Study Overview

Objective. To determine the timing of surgical intervention in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Design. Open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled study.

Setting and participants. A total of 145 asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to early surgery or conservative care.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was a composite of operative mortality or death from a cardiovascular cause during follow-up. The major secondary endpoint was death from any cause during follow-up.

Main results. The primary endpoint occurred in 1 of 73 patients (1%) in the early surgery group and 11 of 72 patients (15%) in the conservative care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.67, P = 0.003). The secondary endpoint occurred in 7% of patients in the early surgery group and 21% of patients in the conservative care group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.90).

Conclusion. Among asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis, the incidence of the composite of operative mortality or death from cardiovascular causes during follow-up was significantly lower among those who underwent early valve replacement surgery compared to those who received conservative care.

Commentary

Aortic stenosis is a progressive disease that can lead to angina, heart failure, and death.¹A higher mortality rate is reported in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, as compared to patients with asymptomatic disease, and current guidelines require symptoms to be present in order to proceed with aortic valve replacement.² Management of asymptomatic patients is often determined by the treating physician, with treatment decisions based on multiple factors, such as left ventricular function, stress test results, and the local level of expertise for surgery.²

In this context, the RECOVERY investigators report the findings of their well-designed randomized controlled study assessing patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, which was defined as aortic valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² and either transvalvular velocity > 4.5 m/s or a mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg. Compared to patients who received conservative care, patients who underwent early valve surgery had a significantly lower rate of a composite of operative mortality or death from any cardiovascular causes during follow-up. Notably, the number needed to treat to prevent 1 death from cardiovascular causes within 4 years was 20.

The strengths of this trial include complete long-term follow-up (> 4 years) and low cross-over rates. Furthermore, as the study targeted a previously understudied population, there were a number of interesting observations, in addition to the primary endpoint. First, the risk of sudden death was high in patients who received conservative care, 4% at 4 years and 14% at 8 years, a finding contrary to the common belief that asymptomatic patients are at lower risk of sudden cardiac death. Second, 74% of patients assigned to initial conservative care required aortic valve replacement during the follow-up period. Furthermore, when the patients assigned to conservative care required surgery, it was often performed emergently (17%), which could have contributed to the higher mortality in this group of patients. Finally, hospitalization for heart failure was more common in patients randomized to conservative care compared to patients with early surgery. These findings will help physicians conduct detailed, informed discussions with their patients regarding the risks/benefits of early surgery versus conservative management.

There are a few limitations of the RECOVERY trial to consider. First, this study investigated the effect of surgical aortic valve replacement; whether its findings can be extended to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires further investigation. Patients who were enrolled in this study were younger and had fewer comorbidities than typical patients referred for TAVR. Second, all patients included in this study had the most severe form of aortic stenosis (valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² with either a peak velocity of ≥ 4.5 m/s or mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg). Finally, the study was performed in highly experienced centers, as evidenced by a very low (0%) mortality rate after aortic valve replacement. Therefore, the finding may not be applicable to centers that have less experience with aortic valve replacement surgery.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings of the RECOVERY trial strongly suggest a mortality benefit of early surgery compared to conservative management in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Early surgery should be favored over conservative management in this patient population.

–Taishi Hirai, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the timing of surgical intervention in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Design. Open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled study.

Setting and participants. A total of 145 asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to early surgery or conservative care.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was a composite of operative mortality or death from a cardiovascular cause during follow-up. The major secondary endpoint was death from any cause during follow-up.

Main results. The primary endpoint occurred in 1 of 73 patients (1%) in the early surgery group and 11 of 72 patients (15%) in the conservative care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.67, P = 0.003). The secondary endpoint occurred in 7% of patients in the early surgery group and 21% of patients in the conservative care group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.90).

Conclusion. Among asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis, the incidence of the composite of operative mortality or death from cardiovascular causes during follow-up was significantly lower among those who underwent early valve replacement surgery compared to those who received conservative care.

Commentary

Aortic stenosis is a progressive disease that can lead to angina, heart failure, and death.¹A higher mortality rate is reported in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, as compared to patients with asymptomatic disease, and current guidelines require symptoms to be present in order to proceed with aortic valve replacement.² Management of asymptomatic patients is often determined by the treating physician, with treatment decisions based on multiple factors, such as left ventricular function, stress test results, and the local level of expertise for surgery.²

In this context, the RECOVERY investigators report the findings of their well-designed randomized controlled study assessing patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, which was defined as aortic valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² and either transvalvular velocity > 4.5 m/s or a mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg. Compared to patients who received conservative care, patients who underwent early valve surgery had a significantly lower rate of a composite of operative mortality or death from any cardiovascular causes during follow-up. Notably, the number needed to treat to prevent 1 death from cardiovascular causes within 4 years was 20.

The strengths of this trial include complete long-term follow-up (> 4 years) and low cross-over rates. Furthermore, as the study targeted a previously understudied population, there were a number of interesting observations, in addition to the primary endpoint. First, the risk of sudden death was high in patients who received conservative care, 4% at 4 years and 14% at 8 years, a finding contrary to the common belief that asymptomatic patients are at lower risk of sudden cardiac death. Second, 74% of patients assigned to initial conservative care required aortic valve replacement during the follow-up period. Furthermore, when the patients assigned to conservative care required surgery, it was often performed emergently (17%), which could have contributed to the higher mortality in this group of patients. Finally, hospitalization for heart failure was more common in patients randomized to conservative care compared to patients with early surgery. These findings will help physicians conduct detailed, informed discussions with their patients regarding the risks/benefits of early surgery versus conservative management.

There are a few limitations of the RECOVERY trial to consider. First, this study investigated the effect of surgical aortic valve replacement; whether its findings can be extended to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires further investigation. Patients who were enrolled in this study were younger and had fewer comorbidities than typical patients referred for TAVR. Second, all patients included in this study had the most severe form of aortic stenosis (valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² with either a peak velocity of ≥ 4.5 m/s or mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg). Finally, the study was performed in highly experienced centers, as evidenced by a very low (0%) mortality rate after aortic valve replacement. Therefore, the finding may not be applicable to centers that have less experience with aortic valve replacement surgery.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings of the RECOVERY trial strongly suggest a mortality benefit of early surgery compared to conservative management in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Early surgery should be favored over conservative management in this patient population.

–Taishi Hirai, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the timing of surgical intervention in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Design. Open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled study.

Setting and participants. A total of 145 asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to early surgery or conservative care.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was a composite of operative mortality or death from a cardiovascular cause during follow-up. The major secondary endpoint was death from any cause during follow-up.

Main results. The primary endpoint occurred in 1 of 73 patients (1%) in the early surgery group and 11 of 72 patients (15%) in the conservative care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.67, P = 0.003). The secondary endpoint occurred in 7% of patients in the early surgery group and 21% of patients in the conservative care group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.90).

