: Suzanne Huberty, MD, and Shiona Heru, JD.
 

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose.




 

Ms. Jones brings her 15-year-old daughter, Angela, to the resident clinic. Angela is becoming increasingly anxious, withdrawn, and difficult to manage. As part of the initial interview, the resident, Dr. Sota, asks about the sociocultural background of the family. Ms. Jones is African American and recently began a relationship with a white man. Her daughter, Angela, is biracial; her biological father is white and has moved out of state with little ongoing contact with Angela and her mother.

At interview, Angela expresses a lot of anger at her mother, her biological father, and her new “stepfather.” Ms. Jones says: “I do not want Angela growing up as an ‘angry black woman.’ ” When asked for an explanation, she stated that she doesn’t want her daughter to be stereotyped, to be perceived as an angry black person. “She needs to fit in with our new life. She has lots of opportunities if only she would take them.”

Dr. Sota recognizes that Angela’s struggle, and perhaps also the struggle of Ms. Jones, has a component of internalized racism. How should Dr. Sota proceed? Dr. Sota puts herself in Angela’s shoes: How does Angela see herself? Angela has light brown skin, and Dr. Sota wonders whether Angela wants to present as white or whether asserting her black heritage is important.

The term internalized racism (IR) first appeared in the 1980s. IR was compared to the oppression of black people in the 1800s: “The slavery that captures the mind and incarcerates the motivation, perception, aspiration, and identity in a web of anti-self images, generating a personal and collective self destruction, is more cruel than the shackles on the wrists and ankles.”¹ According to Susanne Lipsky,² IR “in African Americans manifests as internalizing stereotypes, mistrusting the self and other Blacks, and narrows one’s view of authentic Black culture.”

IR refers to the internalization and acceptance of the dominant white culture’s actions and beliefs, while rejecting one’s own cultural background. There is a long history of negative cultural representations of African Americans in popular American culture, and IR has a detrimental impact on the emotional well-being of African Americans.³

IR is associated with poorer metabolic health⁴ and psychological distress, depression and anxiety,^5-8 and decreased self-esteem.⁹ However, protective processes can reduce one’s response to risk and can be developed through the psychotherapeutic relationship.
 

Interventions at an individual, family, or community levels

Angela: Tell me about yourself: What type of person are you? How do you identify? How do you feel about yourself/your appearance/your language?

Tell me about your friends/family? What interests do you have?

“Tell me more” questions can reveal conflicted feelings, etc., even if Angela does not answer. A good therapist can talk about IR; even if Angela does not bring it up, it is important for the therapist to find language suitable for the age of the patient.

Dr. Sota has some luck with Angela, who nods her head but says little. Dr. Sota then turns to Ms. Jones and asks whether she can answer these questions, too, and rephrases the questions for an adult. Interviewing parents in the presence of their children gives Dr. Sota and Angela an idea of what is permitted to talk about in the family.

A therapist can also note other permissions in the family: How do Angela and her mother use language? Do they claim or reject words and phrases such as “angry black woman” and choose, instead, to use language to “fit in” with the dominant white culture?

Dr. Sota notices that Ms. Jones presents herself as keen to fit in with her new future husband’s life. She wants Angela to do likewise. Dr. Sota notices that Angela vacillates between wanting to claim her black identity and having to navigate what that means in this family (not a good thing) – and wanting to assimilate into white culture. Her peers fall into two separate groups: a set of black friends and a set of white friends. Her mother prefers that she see her white friends, mistrusting her black friends.

Dr. Sota’s supervisor suggests that she introduce IR more forcefully because this seems to be a major course of conflict for Angela and encourage a frank discussion between mother and daughter. Dr. Sota starts the next session in the following way: “I noticed last week that the way you each identify yourselves is quite different. Ms. Jones, you want Angela to ‘fit in’ and perhaps just embrace white culture, whereas Angela, perhaps you vacillate between a white identity and a black identity?”

The following questions can help Dr. Sota elicit IR:

• What information about yourself would you like others to know – about your heritage, country of origin, family, class background, and so on?
• What makes you proud about being a member of this group, and what do you love about other members of this group?
• What has been hard about being a member of this group, and what don’t you like about others in this group?
• What were your early life experiences with people in this group? How were you treated? How did you feel about others in your group when you were young?

At a community level, family workshops support positive cultural identities that strengthen family functioning and reducing behavioral health risks. In a study of 575 urban American Indian (AI) families from diverse tribal backgrounds, the AI families who participated in such a workshop had significant increases in their ethnic identity, improved sense of spirituality, and a more positive cultural identification. The workshops provided culturally adaptive parenting interventions.¹⁰

IR is a serious determinant of both physical and mental health. Assessment of IR can be done using rating scales, such as the Nadanolitization Scale¹¹ or the Internalized Racial Oppression Scale.¹² IR also can also be assessed using a more formalized interview guide, such as the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI).¹³ This 16-question interview guide helps behavioral health providers better understand the way service users and their social networks (e.g., families, friends) understand what is happening to them and why, as well as the barriers they experience, such as racism, discrimination, stigma, and financial stressors.

Individuals’ cultures and experiences have a profound impact on their understanding of their symptoms and their engagement in care. The American Psychiatric Association considers it to be part of mental health providers’ duty of care to engage all individuals in culturally relevant conversations about their past experiences and care expectations. More relevant, I submit that you cannot treat someone without having made this inquiry. A cultural assessment improves understanding but also shifts power relationships between providers and patients. The DSM-5 CFI and training guides are widely available and provide additional information for those who want to improve their cultural literacy.
 

Conclusion

Internalized racism is the component of racism that is the most difficult to discern. Psychiatrists and mental health professionals are uniquely poised to address IR, and any subsequent internal conflict and identity difficulties. Each program, office, and clinic can easily find the resources to do this through the APA. If you would like help providing education, contact me at alisonheru@gmail.com.
 