Conclusion. Among asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis, the incidence of the composite of operative mortality or death from cardiovascular causes during follow-up was significantly lower among those who underwent early valve replacement surgery compared to those who received conservative care.

Commentary

Aortic stenosis is a progressive disease that can lead to angina, heart failure, and death.¹A higher mortality rate is reported in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, as compared to patients with asymptomatic disease, and current guidelines require symptoms to be present in order to proceed with aortic valve replacement.² Management of asymptomatic patients is often determined by the treating physician, with treatment decisions based on multiple factors, such as left ventricular function, stress test results, and the local level of expertise for surgery.²

In this context, the RECOVERY investigators report the findings of their well-designed randomized controlled study assessing patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, which was defined as aortic valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² and either transvalvular velocity > 4.5 m/s or a mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg. Compared to patients who received conservative care, patients who underwent early valve surgery had a significantly lower rate of a composite of operative mortality or death from any cardiovascular causes during follow-up. Notably, the number needed to treat to prevent 1 death from cardiovascular causes within 4 years was 20.

The strengths of this trial include complete long-term follow-up (> 4 years) and low cross-over rates. Furthermore, as the study targeted a previously understudied population, there were a number of interesting observations, in addition to the primary endpoint. First, the risk of sudden death was high in patients who received conservative care, 4% at 4 years and 14% at 8 years, a finding contrary to the common belief that asymptomatic patients are at lower risk of sudden cardiac death. Second, 74% of patients assigned to initial conservative care required aortic valve replacement during the follow-up period. Furthermore, when the patients assigned to conservative care required surgery, it was often performed emergently (17%), which could have contributed to the higher mortality in this group of patients. Finally, hospitalization for heart failure was more common in patients randomized to conservative care compared to patients with early surgery. These findings will help physicians conduct detailed, informed discussions with their patients regarding the risks/benefits of early surgery versus conservative management.

There are a few limitations of the RECOVERY trial to consider. First, this study investigated the effect of surgical aortic valve replacement; whether its findings can be extended to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires further investigation. Patients who were enrolled in this study were younger and had fewer comorbidities than typical patients referred for TAVR. Second, all patients included in this study had the most severe form of aortic stenosis (valve area ≤ 0.75 cm² with either a peak velocity of ≥ 4.5 m/s or mean gradient ≥ 50 mm Hg). Finally, the study was performed in highly experienced centers, as evidenced by a very low (0%) mortality rate after aortic valve replacement. Therefore, the finding may not be applicable to centers that have less experience with aortic valve replacement surgery.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings of the RECOVERY trial strongly suggest a mortality benefit of early surgery compared to conservative management in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Early surgery should be favored over conservative management in this patient population.

–Taishi Hirai, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the impact of conventional versus telemedicine follow-up of general surgery patients in outpatient clinics.

Design. Prospective randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants. Participants were recruited from Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, a tertiary care university hospital located in the outskirts of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). To be included in this study, participants had to have been treated in the general surgery department, have basic computer knowledge (ability to use e-mail or a social network), have a computer with webcam, and be 18 to 75 years of age, or they had to have a partner who met these criteria. Exclusion criteria included any disability making telemedicine follow-up impossible (eg, blindness, deafness, or mental disability; proctologic treatment; difficulty describing and/or showing complications in the surgical area; and clinical complications before discharge more severe than Clavien Dindo II), as well as withdrawal of consent. Patients who met the criteria and had just been discharged from the hospital were offered the opportunity to enroll by the surgeon in charge. Patients who agreed to participate provided informed consent and were assigned using a computerized block randomization list (allocation ratio 1:1).

Intervention. Time to visit was generally between 2 and 4 weeks after discharge (the interval to the follow-up visit was determined at the discretion of the treating surgeon, but always followed the usual schedule). To conduct the telemedicine follow-up through a video call, a medical cloud-based program fulfilling all European Union security and privacy policies was used. Four surgeons were assigned to perform the telemedicine visits and were trained on how to use the program before the study started. Visit format was the same in both groups: clinical and wound condition were assessed and pathology was discussed (the one difference was that physical exploration was not performed in the telemedicine group).

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the feasibility of telemedicine follow-up, and this was measured as the percentage of participants who completed follow-up in their corresponding group by the date scheduled at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of clinical results and patient satisfaction. To assess the clinical results, extra visits to an outpatient clinic and/or the emergency department during the first 30 days after the follow-up visit were collected.

To evaluate patient satisfaction, a questionnaire was sent via email to the participants after the visit and, if they did not respond, a telephone survey was carried out (if there was no contact after 2 telephone calls, the participants was considered a missing value). The questionnaire was informed by the United Kingdom National Health Service outpatients questionnaire and the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire. It included 27 general questions asked of participants in both groups, plus 8 specific questions for participants in the conventional follow-up group and 14 specific questions for participants in the telemedicine group. To summarize all the included fields in the questionnaires (time to visit and visit length, comfort, tests and procedures performed before and during the visit, transport, waiting time, privacy, dealings with staff, platform usability, telemedicine, and satisfaction), participants were asked to provide a global satisfaction score on a scale from 1 to 5.

Analysis. To compare the groups in terms of proportion of outcomes, a chi-square test was used to analyze categorical variables. To compare medians between the groups, ordinal variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Main results. Two-hundred patients were randomly allocated to 1 of the 2 groups, with 100 patients in each group. The groups did not differ significantly based on age (P = 0.836), gender (P = 0.393), or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = 0.232). Time to visit did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.169), and while visits were generally shorter in the telemedicine group, the difference was not significant (P = 0.153). Diagnoses and treatments did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.853 and P = 0.461, respectively).

The primary outcome (follow-up feasibility) was achieved in 90% of the conventional follow-up group and in 74% of the telemedicine group (P = 0.003). Of the 10 patients in the conventional follow-up group who did not complete the follow-up, 8 did not attend the visit on the scheduled day and 2 were hospitalized for reasons not related to the study. In the telemedicine group, the 2 main reasons for failure to follow-up were technical difficulties (n = 10) and requests by patients to attend a conventional visit after being allocated to the telemedicine group (n = 10). Among the remaining 6 patients in the telemedicine group who did not attend a visit, 3 visited the outpatient clinic because of a known surgical wound infection before the visit, 2 did not respond to the video call and could not be contacted by other means, and 1 had other face-to-face visits scheduled in different departments of the hospital the same day as the telemedicine appointment.

There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical results of the 164 patients meeting the primary endpoint (P = 0.832). Twelve of the 90 (13.3%) patients in the conventional group attended extra visits after the follow-up, while 9 of the 74 patients (12.1%) in the telemedicine group (P = 0.823) attended extra visits after follow-up. The median global patient satisfaction score was 5 in both the conventional group (range, 2-5) and the telemedicine group (range, 1-5), with no statistically significant differences (P = 0.099). When patients in the telemedicine group were asked if they would accept the use of telemedicine as part of their medical treatment on an ongoing basis, they rated the proposition with a median score of 5 (range, 1-5).

Conclusion. Telemedicine is a feasible and acceptable complementary service to facilitate postoperative management in selected general surgery patients. This option produces good satisfaction rates and maintains clinical outcomes.

Commentary

In recent years, telemedicine has gained increased popularity in both medicine and surgery, affording surgeons greater opportunities for patient care, mentoring, collaboration, and teaching, without the limits of geographic boundaries. Telemedicine can be broadly described as a health care service utilizing telecommunication technologies for the purpose of communicating with and diagnosing and treating patients remotely.^1-4 To date, literature on telemedicine in surgical care has been limited.

In their systematic review, published in 2018, Asiri et al identified 24 studies published between 1998 and 2018, which included 3 randomized controlled trials, 3 pilot studies, 4 retrospective studies, and 14 prospective observational studies. In these studies, telemedicine protocols were used for preoperative assessment, diagnostic purposes, or consultation with another surgical department (10 studies); postoperative wound assessment (9 studies); and follow-up in place of conventional clinic visits (5 studies).³ In a 2017 systematic review of telemedicine for post-discharge surgical care, Gunter et al identified 21 studies, which included 3 randomized controlled trials, 6 pilot or feasibility studies, 4 retrospective record reviews, 2 case series, and 6 surveys.⁴ In these studies, telemedicine protocols were used for scheduled follow-up (10 studies), routine and ongoing monitoring (5 studies), or management of issues that arose after surgery (2 studies). These 2 reviews found telemedicine to be feasible, useful, and acceptable for postoperative evaluation and follow-up among both providers and patients.

Additional benefits noted in these studies included savings in patient travel, time, and cost. Perspectives on savings to the health system were mixed—while clinic time slots may open as a result of follow-up visits being done via telemedicine (resulting in potential improvements in access to surgical services and decreased wait times), there are still significant direct costs for purchasing necessary equipment and for educating and training providers on the use of the equipment. Other published reviews have discussed in greater detail the application, benefits, limitations, and barriers to telemedicine and provided insight from the perspectives of patients, providers, and health care systems.^1,2

Because studies on the use of telemedicine are limited, particularly in general surgery, and few of these studies have used a randomized clinical trial design, the present study is an important contribution to the literature. The authors found a significant difference between groups in terms of percentage of completed follow-up visits—90% of conventional follow-up group participants completed their visit versus 74% of telemedicine group participants. However, these differences were primarily attributed to technical difficulties experienced by telemedicine group participants, as well requests to have a conventional follow-up visit. In addition, telemedicine capabilities were limited to video calls via computers and webcams, and it is likely that successful completion of the follow-up visit would have been higher in the telemedicine group had the use of video calls via tablets or smartphones been an option. Perhaps more important, no significant differences were found in clinical outcomes (extra visits within 30 days after the follow-up visit) or patient satisfaction.

A key strength of this study is the use of a randomized clinical trial design to evaluate telemedicine as an alternative method for conducting patient visits following general surgery. Inclusion and exclusion criteria did not impose strict limitations on potential participants. Also, the authors evaluated differences in time to visit, length of visit, clinical results, and patient satisfaction between groups, in addition to the primary measure of completion of the follow-up visit.

This study has important limitations that should be noted as well, particularly related to the study design, some of which are acknowledged by the authors. Because this study was implemented in only 1 hospital, specifically, a tertiary care university hospital on the outskirts of an urban European city, the generalizability of the findings is limited. Also, the likelihood of selection bias is high, as enrollment was not offered to all patients who were discharged from the hospital and met inclusion criteria (limited by patient workload). The comparison of clinical results was limited, as the selected measure focused only on extra visits to an outpatient clinic and/or the emergency department during the first 30 days after the follow-up visit. This chosen measure does not account for less severe clinical results that did not require an additional visit, and does not represent a nuanced comparison of specific clinical indicators. In addition, this measure does not account for clinical complications that may have occurred beyond the 30-day period. Recall bias also was likely, given that the patient satisfaction questionnaire was delivered via email to patients at a later time after the follow-up visit, instead of being administered immediately after the visit. Last, group differences at baseline were assessed based only on age, gender, and ASA score, which does not preclude potential differences related to other factors, such as race/ethnicity, household income, comorbidities, insurance, and zip code. Future research with a similar objective would benefit from a randomized clinical trial design that recruits a wider diversity of patients across different clinic settings and incorporates more nuanced measures of primary and secondary outcomes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the integration of telemedicine capabilities into hospital systems is becoming more widespread and is proceeding at an accelerated pace. This study provides evidence that telemedicine is a feasible and acceptable complementary service to facilitate postoperative management in selected general surgery patients. Assuming that the needed technology and appropriate program training are available, telemedicine should be offered to patients, especially to maximize savings in terms of travel, time, and cost. However, the option for conventional (in-person) follow-up should remain, particularly in cases where there may be barriers to successful follow-up visits via telemedicine, including limited digital literacy, lack of access to necessary equipment, language/communication barriers, complex follow-up treatment, and difficulties in describing or showing complications in the surgical area.

–Katrina F. Mateo, PhD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the impact of conventional versus telemedicine follow-up of general surgery patients in outpatient clinics.

Design. Prospective randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants. Participants were recruited from Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, a tertiary care university hospital located in the outskirts of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). To be included in this study, participants had to have been treated in the general surgery department, have basic computer knowledge (ability to use e-mail or a social network), have a computer with webcam, and be 18 to 75 years of age, or they had to have a partner who met these criteria. Exclusion criteria included any disability making telemedicine follow-up impossible (eg, blindness, deafness, or mental disability; proctologic treatment; difficulty describing and/or showing complications in the surgical area; and clinical complications before discharge more severe than Clavien Dindo II), as well as withdrawal of consent. Patients who met the criteria and had just been discharged from the hospital were offered the opportunity to enroll by the surgeon in charge. Patients who agreed to participate provided informed consent and were assigned using a computerized block randomization list (allocation ratio 1:1).

Intervention. Time to visit was generally between 2 and 4 weeks after discharge (the interval to the follow-up visit was determined at the discretion of the treating surgeon, but always followed the usual schedule). To conduct the telemedicine follow-up through a video call, a medical cloud-based program fulfilling all European Union security and privacy policies was used. Four surgeons were assigned to perform the telemedicine visits and were trained on how to use the program before the study started. Visit format was the same in both groups: clinical and wound condition were assessed and pathology was discussed (the one difference was that physical exploration was not performed in the telemedicine group).