References

1. Akbar N. J Black Studies. 1984. doi: 10.11771002193478401400401.

2. Lipsky S. Internalized Racism. Seattle: Rational Island Publishers, 1987.

3. Williams DR and Mohammed SA. Am Behav Sci. 2013 May 8. doi: 10.1177/00027642134873340.

4. DeLilly CR and Flaskerud JH. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2012 Nov;33(11):804-11.

5. Molina KM and James D. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2016 Jul;19(4):439-61.

6. Szymanski D and Obiri O. Couns Psychologist. 2011;39(3):438-62.

7. Carter RT et al. J Multicul Couns Dev. 2017 Oct 5;45(4):232-59.

8. Mouzon DM and McLean JS. Ethn Health. 2017 Feb;22(1):36-48.

9. Szymanski DM and Gupta A. J Couns Psychol. 2009;56(1):110-18.

10. Kulis SS et al. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychol. 2019. doi: 10.1037/cpd000315.

11. Taylor J and Grundy C. “Measuring black internalization of white stereotypes about African Americans: The Nadanolization Scale.” In: Jones RL, ed. Handbook of Tests and Measurements of Black Populations. Hampton, Va.: Cobb & Henry, 1996.

12. Bailey T-K M et al. J Couns Psychol. 2011 Oct;58(4):481-93.

13. American Psychiatric Association. Cultural Formulation Interview. DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association Publishing: Arlington, Va. 2013.



Various aspects about the case described above have been changed to protect the clinician’s and patients’ identities. Thanks to the following individuals for their contributions to this article: Suzanne Huberty, MD, and Shiona Heru, JD.
 

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose.




 

Ms. Jones brings her 15-year-old daughter, Angela, to the resident clinic. Angela is becoming increasingly anxious, withdrawn, and difficult to manage. As part of the initial interview, the resident, Dr. Sota, asks about the sociocultural background of the family. Ms. Jones is African American and recently began a relationship with a white man. Her daughter, Angela, is biracial; her biological father is white and has moved out of state with little ongoing contact with Angela and her mother.

At interview, Angela expresses a lot of anger at her mother, her biological father, and her new “stepfather.” Ms. Jones says: “I do not want Angela growing up as an ‘angry black woman.’ ” When asked for an explanation, she stated that she doesn’t want her daughter to be stereotyped, to be perceived as an angry black person. “She needs to fit in with our new life. She has lots of opportunities if only she would take them.”

Dr. Sota recognizes that Angela’s struggle, and perhaps also the struggle of Ms. Jones, has a component of internalized racism. How should Dr. Sota proceed? Dr. Sota puts herself in Angela’s shoes: How does Angela see herself? Angela has light brown skin, and Dr. Sota wonders whether Angela wants to present as white or whether asserting her black heritage is important.

The term internalized racism (IR) first appeared in the 1980s. IR was compared to the oppression of black people in the 1800s: “The slavery that captures the mind and incarcerates the motivation, perception, aspiration, and identity in a web of anti-self images, generating a personal and collective self destruction, is more cruel than the shackles on the wrists and ankles.”¹ According to Susanne Lipsky,² IR “in African Americans manifests as internalizing stereotypes, mistrusting the self and other Blacks, and narrows one’s view of authentic Black culture.”

IR refers to the internalization and acceptance of the dominant white culture’s actions and beliefs, while rejecting one’s own cultural background. There is a long history of negative cultural representations of African Americans in popular American culture, and IR has a detrimental impact on the emotional well-being of African Americans.³

IR is associated with poorer metabolic health⁴ and psychological distress, depression and anxiety,^5-8 and decreased self-esteem.⁹ However, protective processes can reduce one’s response to risk and can be developed through the psychotherapeutic relationship.
 

Interventions at an individual, family, or community levels

Angela: Tell me about yourself: What type of person are you? How do you identify? How do you feel about yourself/your appearance/your language?

Tell me about your friends/family? What interests do you have?

“Tell me more” questions can reveal conflicted feelings, etc., even if Angela does not answer. A good therapist can talk about IR; even if Angela does not bring it up, it is important for the therapist to find language suitable for the age of the patient.

Dr. Sota has some luck with Angela, who nods her head but says little. Dr. Sota then turns to Ms. Jones and asks whether she can answer these questions, too, and rephrases the questions for an adult. Interviewing parents in the presence of their children gives Dr. Sota and Angela an idea of what is permitted to talk about in the family.

A therapist can also note other permissions in the family: How do Angela and her mother use language? Do they claim or reject words and phrases such as “angry black woman” and choose, instead, to use language to “fit in” with the dominant white culture?

Dr. Sota notices that Ms. Jones presents herself as keen to fit in with her new future husband’s life. She wants Angela to do likewise. Dr. Sota notices that Angela vacillates between wanting to claim her black identity and having to navigate what that means in this family (not a good thing) – and wanting to assimilate into white culture. Her peers fall into two separate groups: a set of black friends and a set of white friends. Her mother prefers that she see her white friends, mistrusting her black friends.

Dr. Sota’s supervisor suggests that she introduce IR more forcefully because this seems to be a major course of conflict for Angela and encourage a frank discussion between mother and daughter. Dr. Sota starts the next session in the following way: “I noticed last week that the way you each identify yourselves is quite different. Ms. Jones, you want Angela to ‘fit in’ and perhaps just embrace white culture, whereas Angela, perhaps you vacillate between a white identity and a black identity?”

The following questions can help Dr. Sota elicit IR:

• What information about yourself would you like others to know – about your heritage, country of origin, family, class background, and so on?
• What makes you proud about being a member of this group, and what do you love about other members of this group?
• What has been hard about being a member of this group, and what don’t you like about others in this group?
• What were your early life experiences with people in this group? How were you treated? How did you feel about others in your group when you were young?

At a community level, family workshops support positive cultural identities that strengthen family functioning and reducing behavioral health risks. In a study of 575 urban American Indian (AI) families from diverse tribal backgrounds, the AI families who participated in such a workshop had significant increases in their ethnic identity, improved sense of spirituality, and a more positive cultural identification. The workshops provided culturally adaptive parenting interventions.¹⁰

IR is a serious determinant of both physical and mental health. Assessment of IR can be done using rating scales, such as the Nadanolitization Scale¹¹ or the Internalized Racial Oppression Scale.¹² IR also can also be assessed using a more formalized interview guide, such as the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI).¹³ This 16-question interview guide helps behavioral health providers better understand the way service users and their social networks (e.g., families, friends) understand what is happening to them and why, as well as the barriers they experience, such as racism, discrimination, stigma, and financial stressors.