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the feasibility of telemedicine follow-up, and this was measured as the percentage of participants who completed follow-up in their corresponding group by the date scheduled at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of clinical results and patient satisfaction. To assess the clinical results, extra visits to an outpatient clinic and/or the emergency department during the first 30 days after the follow-up visit were collected.

To evaluate patient satisfaction, a questionnaire was sent via email to the participants after the visit and, if they did not respond, a telephone survey was carried out (if there was no contact after 2 telephone calls, the participants was considered a missing value). The questionnaire was informed by the United Kingdom National Health Service outpatients questionnaire and the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire. It included 27 general questions asked of participants in both groups, plus 8 specific questions for participants in the conventional follow-up group and 14 specific questions for participants in the telemedicine group. To summarize all the included fields in the questionnaires (time to visit and visit length, comfort, tests and procedures performed before and during the visit, transport, waiting time, privacy, dealings with staff, platform usability, telemedicine, and satisfaction), participants were asked to provide a global satisfaction score on a scale from 1 to 5.

Analysis. To compare the groups in terms of proportion of outcomes, a chi-square test was used to analyze categorical variables. To compare medians between the groups, ordinal variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Main results. Two-hundred patients were randomly allocated to 1 of the 2 groups, with 100 patients in each group. The groups did not differ significantly based on age (P = 0.836), gender (P = 0.393), or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = 0.232). Time to visit did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.169), and while visits were generally shorter in the telemedicine group, the difference was not significant (P = 0.153). Diagnoses and treatments did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.853 and P = 0.461, respectively).

The primary outcome (follow-up feasibility) was achieved in 90% of the conventional follow-up group and in 74% of the telemedicine group (P = 0.003). Of the 10 patients in the conventional follow-up group who did not complete the follow-up, 8 did not attend the visit on the scheduled day and 2 were hospitalized for reasons not related to the study. In the telemedicine group, the 2 main reasons for failure to follow-up were technical difficulties (n = 10) and requests by patients to attend a conventional visit after being allocated to the telemedicine group (n = 10). Among the remaining 6 patients in the telemedicine group who did not attend a visit, 3 visited the outpatient clinic because of a known surgical wound infection before the visit, 2 did not respond to the video call and could not be contacted by other means, and 1 had other face-to-face visits scheduled in different departments of the hospital the same day as the telemedicine appointment.

There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical results of the 164 patients meeting the primary endpoint (P = 0.832). Twelve of the 90 (13.3%) patients in the conventional group attended extra visits after the follow-up, while 9 of the 74 patients (12.1%) in the telemedicine group (P = 0.823) attended extra visits after follow-up. The median global patient satisfaction score was 5 in both the conventional group (range, 2-5) and the telemedicine group (range, 1-5), with no statistically significant differences (P = 0.099). When patients in the telemedicine group were asked if they would accept the use of telemedicine as part of their medical treatment on an ongoing basis, they rated the proposition with a median score of 5 (range, 1-5).

Conclusion. Telemedicine is a feasible and acceptable complementary service to facilitate postoperative management in selected general surgery patients. This option produces good satisfaction rates and maintains clinical outcomes.

Commentary

In recent years, telemedicine has gained increased popularity in both medicine and surgery, affording surgeons greater opportunities for patient care, mentoring, collaboration, and teaching, without the limits of geographic boundaries. Telemedicine can be broadly described as a health care service utilizing telecommunication technologies for the purpose of communicating with and diagnosing and treating patients remotely.^1-4 To date, literature on telemedicine in surgical care has been limited.

In their systematic review, published in 2018, Asiri et al identified 24 studies published between 1998 and 2018, which included 3 randomized controlled trials, 3 pilot studies, 4 retrospective studies, and 14 prospective observational studies. In these studies, telemedicine protocols were used for preoperative assessment, diagnostic purposes, or consultation with another surgical department (10 studies); postoperative wound assessment (9 studies); and follow-up in place of conventional clinic visits (5 studies).³ In a 2017 systematic review of telemedicine for post-discharge surgical care, Gunter et al identified 21 studies, which included 3 randomized controlled trials, 6 pilot or feasibility studies, 4 retrospective record reviews, 2 case series, and 6 surveys.⁴ In these studies, telemedicine protocols were used for scheduled follow-up (10 studies), routine and ongoing monitoring (5 studies), or management of issues that arose after surgery (2 studies). These 2 reviews found telemedicine to be feasible, useful, and acceptable for postoperative evaluation and follow-up among both providers and patients.

Additional benefits noted in these studies included savings in patient travel, time, and cost. Perspectives on savings to the health system were mixed—while clinic time slots may open as a result of follow-up visits being done via telemedicine (resulting in potential improvements in access to surgical services and decreased wait times), there are still significant direct costs for purchasing necessary equipment and for educating and training providers on the use of the equipment. Other published reviews have discussed in greater detail the application, benefits, limitations, and barriers to telemedicine and provided insight from the perspectives of patients, providers, and health care systems.^1,2

Because studies on the use of telemedicine are limited, particularly in general surgery, and few of these studies have used a randomized clinical trial design, the present study is an important contribution to the literature. The authors found a significant difference between groups in terms of percentage of completed follow-up visits—90% of conventional follow-up group participants completed their visit versus 74% of telemedicine group participants. However, these differences were primarily attributed to technical difficulties experienced by telemedicine group participants, as well requests to have a conventional follow-up visit. In addition, telemedicine capabilities were limited to video calls via computers and webcams, and it is likely that successful completion of the follow-up visit would have been higher in the telemedicine group had the use of video calls via tablets or smartphones been an option. Perhaps more important, no significant differences were found in clinical outcomes (extra visits within 30 days after the follow-up visit) or patient satisfaction.

A key strength of this study is the use of a randomized clinical trial design to evaluate telemedicine as an alternative method for conducting patient visits following general surgery. Inclusion and exclusion criteria did not impose strict limitations on potential participants. Also, the authors evaluated differences in time to visit, length of visit, clinical results, and patient satisfaction between groups, in addition to the primary measure of completion of the follow-up visit.