Individuals’ cultures and experiences have a profound impact on their understanding of their symptoms and their engagement in care. The American Psychiatric Association considers it to be part of mental health providers’ duty of care to engage all individuals in culturally relevant conversations about their past experiences and care expectations. More relevant, I submit that you cannot treat someone without having made this inquiry. A cultural assessment improves understanding but also shifts power relationships between providers and patients. The DSM-5 CFI and training guides are widely available and provide additional information for those who want to improve their cultural literacy.
 

Conclusion

Internalized racism is the component of racism that is the most difficult to discern. Psychiatrists and mental health professionals are uniquely poised to address IR, and any subsequent internal conflict and identity difficulties. Each program, office, and clinic can easily find the resources to do this through the APA. If you would like help providing education, contact me at alisonheru@gmail.com.
 

References

1. Akbar N. J Black Studies. 1984. doi: 10.11771002193478401400401.

2. Lipsky S. Internalized Racism. Seattle: Rational Island Publishers, 1987.

3. Williams DR and Mohammed SA. Am Behav Sci. 2013 May 8. doi: 10.1177/00027642134873340.

4. DeLilly CR and Flaskerud JH. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2012 Nov;33(11):804-11.

5. Molina KM and James D. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2016 Jul;19(4):439-61.

6. Szymanski D and Obiri O. Couns Psychologist. 2011;39(3):438-62.

7. Carter RT et al. J Multicul Couns Dev. 2017 Oct 5;45(4):232-59.

8. Mouzon DM and McLean JS. Ethn Health. 2017 Feb;22(1):36-48.

9. Szymanski DM and Gupta A. J Couns Psychol. 2009;56(1):110-18.

10. Kulis SS et al. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychol. 2019. doi: 10.1037/cpd000315.

11. Taylor J and Grundy C. “Measuring black internalization of white stereotypes about African Americans: The Nadanolization Scale.” In: Jones RL, ed. Handbook of Tests and Measurements of Black Populations. Hampton, Va.: Cobb & Henry, 1996.

12. Bailey T-K M et al. J Couns Psychol. 2011 Oct;58(4):481-93.

13. American Psychiatric Association. Cultural Formulation Interview. DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association Publishing: Arlington, Va. 2013.



Various aspects about the case described above have been changed to protect the clinician’s and patients’ identities. Thanks to the following individuals for their contributions to this article: Suzanne Huberty, MD, and Shiona Heru, JD.
 

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose.




 

The term “academic hospitalist” has come to mean more than a mere affiliation to an academic medical center (AMC). Academic hospitalists perform various clinical roles like staffing house staff teams, covering nonteaching services, critical care services, procedure teams, night services, medical consultation, and comanagement services.

Over the last decade, academic hospitalists have successfully managed many nonclinical roles in areas like research, medical unit leadership, faculty development, faculty affairs, quality, safety, informatics, utilization review, clinical documentation, throughput, group management, hospital administration, and educational leadership. The role of an academic hospital is as clear as a chocolate martini these days. Here we present some recent trends in academic hospital medicine.

Compensation

SHM State of Hospital Medicine 2018 Report

From SHM’s State of Hospital Medicine report (SoHM)2014 to 2018 data, the median compensation for U.S. academic hospitalists has risen by an average of 5.15% every year, although increases vary by rank.¹ From 2016 to 2018, clinical instructors saw the most significant growth, 11.23% per year, suggesting a need to remain competitive for junior hospitalists. Compensation also varies by geographic area, with the Southern region reporting the highest compensation. Over the last decade, academic hospitalists received, on average, a 28%-35% lower salary, compared with community hospitalists.

Patient population and census

Lower patient encounters and compensation of the academic hospitalists poses the chicken or the egg dilemma. In the 2018 SoHM report, academic hospitalists had an average of 17% fewer encounters. Of note, AMC patients tend to have higher complexity, as measured by the Case Mix Index (CMI – the average diagnosis-related group weight of a hospital).² A higher CMI is a surrogate marker for the diagnostic diversity, clinical complexity, and resource needs of the patient population in the hospital.
 

Productivity and financial metrics

The financial bottom line is a critical aspect, and as a report in the Journal of Hospital Medicine described, all health care executives look at business metrics while making decisions.³ Below are some significant academic and community comparisons from SoHM 2018.

• Collections, encounters, and wRVUs (work relative value units) were highly correlated. All of them were lower for academic hospitalists, corroborating the fact that they see a smaller number of patients. Clinical full-time equivalents (cFTE) is a vernacular of how much of the faculty time is devoted to clinical activities. The academic data from SoHM achieves the same target, as it is standardized to 100% billable clinical activity, so the fact that many academic hospitalists do not work a full-time clinical schedule is not a factor in their lower production.
• Charges had a smaller gap likely because of sicker patients in AMCs. The higher acuity difference can also explain 12% higher wRVU/encounter for academic hospitalists.
• The wRVU/encounter ratio can indicate a few patterns: high acuity of patients in AMCs, higher levels of evaluation and management documentation, or both. As the encounters and charges have the same percentage differences, we would place our bets on the former.
• Compensation per encounter and compensation per wRVU showed that academic hospitalists do get a slight advantage.

CMI and wRVUs

Although the SoHM does not capture information on patient acuity or CMI, we speculate that the relationship between CMI and wRVUs may be more or less linear at lower levels of acuity. However, once level III E/M billing is achieved (assuming there is no critical care provided), wRVUs/encounter plateau, even as acuity continues to increase. This plateau effect may be seen more often in high-acuity AMC settings than in community hospitals.