This study has important limitations that should be noted as well, particularly related to the study design, some of which are acknowledged by the authors. Because this study was implemented in only 1 hospital, specifically, a tertiary care university hospital on the outskirts of an urban European city, the generalizability of the findings is limited. Also, the likelihood of selection bias is high, as enrollment was not offered to all patients who were discharged from the hospital and met inclusion criteria (limited by patient workload). The comparison of clinical results was limited, as the selected measure focused only on extra visits to an outpatient clinic and/or the emergency department during the first 30 days after the follow-up visit. This chosen measure does not account for less severe clinical results that did not require an additional visit, and does not represent a nuanced comparison of specific clinical indicators. In addition, this measure does not account for clinical complications that may have occurred beyond the 30-day period. Recall bias also was likely, given that the patient satisfaction questionnaire was delivered via email to patients at a later time after the follow-up visit, instead of being administered immediately after the visit. Last, group differences at baseline were assessed based only on age, gender, and ASA score, which does not preclude potential differences related to other factors, such as race/ethnicity, household income, comorbidities, insurance, and zip code. Future research with a similar objective would benefit from a randomized clinical trial design that recruits a wider diversity of patients across different clinic settings and incorporates more nuanced measures of primary and secondary outcomes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the integration of telemedicine capabilities into hospital systems is becoming more widespread and is proceeding at an accelerated pace. This study provides evidence that telemedicine is a feasible and acceptable complementary service to facilitate postoperative management in selected general surgery patients. Assuming that the needed technology and appropriate program training are available, telemedicine should be offered to patients, especially to maximize savings in terms of travel, time, and cost. However, the option for conventional (in-person) follow-up should remain, particularly in cases where there may be barriers to successful follow-up visits via telemedicine, including limited digital literacy, lack of access to necessary equipment, language/communication barriers, complex follow-up treatment, and difficulties in describing or showing complications in the surgical area.

–Katrina F. Mateo, PhD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the impact of conventional versus telemedicine follow-up of general surgery patients in outpatient clinics.

Design. Prospective randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants. Participants were recruited from Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, a tertiary care university hospital located in the outskirts of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). To be included in this study, participants had to have been treated in the general surgery department, have basic computer knowledge (ability to use e-mail or a social network), have a computer with webcam, and be 18 to 75 years of age, or they had to have a partner who met these criteria. Exclusion criteria included any disability making telemedicine follow-up impossible (eg, blindness, deafness, or mental disability; proctologic treatment; difficulty describing and/or showing complications in the surgical area; and clinical complications before discharge more severe than Clavien Dindo II), as well as withdrawal of consent. Patients who met the criteria and had just been discharged from the hospital were offered the opportunity to enroll by the surgeon in charge. Patients who agreed to participate provided informed consent and were assigned using a computerized block randomization list (allocation ratio 1:1).

Intervention. Time to visit was generally between 2 and 4 weeks after discharge (the interval to the follow-up visit was determined at the discretion of the treating surgeon, but always followed the usual schedule). To conduct the telemedicine follow-up through a video call, a medical cloud-based program fulfilling all European Union security and privacy policies was used. Four surgeons were assigned to perform the telemedicine visits and were trained on how to use the program before the study started. Visit format was the same in both groups: clinical and wound condition were assessed and pathology was discussed (the one difference was that physical exploration was not performed in the telemedicine group).

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the feasibility of telemedicine follow-up, and this was measured as the percentage of participants who completed follow-up in their corresponding group by the date scheduled at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of clinical results and patient satisfaction. To assess the clinical results, extra visits to an outpatient clinic and/or the emergency department during the first 30 days after the follow-up visit were collected.

To evaluate patient satisfaction, a questionnaire was sent via email to the participants after the visit and, if they did not respond, a telephone survey was carried out (if there was no contact after 2 telephone calls, the participants was considered a missing value). The questionnaire was informed by the United Kingdom National Health Service outpatients questionnaire and the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire. It included 27 general questions asked of participants in both groups, plus 8 specific questions for participants in the conventional follow-up group and 14 specific questions for participants in the telemedicine group. To summarize all the included fields in the questionnaires (time to visit and visit length, comfort, tests and procedures performed before and during the visit, transport, waiting time, privacy, dealings with staff, platform usability, telemedicine, and satisfaction), participants were asked to provide a global satisfaction score on a scale from 1 to 5.

Analysis. To compare the groups in terms of proportion of outcomes, a chi-square test was used to analyze categorical variables. To compare medians between the groups, ordinal variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Main results. Two-hundred patients were randomly allocated to 1 of the 2 groups, with 100 patients in each group. The groups did not differ significantly based on age (P = 0.836), gender (P = 0.393), or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = 0.232). Time to visit did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.169), and while visits were generally shorter in the telemedicine group, the difference was not significant (P = 0.153). Diagnoses and treatments did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.853 and P = 0.461, respectively).

The primary outcome (follow-up feasibility) was achieved in 90% of the conventional follow-up group and in 74% of the telemedicine group (P = 0.003). Of the 10 patients in the conventional follow-up group who did not complete the follow-up, 8 did not attend the visit on the scheduled day and 2 were hospitalized for reasons not related to the study. In the telemedicine group, the 2 main reasons for failure to follow-up were technical difficulties (n = 10) and requests by patients to attend a conventional visit after being allocated to the telemedicine group (n = 10). Among the remaining 6 patients in the telemedicine group who did not attend a visit, 3 visited the outpatient clinic because of a known surgical wound infection before the visit, 2 did not respond to the video call and could not be contacted by other means, and 1 had other face-to-face visits scheduled in different departments of the hospital the same day as the telemedicine appointment.

There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical results of the 164 patients meeting the primary endpoint (P = 0.832). Twelve of the 90 (13.3%) patients in the conventional group attended extra visits after the follow-up, while 9 of the 74 patients (12.1%) in the telemedicine group (P = 0.823) attended extra visits after follow-up. The median global patient satisfaction score was 5 in both the conventional group (range, 2-5) and the telemedicine group (range, 1-5), with no statistically significant differences (P = 0.099). When patients in the telemedicine group were asked if they would accept the use of telemedicine as part of their medical treatment on an ongoing basis, they rated the proposition with a median score of 5 (range, 1-5).

Conclusion. Telemedicine is a feasible and acceptable complementary service to facilitate postoperative management in selected general surgery patients. This option produces good satisfaction rates and maintains clinical outcomes.

Commentary

In recent years, telemedicine has gained increased popularity in both medicine and surgery, affording surgeons greater opportunities for patient care, mentoring, collaboration, and teaching, without the limits of geographic boundaries. Telemedicine can be broadly described as a health care service utilizing telecommunication technologies for the purpose of communicating with and diagnosing and treating patients remotely.^1-4 To date, literature on telemedicine in surgical care has been limited.

In their systematic review, published in 2018, Asiri et al identified 24 studies published between 1998 and 2018, which included 3 randomized controlled trials, 3 pilot studies, 4 retrospective studies, and 14 prospective observational studies. In these studies, telemedicine protocols were used for preoperative assessment, diagnostic purposes, or consultation with another surgical department (10 studies); postoperative wound assessment (9 studies); and follow-up in place of conventional clinic visits (5 studies).³ In a 2017 systematic review of telemedicine for post-discharge surgical care, Gunter et al identified 21 studies, which included 3 randomized controlled trials, 6 pilot or feasibility studies, 4 retrospective record reviews, 2 case series, and 6 surveys.⁴ In these studies, telemedicine protocols were used for scheduled follow-up (10 studies), routine and ongoing monitoring (5 studies), or management of issues that arose after surgery (2 studies). These 2 reviews found telemedicine to be feasible, useful, and acceptable for postoperative evaluation and follow-up among both providers and patients.