SHM State of Hospital Medicine 2018 Report

So, in our opinion, compensation models based solely on wRVU production would not do justice for hospitalists in AMC settings since these models would fail to capture the extra work involved with very-high-acuity patients. SoHM 2018 shows the financial support per wRVU for AMC is $45.81, and for the community is $41.28, an 11% difference. We think the higher financial support per wRVU for academic practices may be related to the lost wRVU potential of caring for very-high-acuity patients.

Conclusion

In an academic setting, hospitalists are reforming the field of hospital medicine and defining the ways we could deliver care. They are the pillars of collaboration, education, research, innovation, quality, and safety. It would be increasingly crucial for academic hospitalist leaders to use comparative metrics from SoHM to advocate for their group. The bottom line can be explained by the title of the qualitative study in JHM referenced above: “Collaboration, not calculation.”³

Dr. Chadha is division chief for the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky Healthcare, Lexington. He actively leads efforts of recruiting, scheduling, practice analysis, and operation of the group. He is a first-time member of the practice analysis committee. Ms. Dede is division administrator for the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky Healthcare. She prepares and manages budgets, liaisons with the downstream revenue teams, and contributes to the building of academic compensation models. She is serving in the practice administrators committee for the second year and is currently vice chair of the Executive Council for the Practice Administrators special interest group.

References

1. State of Hospital Medicine Report. https://www.hospitalmedicine.org/practice-management/shms-state-of-hospital-medicine/

2. Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Academic Medical Centers: Joining forces with community providers for broad benefits and positive outcomes. 2015. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/life-sciences-and-health-care/articles/academic-medical-centers-consolidation.html

3. White AA et al. Collaboration, not calculation: A qualitative study of how hospital executives value hospital medicine groups. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(10):662‐7.

The term “academic hospitalist” has come to mean more than a mere affiliation to an academic medical center (AMC). Academic hospitalists perform various clinical roles like staffing house staff teams, covering nonteaching services, critical care services, procedure teams, night services, medical consultation, and comanagement services.

Over the last decade, academic hospitalists have successfully managed many nonclinical roles in areas like research, medical unit leadership, faculty development, faculty affairs, quality, safety, informatics, utilization review, clinical documentation, throughput, group management, hospital administration, and educational leadership. The role of an academic hospital is as clear as a chocolate martini these days. Here we present some recent trends in academic hospital medicine.

Compensation

SHM State of Hospital Medicine 2018 Report

From SHM’s State of Hospital Medicine report (SoHM)2014 to 2018 data, the median compensation for U.S. academic hospitalists has risen by an average of 5.15% every year, although increases vary by rank.¹ From 2016 to 2018, clinical instructors saw the most significant growth, 11.23% per year, suggesting a need to remain competitive for junior hospitalists. Compensation also varies by geographic area, with the Southern region reporting the highest compensation. Over the last decade, academic hospitalists received, on average, a 28%-35% lower salary, compared with community hospitalists.

Patient population and census

Lower patient encounters and compensation of the academic hospitalists poses the chicken or the egg dilemma. In the 2018 SoHM report, academic hospitalists had an average of 17% fewer encounters. Of note, AMC patients tend to have higher complexity, as measured by the Case Mix Index (CMI – the average diagnosis-related group weight of a hospital).² A higher CMI is a surrogate marker for the diagnostic diversity, clinical complexity, and resource needs of the patient population in the hospital.
 

Productivity and financial metrics

The financial bottom line is a critical aspect, and as a report in the Journal of Hospital Medicine described, all health care executives look at business metrics while making decisions.³ Below are some significant academic and community comparisons from SoHM 2018.

• Collections, encounters, and wRVUs (work relative value units) were highly correlated. All of them were lower for academic hospitalists, corroborating the fact that they see a smaller number of patients. Clinical full-time equivalents (cFTE) is a vernacular of how much of the faculty time is devoted to clinical activities. The academic data from SoHM achieves the same target, as it is standardized to 100% billable clinical activity, so the fact that many academic hospitalists do not work a full-time clinical schedule is not a factor in their lower production.
• Charges had a smaller gap likely because of sicker patients in AMCs. The higher acuity difference can also explain 12% higher wRVU/encounter for academic hospitalists.
• The wRVU/encounter ratio can indicate a few patterns: high acuity of patients in AMCs, higher levels of evaluation and management documentation, or both. As the encounters and charges have the same percentage differences, we would place our bets on the former.
• Compensation per encounter and compensation per wRVU showed that academic hospitalists do get a slight advantage.

CMI and wRVUs

Although the SoHM does not capture information on patient acuity or CMI, we speculate that the relationship between CMI and wRVUs may be more or less linear at lower levels of acuity. However, once level III E/M billing is achieved (assuming there is no critical care provided), wRVUs/encounter plateau, even as acuity continues to increase. This plateau effect may be seen more often in high-acuity AMC settings than in community hospitals.

SHM State of Hospital Medicine 2018 Report

So, in our opinion, compensation models based solely on wRVU production would not do justice for hospitalists in AMC settings since these models would fail to capture the extra work involved with very-high-acuity patients. SoHM 2018 shows the financial support per wRVU for AMC is $45.81, and for the community is $41.28, an 11% difference. We think the higher financial support per wRVU for academic practices may be related to the lost wRVU potential of caring for very-high-acuity patients.

Conclusion

In an academic setting, hospitalists are reforming the field of hospital medicine and defining the ways we could deliver care. They are the pillars of collaboration, education, research, innovation, quality, and safety. It would be increasingly crucial for academic hospitalist leaders to use comparative metrics from SoHM to advocate for their group. The bottom line can be explained by the title of the qualitative study in JHM referenced above: “Collaboration, not calculation.”³

Dr. Chadha is division chief for the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky Healthcare, Lexington. He actively leads efforts of recruiting, scheduling, practice analysis, and operation of the group. He is a first-time member of the practice analysis committee. Ms. Dede is division administrator for the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky Healthcare. She prepares and manages budgets, liaisons with the downstream revenue teams, and contributes to the building of academic compensation models. She is serving in the practice administrators committee for the second year and is currently vice chair of the Executive Council for the Practice Administrators special interest group.