Additional benefits noted in these studies included savings in patient travel, time, and cost. Perspectives on savings to the health system were mixed—while clinic time slots may open as a result of follow-up visits being done via telemedicine (resulting in potential improvements in access to surgical services and decreased wait times), there are still significant direct costs for purchasing necessary equipment and for educating and training providers on the use of the equipment. Other published reviews have discussed in greater detail the application, benefits, limitations, and barriers to telemedicine and provided insight from the perspectives of patients, providers, and health care systems.^1,2

Because studies on the use of telemedicine are limited, particularly in general surgery, and few of these studies have used a randomized clinical trial design, the present study is an important contribution to the literature. The authors found a significant difference between groups in terms of percentage of completed follow-up visits—90% of conventional follow-up group participants completed their visit versus 74% of telemedicine group participants. However, these differences were primarily attributed to technical difficulties experienced by telemedicine group participants, as well requests to have a conventional follow-up visit. In addition, telemedicine capabilities were limited to video calls via computers and webcams, and it is likely that successful completion of the follow-up visit would have been higher in the telemedicine group had the use of video calls via tablets or smartphones been an option. Perhaps more important, no significant differences were found in clinical outcomes (extra visits within 30 days after the follow-up visit) or patient satisfaction.

A key strength of this study is the use of a randomized clinical trial design to evaluate telemedicine as an alternative method for conducting patient visits following general surgery. Inclusion and exclusion criteria did not impose strict limitations on potential participants. Also, the authors evaluated differences in time to visit, length of visit, clinical results, and patient satisfaction between groups, in addition to the primary measure of completion of the follow-up visit.

This study has important limitations that should be noted as well, particularly related to the study design, some of which are acknowledged by the authors. Because this study was implemented in only 1 hospital, specifically, a tertiary care university hospital on the outskirts of an urban European city, the generalizability of the findings is limited. Also, the likelihood of selection bias is high, as enrollment was not offered to all patients who were discharged from the hospital and met inclusion criteria (limited by patient workload). The comparison of clinical results was limited, as the selected measure focused only on extra visits to an outpatient clinic and/or the emergency department during the first 30 days after the follow-up visit. This chosen measure does not account for less severe clinical results that did not require an additional visit, and does not represent a nuanced comparison of specific clinical indicators. In addition, this measure does not account for clinical complications that may have occurred beyond the 30-day period. Recall bias also was likely, given that the patient satisfaction questionnaire was delivered via email to patients at a later time after the follow-up visit, instead of being administered immediately after the visit. Last, group differences at baseline were assessed based only on age, gender, and ASA score, which does not preclude potential differences related to other factors, such as race/ethnicity, household income, comorbidities, insurance, and zip code. Future research with a similar objective would benefit from a randomized clinical trial design that recruits a wider diversity of patients across different clinic settings and incorporates more nuanced measures of primary and secondary outcomes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the integration of telemedicine capabilities into hospital systems is becoming more widespread and is proceeding at an accelerated pace. This study provides evidence that telemedicine is a feasible and acceptable complementary service to facilitate postoperative management in selected general surgery patients. Assuming that the needed technology and appropriate program training are available, telemedicine should be offered to patients, especially to maximize savings in terms of travel, time, and cost. However, the option for conventional (in-person) follow-up should remain, particularly in cases where there may be barriers to successful follow-up visits via telemedicine, including limited digital literacy, lack of access to necessary equipment, language/communication barriers, complex follow-up treatment, and difficulties in describing or showing complications in the surgical area.

–Katrina F. Mateo, PhD, MPH

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Are ACE inhibitors protective in COVID-19?

Older patients with COVID-19 had a lower risk of developing severe illness if they were taking ACE inhibitors, according to a large observational U.S. study. ACE inhibitor use was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said that while he and his associates think this finding is worthy of further study, “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice.” The study was published on the MedRxiv preprint server and has not yet been peer reviewed.

READ MORE.

AMI: Admissions drop, deaths rise

In Italy, sharp nationwide decreases in hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) during the height of COVID-19 were offset by higher mortality for patients who did present. The study counted AMIs at 54 hospitals nationwide for the week of March 12-19, 2020, and compared that with an equivalent week in 2019 – 319 vs. 618 AMIs, respectively, representing a 48% reduction in hospitalizations. Mortality for ST-segment elevation MI cases more than tripled to 14% during the outbreak, compared with 4% in 2019. “The concern is fewer MIs most likely means people are dying at home or presenting later as this study suggests,” commented Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was not involved with the study.

READ MORE.

Prenatal, postpartum screening for depression falls short

Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. Mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

READ MORE.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Are ACE inhibitors protective in COVID-19?

Older patients with COVID-19 had a lower risk of developing severe illness if they were taking ACE inhibitors, according to a large observational U.S. study. ACE inhibitor use was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said that while he and his associates think this finding is worthy of further study, “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice.” The study was published on the MedRxiv preprint server and has not yet been peer reviewed.

READ MORE.

AMI: Admissions drop, deaths rise

In Italy, sharp nationwide decreases in hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) during the height of COVID-19 were offset by higher mortality for patients who did present. The study counted AMIs at 54 hospitals nationwide for the week of March 12-19, 2020, and compared that with an equivalent week in 2019 – 319 vs. 618 AMIs, respectively, representing a 48% reduction in hospitalizations. Mortality for ST-segment elevation MI cases more than tripled to 14% during the outbreak, compared with 4% in 2019. “The concern is fewer MIs most likely means people are dying at home or presenting later as this study suggests,” commented Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was not involved with the study.

READ MORE.

Prenatal, postpartum screening for depression falls short

Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. Mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

READ MORE.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Are ACE inhibitors protective in COVID-19?

Older patients with COVID-19 had a lower risk of developing severe illness if they were taking ACE inhibitors, according to a large observational U.S. study. ACE inhibitor use was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said that while he and his associates think this finding is worthy of further study, “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice.” The study was published on the MedRxiv preprint server and has not yet been peer reviewed.

READ MORE.

AMI: Admissions drop, deaths rise

In Italy, sharp nationwide decreases in hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) during the height of COVID-19 were offset by higher mortality for patients who did present. The study counted AMIs at 54 hospitals nationwide for the week of March 12-19, 2020, and compared that with an equivalent week in 2019 – 319 vs. 618 AMIs, respectively, representing a 48% reduction in hospitalizations. Mortality for ST-segment elevation MI cases more than tripled to 14% during the outbreak, compared with 4% in 2019. “The concern is fewer MIs most likely means people are dying at home or presenting later as this study suggests,” commented Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, who was not involved with the study.