References

1. State of Hospital Medicine Report. https://www.hospitalmedicine.org/practice-management/shms-state-of-hospital-medicine/

2. Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Academic Medical Centers: Joining forces with community providers for broad benefits and positive outcomes. 2015. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/life-sciences-and-health-care/articles/academic-medical-centers-consolidation.html

3. White AA et al. Collaboration, not calculation: A qualitative study of how hospital executives value hospital medicine groups. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(10):662‐7.

The term “academic hospitalist” has come to mean more than a mere affiliation to an academic medical center (AMC). Academic hospitalists perform various clinical roles like staffing house staff teams, covering nonteaching services, critical care services, procedure teams, night services, medical consultation, and comanagement services.

Over the last decade, academic hospitalists have successfully managed many nonclinical roles in areas like research, medical unit leadership, faculty development, faculty affairs, quality, safety, informatics, utilization review, clinical documentation, throughput, group management, hospital administration, and educational leadership. The role of an academic hospital is as clear as a chocolate martini these days. Here we present some recent trends in academic hospital medicine.

Compensation

SHM State of Hospital Medicine 2018 Report

From SHM’s State of Hospital Medicine report (SoHM)2014 to 2018 data, the median compensation for U.S. academic hospitalists has risen by an average of 5.15% every year, although increases vary by rank.¹ From 2016 to 2018, clinical instructors saw the most significant growth, 11.23% per year, suggesting a need to remain competitive for junior hospitalists. Compensation also varies by geographic area, with the Southern region reporting the highest compensation. Over the last decade, academic hospitalists received, on average, a 28%-35% lower salary, compared with community hospitalists.

Patient population and census

Lower patient encounters and compensation of the academic hospitalists poses the chicken or the egg dilemma. In the 2018 SoHM report, academic hospitalists had an average of 17% fewer encounters. Of note, AMC patients tend to have higher complexity, as measured by the Case Mix Index (CMI – the average diagnosis-related group weight of a hospital).² A higher CMI is a surrogate marker for the diagnostic diversity, clinical complexity, and resource needs of the patient population in the hospital.
 

Productivity and financial metrics

The financial bottom line is a critical aspect, and as a report in the Journal of Hospital Medicine described, all health care executives look at business metrics while making decisions.³ Below are some significant academic and community comparisons from SoHM 2018.

• Collections, encounters, and wRVUs (work relative value units) were highly correlated. All of them were lower for academic hospitalists, corroborating the fact that they see a smaller number of patients. Clinical full-time equivalents (cFTE) is a vernacular of how much of the faculty time is devoted to clinical activities. The academic data from SoHM achieves the same target, as it is standardized to 100% billable clinical activity, so the fact that many academic hospitalists do not work a full-time clinical schedule is not a factor in their lower production.
• Charges had a smaller gap likely because of sicker patients in AMCs. The higher acuity difference can also explain 12% higher wRVU/encounter for academic hospitalists.
• The wRVU/encounter ratio can indicate a few patterns: high acuity of patients in AMCs, higher levels of evaluation and management documentation, or both. As the encounters and charges have the same percentage differences, we would place our bets on the former.
• Compensation per encounter and compensation per wRVU showed that academic hospitalists do get a slight advantage.

CMI and wRVUs

Although the SoHM does not capture information on patient acuity or CMI, we speculate that the relationship between CMI and wRVUs may be more or less linear at lower levels of acuity. However, once level III E/M billing is achieved (assuming there is no critical care provided), wRVUs/encounter plateau, even as acuity continues to increase. This plateau effect may be seen more often in high-acuity AMC settings than in community hospitals.

SHM State of Hospital Medicine 2018 Report

So, in our opinion, compensation models based solely on wRVU production would not do justice for hospitalists in AMC settings since these models would fail to capture the extra work involved with very-high-acuity patients. SoHM 2018 shows the financial support per wRVU for AMC is $45.81, and for the community is $41.28, an 11% difference. We think the higher financial support per wRVU for academic practices may be related to the lost wRVU potential of caring for very-high-acuity patients.

Conclusion

In an academic setting, hospitalists are reforming the field of hospital medicine and defining the ways we could deliver care. They are the pillars of collaboration, education, research, innovation, quality, and safety. It would be increasingly crucial for academic hospitalist leaders to use comparative metrics from SoHM to advocate for their group. The bottom line can be explained by the title of the qualitative study in JHM referenced above: “Collaboration, not calculation.”³

Dr. Chadha is division chief for the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky Healthcare, Lexington. He actively leads efforts of recruiting, scheduling, practice analysis, and operation of the group. He is a first-time member of the practice analysis committee. Ms. Dede is division administrator for the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky Healthcare. She prepares and manages budgets, liaisons with the downstream revenue teams, and contributes to the building of academic compensation models. She is serving in the practice administrators committee for the second year and is currently vice chair of the Executive Council for the Practice Administrators special interest group.

References

1. State of Hospital Medicine Report. https://www.hospitalmedicine.org/practice-management/shms-state-of-hospital-medicine/

2. Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Academic Medical Centers: Joining forces with community providers for broad benefits and positive outcomes. 2015. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/life-sciences-and-health-care/articles/academic-medical-centers-consolidation.html

3. White AA et al. Collaboration, not calculation: A qualitative study of how hospital executives value hospital medicine groups. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(10):662‐7.

Key clinical point: Long-term exposure to fingolimod is associated with lower disability progression in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: The high (≥8 years) vs. low (<8 years) exposure groups showed a smaller increase in the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (+0.55 vs. +1.21) and lower frequencies of disability progression (34.7% vs. 56.1%; P less than .01) and wheelchair use (4.9% vs. 16.9%; P less than .0276) at 10 years.

Study details: ACROSS was a cross-sectional follow-up study of patients with relapsing MS enrolled in a phase 2 proof-of-concept study. Disability outcomes were assessed in patients grouped as per fingolimod exposure: high exposure (n=104) and low exposure (n=71).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Amin Azmon and Davorka Tomic are employees of Novartis. The other authors reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Derfuss T et al. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1177/2055217320907951.

Key clinical point: Long-term exposure to fingolimod is associated with lower disability progression in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: The high (≥8 years) vs. low (<8 years) exposure groups showed a smaller increase in the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (+0.55 vs. +1.21) and lower frequencies of disability progression (34.7% vs. 56.1%; P less than .01) and wheelchair use (4.9% vs. 16.9%; P less than .0276) at 10 years.

Study details: ACROSS was a cross-sectional follow-up study of patients with relapsing MS enrolled in a phase 2 proof-of-concept study. Disability outcomes were assessed in patients grouped as per fingolimod exposure: high exposure (n=104) and low exposure (n=71).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Amin Azmon and Davorka Tomic are employees of Novartis. The other authors reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Derfuss T et al. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1177/2055217320907951.

Key clinical point: Long-term exposure to fingolimod is associated with lower disability progression in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: The high (≥8 years) vs. low (<8 years) exposure groups showed a smaller increase in the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (+0.55 vs. +1.21) and lower frequencies of disability progression (34.7% vs. 56.1%; P less than .01) and wheelchair use (4.9% vs. 16.9%; P less than .0276) at 10 years.

Study details: ACROSS was a cross-sectional follow-up study of patients with relapsing MS enrolled in a phase 2 proof-of-concept study. Disability outcomes were assessed in patients grouped as per fingolimod exposure: high exposure (n=104) and low exposure (n=71).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Amin Azmon and Davorka Tomic are employees of Novartis. The other authors reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Citation: Derfuss T et al. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1177/2055217320907951.

Key clinical point: Elevated body mass index (BMI) is independently associated with an accelerated rate of ganglion cell+inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) atrophy in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major findings: Obese (n=146; BMI, ≥30 kg/m²) vs. normal weight (n=214; BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m²) patients showed accelerated rate of GCIPL atrophy (−0.57%/year vs. −0.42%/year; P = .012). Atrophy rates were not significantly different between overweight (n=153; BMI, 25-29.9 kg/m²) and normal weight patients (−0.47%/year vs. −0.42%/year; P = .41). GCIPL atrophy rate accelerated by −0.011% per year with each 1 kg/m² higher BMI (P =.003).

Study details: This observational study included 522 patients with MS from Johns Hopkins MS Center who were followed with retinal imaging for a median of 4.4 years.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National MS Society, Race to Erase MS, and NIH/NINDS. The presenting author had no disclosures. One coauthor reported receiving support from the Race to Erase MS foundation.

Citation: Filippatou AG et al. Mult Scler. 2020 Apr 16. doi: 10.1177/1352458519900942.

Key clinical point: Elevated body mass index (BMI) is independently associated with an accelerated rate of ganglion cell+inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) atrophy in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major findings: Obese (n=146; BMI, ≥30 kg/m²) vs. normal weight (n=214; BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m²) patients showed accelerated rate of GCIPL atrophy (−0.57%/year vs. −0.42%/year; P = .012). Atrophy rates were not significantly different between overweight (n=153; BMI, 25-29.9 kg/m²) and normal weight patients (−0.47%/year vs. −0.42%/year; P = .41). GCIPL atrophy rate accelerated by −0.011% per year with each 1 kg/m² higher BMI (P =.003).

Study details: This observational study included 522 patients with MS from Johns Hopkins MS Center who were followed with retinal imaging for a median of 4.4 years.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National MS Society, Race to Erase MS, and NIH/NINDS. The presenting author had no disclosures. One coauthor reported receiving support from the Race to Erase MS foundation.

Citation: Filippatou AG et al. Mult Scler. 2020 Apr 16. doi: 10.1177/1352458519900942.

Key clinical point: Elevated body mass index (BMI) is independently associated with an accelerated rate of ganglion cell+inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) atrophy in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major findings: Obese (n=146; BMI, ≥30 kg/m²) vs. normal weight (n=214; BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m²) patients showed accelerated rate of GCIPL atrophy (−0.57%/year vs. −0.42%/year; P = .012). Atrophy rates were not significantly different between overweight (n=153; BMI, 25-29.9 kg/m²) and normal weight patients (−0.47%/year vs. −0.42%/year; P = .41). GCIPL atrophy rate accelerated by −0.011% per year with each 1 kg/m² higher BMI (P =.003).

Study details: This observational study included 522 patients with MS from Johns Hopkins MS Center who were followed with retinal imaging for a median of 4.4 years.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National MS Society, Race to Erase MS, and NIH/NINDS. The presenting author had no disclosures. One coauthor reported receiving support from the Race to Erase MS foundation.

Citation: Filippatou AG et al. Mult Scler. 2020 Apr 16. doi: 10.1177/1352458519900942.

Key clinical point: Low fish consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS); vitamin D does not mediate this association.

Major finding: Regardless of sun exposure habits, MS risk was higher with low fish consumption, including both lean and fatty fish (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.4). The mediation analysis revealed that the effect mediated by vitamin D deficiency on this association was very small. A significant interaction was noted between DRB1*15:01 allele and both low sun exposure and low fish consumption.

Study details: The data come from 2 Swedish population-based case-control studies (6,914 patients with MS and 6,590 control participants).

Disclosures: The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr Olsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Brain Foundation. Dr Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish

Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation.

Citation: Hedström AK et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000717.

Key clinical point: Low fish consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS); vitamin D does not mediate this association.

Major finding: Regardless of sun exposure habits, MS risk was higher with low fish consumption, including both lean and fatty fish (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.4). The mediation analysis revealed that the effect mediated by vitamin D deficiency on this association was very small. A significant interaction was noted between DRB1*15:01 allele and both low sun exposure and low fish consumption.

Study details: The data come from 2 Swedish population-based case-control studies (6,914 patients with MS and 6,590 control participants).

Disclosures: The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr Olsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Brain Foundation. Dr Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish

Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation.

Citation: Hedström AK et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000717.

Key clinical point: Low fish consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS); vitamin D does not mediate this association.