READ MORE.

Prenatal, postpartum screening for depression falls short

Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. Mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

READ MORE.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization of remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, California) to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, the drug is considered an investigational agent, not yet formally approved by the FDA and whose efficacy and safety has not yet been fully characterized. Remdesivir has been shown to be effective in reducing the time to recovery of people with COVID-19 disease. It has not been tested in a large controlled clinical trial of pregnant women with COVID-19; however, remdesivir has been given to pregnant women infected with COVID-19 in a compassionate use protocol. For pregnant women, the drug should only be used if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the mother and fetus.¹

Pharmacology. Remdesivir is a nucleoside RNA polymerase inhibitor. It has a molecular formula of
C₂₇H₃₅N₆O₈P and a molecular weight of 602.6 g/mol.¹

Mechanism of action. From FDA’s fact sheet: “Remdesivir is an adenosine nucleotide prodrug that distributes into cells where it is metabolized to form the pharmacologically active nucleoside triphosphate metabolite. Metabolism of remdesivir to remdesivir triphosphate has been demonstrated in multiple cell types. Remdesivir triphosphate acts as an analog of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and competes with the natural ATP substrate for incorporation into nascent RNA chains by the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which results in chain termination during replication of the viral RNA. Remdesivir triphosphate is a weak inhibitor of mammalian DNA and RNA polymerases with low potential for mitochondrial toxicity.”¹

Treatment protocols

Remdesivir is authorized for treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 disease, defined as patients with an oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The optimal dose and duration of treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir is unknown.¹

Prior to initiating treatment, the estimated glomerular filtration rate should be documented to be ≥ 30 mL/min. An excipient used in the remdesivir formulation—sulfobutylether-β-cylcodextrin sodium salt—is renally cleared and accumulates in patients with decreased renal function. 

Baseline liver function tests should be performed prior to treatment and daily during the course of treatment. Remdesivir should not be initiated in patients with an alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal at baseline. Remdesivir should be discontinued in patients who develop an ALT level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal or in patients who develop elevated ALT levels and have increased bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, or international normalized ratio.¹

In one open-label study (GS-US-540-5773), remdesivir treatment was discontinued due to an adverse event in 5% of patients on a 5-day regimen and in 10% of patients on a 10-day regimen.¹

Under the emergency use authorization, two treatment protocols have been proposed depending on the clinical severity of the COVID-19 infection¹:

• Protocol 1: For people with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 10 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 9 days.
• Protocol 2: For people with COVID-19 disease not requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 5 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 4 days. If the patient does not show clinical improvement, treatment may be extended for an additional 5 days. ​​​​​​

Continue to: Randomized placebo-controlled trial results...

Randomized placebo-controlled trial results

The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted by Gilead Sciences. The study began in February and evaluated up to 10 days of remdesivir treatment—200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. Patients were enrolled in a 1:1 manner to remdesivir or placebo, and time to recovery within 28 days after randomization was the trial’s endpoint. According to preliminary analysis of 606 recovered patients, recovery took a median of 11 days in the remdesivir group and 15 days in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12‒1.54; P<.001). Mortality rates were 8.0% and 11.6% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (P=.059).¹

5 vs 10 days of remdesivir treatment

The Gilead Sciences‒sponsored study GS-US-540-5773 was a randomized, open-label multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19. A total of 197 adult patients received 10-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days). An additional 200 adult patients received 5-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily followed by 100 mg IV for 4 days). Both groups also received standard of care. Results suggested that patients receiving 10 days of remdesivir had similar improvement in clinical status compared with those receiving a 5-day treatment course (10-to-5 day odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51‒1.13] on day 14).¹ Improvement in clinical status was defined as an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline on a predefined 7-point scale that ranged from hospital discharge to increasing levels of oxygen support to death. Clinical recovery was achieved if patients ceased the need for oxygen support or were discharged.¹

The time to clinical improvement for 50% of patients was similar in each treatment group (10 days in the 5-day group versus 11 days in the 10-day group). By day 14, observed clinical improvement rates were 65% and 54% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups, respectively. Clinical recovery rates were 70% and 59% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups and mortality rates were 8% and 11%.¹

Adverse events

The use of remdesivir is contraindicated in patients who are hypersensitive to the drug. Its infusion may cause hypotension, nausea, vomiting, diaphoresis, and shivering. If signs of a clinically significant infusion reaction are observed the infusion should be discontinued. As noted above, elevation in ALT levels occurs with remdesivir treatment.¹

Reporting serious adverse events. If a serious and unexpected adverse event occurs and appears to be associated with the use of remdesivir, the prescribing health care provider and/or the provider’s designee should complete and submit a MedWatch form to the FDA using one of the following methods¹:

• Complete and submit the report online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
• Return form FDA 3500 (available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM163919.pdf) to the FDA by mail (MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787) or fax (1-800-FDA-0178)
• Gilead requests that all FDA MedWatch forms also be returned to Gilead Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology: fax: 1-650-522-5477 726; e-mail: Safety_fc@gilead.com

Continue to: Drug interactions...

Drug interactions

Remdesivir has not been evaluated for drug-drug interactions in humans. The clinical relevance of in vitro drug interactions also has not been established. According to the FDA, remdesivir is a substrate for the drug metabolizing enzymes CYP2C8, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4, and is a substrate for organic anion transporting polypeptides 1B1 (OAPT1B1) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transporters. In vitro, remdesivir inhibits CYP3A4, OATP1B1, OATP1B3, BSEP, MRP4, and NTCP.¹

Pregnancy risk summary

Remdesivir has not been studied adequately in pregnant women and only should be used during pregnancy if the potential benefit of the drug justifies the potential risk to both mother and fetus.

Nonclinical animal studies that included systemic exposure of the predominant circulating metabolite of remdesivir in pregnant rats and rabbits (at 4 times the recommended dose of human exposure) demonstrated no adverse effect on embryofetal development.¹

Breastfeeding

The only information regarding breastfeeding and remdesivir comes from animal studies. The drug and its metabolites were detected in the plasma of nursing rat pups whose mothers given intravenous remdesivir daily from gestation day 6 to lactation day 20. Measured on lactation day 10, remdesivir exposure in the pups was about 1% that of maternal exposure.¹

“Because of the potential for viral transmission to SARS-CoV-2-negative infants and adverse reactions from the drug in breastfeeding infants, the developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for remdesivir and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed child from remdesivir or from the underlying maternal condition.”¹

Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization of remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, California) to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, the drug is considered an investigational agent, not yet formally approved by the FDA and whose efficacy and safety has not yet been fully characterized. Remdesivir has been shown to be effective in reducing the time to recovery of people with COVID-19 disease. It has not been tested in a large controlled clinical trial of pregnant women with COVID-19; however, remdesivir has been given to pregnant women infected with COVID-19 in a compassionate use protocol. For pregnant women, the drug should only be used if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the mother and fetus.¹