Major finding: Regardless of sun exposure habits, MS risk was higher with low fish consumption, including both lean and fatty fish (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.4). The mediation analysis revealed that the effect mediated by vitamin D deficiency on this association was very small. A significant interaction was noted between DRB1*15:01 allele and both low sun exposure and low fish consumption.

Study details: The data come from 2 Swedish population-based case-control studies (6,914 patients with MS and 6,590 control participants).

Disclosures: The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr Olsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Brain Foundation. Dr Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish

Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation.

Citation: Hedström AK et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000717.

Key clinical point: Mercury-containing dental amalgam fillings (AMF) are not associated with the risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: The risk of MS with AMF did not differ significantly between patients and control participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.823; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.648-1.046). MS was not associated with AMF irrespective of gender (women: aOR, 0.743; 95% CI, 0.552-1.000; men: aOR, 1.006; 95% CI, 0.670-1.509).

Study details: The data come from a Taiwanese population-based case-control study of 612 participants with MS and 612 matched participants without MS.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Tseng CF et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 12. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17082637.

Key clinical point: Mercury-containing dental amalgam fillings (AMF) are not associated with the risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: The risk of MS with AMF did not differ significantly between patients and control participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.823; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.648-1.046). MS was not associated with AMF irrespective of gender (women: aOR, 0.743; 95% CI, 0.552-1.000; men: aOR, 1.006; 95% CI, 0.670-1.509).

Study details: The data come from a Taiwanese population-based case-control study of 612 participants with MS and 612 matched participants without MS.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Tseng CF et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 12. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17082637.

Key clinical point: Mercury-containing dental amalgam fillings (AMF) are not associated with the risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: The risk of MS with AMF did not differ significantly between patients and control participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.823; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.648-1.046). MS was not associated with AMF irrespective of gender (women: aOR, 0.743; 95% CI, 0.552-1.000; men: aOR, 1.006; 95% CI, 0.670-1.509).

Study details: The data come from a Taiwanese population-based case-control study of 612 participants with MS and 612 matched participants without MS.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Tseng CF et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 12. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17082637.

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Read Now

In this supplement to Federal Practitioner,
Dr. Raja Mudad, MD, discusses:

• The burden of squamous non-small cell lung cancer among active United States military and veterans
• Available treatment options for advanced metastatic squamous NSCLC
• Clinical trial data surrounding a treatment for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC who have progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy, that can be used as early as second-line

(06/20) PC-US-115598

Read Now

Read Now

In this supplement to Federal Practitioner,
Dr. Raja Mudad, MD, discusses:

• The burden of squamous non-small cell lung cancer among active United States military and veterans
• Available treatment options for advanced metastatic squamous NSCLC
• Clinical trial data surrounding a treatment for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC who have progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy, that can be used as early as second-line

(06/20) PC-US-115598

Read Now

Read Now

In this supplement to Federal Practitioner,
Dr. Raja Mudad, MD, discusses:

• The burden of squamous non-small cell lung cancer among active United States military and veterans
• Available treatment options for advanced metastatic squamous NSCLC
• Clinical trial data surrounding a treatment for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC who have progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy, that can be used as early as second-line

(06/20) PC-US-115598

Read Now

Artificial intelligence (AI)–based Gleason scores correlated with pathologists’ Gleason scores for predicting survival in patients with prostate cancer, according to a cohort-based analysis.

An AI-based Gleason score – derived from 7,267 digitized biopsy slides, pathology reports, and clinical data from patient electronic medical records – was calculated for each of 599 prostate cancer patients.

The AI scores were compared with pathologists’ Gleason scores, which were obtained from pathology reports for each of the patients.

The two scores were “highly correlated,” according to investigators. The area under the curve (AUC) for the 7-year mortality rate was 0.667 for the AI-based scores and 0.659 for the pathologists’ scores.

The investigators also found that markers extracted using AI-based algorithms could predict disease progression in patients with low- and higher-grade disease.

Daphna Laifenfeld, PhD, chief scientific officer of Ibex Medical Analytics in Tel Aviv, reported these results in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II. Ibex Medical Analytics is the company that developed the AI-based algorithms and Gleason score (the Ibex score).

In addition to comparing the Ibex Gleason scores with pathologists’ scores, Dr. Laifenfeld and colleagues sought to “develop AI markers – computational features extracted from slides using AI-based algorithms – that can predict disease progression in low-, and separately, higher-grade patients.”

Information extracted using the algorithms included Gleason scores; perineural invasion; and other characteristics such as inflammation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and atrophy.

“We used data ... to address each aim, analyzing hundreds of patients in each comparison, and employed logistic regression to develop the predictive models,” Dr. Laifenfeld said.

Of the 357 patients evaluated, 180 had low-grade disease, defined by a prebiopsy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level less than 10 ng/mL (Gleason group 1), and 177 patients had higher-grade disease (Gleason group 2 or higher).

Gleason group 1 patients were considered to have progressed if they developed higher-grade cancer, underwent prostatectomy, or if their cancer had metastasized. Gleason group 2 and above patients were considered to have progressed if their cancer metastasized or if they had a postprostatectomy PSA level greater than 4 ng/ml.

In Gleason group 1 patients, combining multiple features from the pathology report with prebiopsy PSA levels was shown to predict disease progression better than prebiopsy PSA levels alone (AUC, 0.687).

“Importantly, AI markers that combine features automatically extracted by Ibex with prebiopsy PSA levels are even better associated with progression (AUC, 0.748),” Dr. Laifenfeld said.

Similarly, in the Gleason group 2 and above patients, the AI markers that combine Ibex-extracted features with prebiopsy PSA levels were also highly associated with progression (AUC, 0.862 vs. AUC, 0.77 for the non–Ibex-based approach) and can be used for patient stratification, Dr. Laifenfeld said.

“For each patient, we can predict whether or not their disease will progress,” she said. “[T]his type of stratification can then be used to support clinical disease management decisions, and [it can be used] in the course of drug development for patient stratification and trial enrichment strategies.”

Dr. Laifenfeld and some coinvestigators are employed by Ibex Medical Analytics.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Laifenfeld D et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 867.

Artificial intelligence (AI)–based Gleason scores correlated with pathologists’ Gleason scores for predicting survival in patients with prostate cancer, according to a cohort-based analysis.

An AI-based Gleason score – derived from 7,267 digitized biopsy slides, pathology reports, and clinical data from patient electronic medical records – was calculated for each of 599 prostate cancer patients.

The AI scores were compared with pathologists’ Gleason scores, which were obtained from pathology reports for each of the patients.

The two scores were “highly correlated,” according to investigators. The area under the curve (AUC) for the 7-year mortality rate was 0.667 for the AI-based scores and 0.659 for the pathologists’ scores.

The investigators also found that markers extracted using AI-based algorithms could predict disease progression in patients with low- and higher-grade disease.

Daphna Laifenfeld, PhD, chief scientific officer of Ibex Medical Analytics in Tel Aviv, reported these results in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II. Ibex Medical Analytics is the company that developed the AI-based algorithms and Gleason score (the Ibex score).

In addition to comparing the Ibex Gleason scores with pathologists’ scores, Dr. Laifenfeld and colleagues sought to “develop AI markers – computational features extracted from slides using AI-based algorithms – that can predict disease progression in low-, and separately, higher-grade patients.”

Information extracted using the algorithms included Gleason scores; perineural invasion; and other characteristics such as inflammation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and atrophy.

“We used data ... to address each aim, analyzing hundreds of patients in each comparison, and employed logistic regression to develop the predictive models,” Dr. Laifenfeld said.

Of the 357 patients evaluated, 180 had low-grade disease, defined by a prebiopsy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level less than 10 ng/mL (Gleason group 1), and 177 patients had higher-grade disease (Gleason group 2 or higher).

Gleason group 1 patients were considered to have progressed if they developed higher-grade cancer, underwent prostatectomy, or if their cancer had metastasized. Gleason group 2 and above patients were considered to have progressed if their cancer metastasized or if they had a postprostatectomy PSA level greater than 4 ng/ml.

In Gleason group 1 patients, combining multiple features from the pathology report with prebiopsy PSA levels was shown to predict disease progression better than prebiopsy PSA levels alone (AUC, 0.687).

“Importantly, AI markers that combine features automatically extracted by Ibex with prebiopsy PSA levels are even better associated with progression (AUC, 0.748),” Dr. Laifenfeld said.

Similarly, in the Gleason group 2 and above patients, the AI markers that combine Ibex-extracted features with prebiopsy PSA levels were also highly associated with progression (AUC, 0.862 vs. AUC, 0.77 for the non–Ibex-based approach) and can be used for patient stratification, Dr. Laifenfeld said.

“For each patient, we can predict whether or not their disease will progress,” she said. “[T]his type of stratification can then be used to support clinical disease management decisions, and [it can be used] in the course of drug development for patient stratification and trial enrichment strategies.”

Dr. Laifenfeld and some coinvestigators are employed by Ibex Medical Analytics.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Laifenfeld D et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 867.

Artificial intelligence (AI)–based Gleason scores correlated with pathologists’ Gleason scores for predicting survival in patients with prostate cancer, according to a cohort-based analysis.

An AI-based Gleason score – derived from 7,267 digitized biopsy slides, pathology reports, and clinical data from patient electronic medical records – was calculated for each of 599 prostate cancer patients.

The AI scores were compared with pathologists’ Gleason scores, which were obtained from pathology reports for each of the patients.

The two scores were “highly correlated,” according to investigators. The area under the curve (AUC) for the 7-year mortality rate was 0.667 for the AI-based scores and 0.659 for the pathologists’ scores.

The investigators also found that markers extracted using AI-based algorithms could predict disease progression in patients with low- and higher-grade disease.

Daphna Laifenfeld, PhD, chief scientific officer of Ibex Medical Analytics in Tel Aviv, reported these results in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II. Ibex Medical Analytics is the company that developed the AI-based algorithms and Gleason score (the Ibex score).

In addition to comparing the Ibex Gleason scores with pathologists’ scores, Dr. Laifenfeld and colleagues sought to “develop AI markers – computational features extracted from slides using AI-based algorithms – that can predict disease progression in low-, and separately, higher-grade patients.”

Information extracted using the algorithms included Gleason scores; perineural invasion; and other characteristics such as inflammation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and atrophy.

“We used data ... to address each aim, analyzing hundreds of patients in each comparison, and employed logistic regression to develop the predictive models,” Dr. Laifenfeld said.

Of the 357 patients evaluated, 180 had low-grade disease, defined by a prebiopsy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level less than 10 ng/mL (Gleason group 1), and 177 patients had higher-grade disease (Gleason group 2 or higher).

Gleason group 1 patients were considered to have progressed if they developed higher-grade cancer, underwent prostatectomy, or if their cancer had metastasized. Gleason group 2 and above patients were considered to have progressed if their cancer metastasized or if they had a postprostatectomy PSA level greater than 4 ng/ml.

In Gleason group 1 patients, combining multiple features from the pathology report with prebiopsy PSA levels was shown to predict disease progression better than prebiopsy PSA levels alone (AUC, 0.687).

“Importantly, AI markers that combine features automatically extracted by Ibex with prebiopsy PSA levels are even better associated with progression (AUC, 0.748),” Dr. Laifenfeld said.

Similarly, in the Gleason group 2 and above patients, the AI markers that combine Ibex-extracted features with prebiopsy PSA levels were also highly associated with progression (AUC, 0.862 vs. AUC, 0.77 for the non–Ibex-based approach) and can be used for patient stratification, Dr. Laifenfeld said.

“For each patient, we can predict whether or not their disease will progress,” she said. “[T]his type of stratification can then be used to support clinical disease management decisions, and [it can be used] in the course of drug development for patient stratification and trial enrichment strategies.”

Dr. Laifenfeld and some coinvestigators are employed by Ibex Medical Analytics.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Laifenfeld D et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 867.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.