Pharmacology. Remdesivir is a nucleoside RNA polymerase inhibitor. It has a molecular formula of
C₂₇H₃₅N₆O₈P and a molecular weight of 602.6 g/mol.¹

Mechanism of action. From FDA’s fact sheet: “Remdesivir is an adenosine nucleotide prodrug that distributes into cells where it is metabolized to form the pharmacologically active nucleoside triphosphate metabolite. Metabolism of remdesivir to remdesivir triphosphate has been demonstrated in multiple cell types. Remdesivir triphosphate acts as an analog of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and competes with the natural ATP substrate for incorporation into nascent RNA chains by the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which results in chain termination during replication of the viral RNA. Remdesivir triphosphate is a weak inhibitor of mammalian DNA and RNA polymerases with low potential for mitochondrial toxicity.”¹

Treatment protocols

Remdesivir is authorized for treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 disease, defined as patients with an oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The optimal dose and duration of treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir is unknown.¹

Prior to initiating treatment, the estimated glomerular filtration rate should be documented to be ≥ 30 mL/min. An excipient used in the remdesivir formulation—sulfobutylether-β-cylcodextrin sodium salt—is renally cleared and accumulates in patients with decreased renal function. 

Baseline liver function tests should be performed prior to treatment and daily during the course of treatment. Remdesivir should not be initiated in patients with an alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal at baseline. Remdesivir should be discontinued in patients who develop an ALT level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal or in patients who develop elevated ALT levels and have increased bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, or international normalized ratio.¹

In one open-label study (GS-US-540-5773), remdesivir treatment was discontinued due to an adverse event in 5% of patients on a 5-day regimen and in 10% of patients on a 10-day regimen.¹

Under the emergency use authorization, two treatment protocols have been proposed depending on the clinical severity of the COVID-19 infection¹:

• Protocol 1: For people with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 10 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 9 days.
• Protocol 2: For people with COVID-19 disease not requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 5 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 4 days. If the patient does not show clinical improvement, treatment may be extended for an additional 5 days. ​​​​​​

Continue to: Randomized placebo-controlled trial results...

Randomized placebo-controlled trial results

The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted by Gilead Sciences. The study began in February and evaluated up to 10 days of remdesivir treatment—200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. Patients were enrolled in a 1:1 manner to remdesivir or placebo, and time to recovery within 28 days after randomization was the trial’s endpoint. According to preliminary analysis of 606 recovered patients, recovery took a median of 11 days in the remdesivir group and 15 days in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12‒1.54; P<.001). Mortality rates were 8.0% and 11.6% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (P=.059).¹

5 vs 10 days of remdesivir treatment

The Gilead Sciences‒sponsored study GS-US-540-5773 was a randomized, open-label multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19. A total of 197 adult patients received 10-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days). An additional 200 adult patients received 5-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily followed by 100 mg IV for 4 days). Both groups also received standard of care. Results suggested that patients receiving 10 days of remdesivir had similar improvement in clinical status compared with those receiving a 5-day treatment course (10-to-5 day odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51‒1.13] on day 14).¹ Improvement in clinical status was defined as an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline on a predefined 7-point scale that ranged from hospital discharge to increasing levels of oxygen support to death. Clinical recovery was achieved if patients ceased the need for oxygen support or were discharged.¹

The time to clinical improvement for 50% of patients was similar in each treatment group (10 days in the 5-day group versus 11 days in the 10-day group). By day 14, observed clinical improvement rates were 65% and 54% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups, respectively. Clinical recovery rates were 70% and 59% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups and mortality rates were 8% and 11%.¹

Adverse events

The use of remdesivir is contraindicated in patients who are hypersensitive to the drug. Its infusion may cause hypotension, nausea, vomiting, diaphoresis, and shivering. If signs of a clinically significant infusion reaction are observed the infusion should be discontinued. As noted above, elevation in ALT levels occurs with remdesivir treatment.¹

Reporting serious adverse events. If a serious and unexpected adverse event occurs and appears to be associated with the use of remdesivir, the prescribing health care provider and/or the provider’s designee should complete and submit a MedWatch form to the FDA using one of the following methods¹:

• Complete and submit the report online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
• Return form FDA 3500 (available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM163919.pdf) to the FDA by mail (MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787) or fax (1-800-FDA-0178)
• Gilead requests that all FDA MedWatch forms also be returned to Gilead Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology: fax: 1-650-522-5477 726; e-mail: Safety_fc@gilead.com

Continue to: Drug interactions...

Drug interactions

Remdesivir has not been evaluated for drug-drug interactions in humans. The clinical relevance of in vitro drug interactions also has not been established. According to the FDA, remdesivir is a substrate for the drug metabolizing enzymes CYP2C8, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4, and is a substrate for organic anion transporting polypeptides 1B1 (OAPT1B1) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transporters. In vitro, remdesivir inhibits CYP3A4, OATP1B1, OATP1B3, BSEP, MRP4, and NTCP.¹

Pregnancy risk summary

Remdesivir has not been studied adequately in pregnant women and only should be used during pregnancy if the potential benefit of the drug justifies the potential risk to both mother and fetus.

Nonclinical animal studies that included systemic exposure of the predominant circulating metabolite of remdesivir in pregnant rats and rabbits (at 4 times the recommended dose of human exposure) demonstrated no adverse effect on embryofetal development.¹

Breastfeeding

The only information regarding breastfeeding and remdesivir comes from animal studies. The drug and its metabolites were detected in the plasma of nursing rat pups whose mothers given intravenous remdesivir daily from gestation day 6 to lactation day 20. Measured on lactation day 10, remdesivir exposure in the pups was about 1% that of maternal exposure.¹

“Because of the potential for viral transmission to SARS-CoV-2-negative infants and adverse reactions from the drug in breastfeeding infants, the developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for remdesivir and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed child from remdesivir or from the underlying maternal condition.”¹

Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization of remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, California) to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, the drug is considered an investigational agent, not yet formally approved by the FDA and whose efficacy and safety has not yet been fully characterized. Remdesivir has been shown to be effective in reducing the time to recovery of people with COVID-19 disease. It has not been tested in a large controlled clinical trial of pregnant women with COVID-19; however, remdesivir has been given to pregnant women infected with COVID-19 in a compassionate use protocol. For pregnant women, the drug should only be used if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the mother and fetus.¹

Pharmacology. Remdesivir is a nucleoside RNA polymerase inhibitor. It has a molecular formula of
C₂₇H₃₅N₆O₈P and a molecular weight of 602.6 g/mol.¹

Mechanism of action. From FDA’s fact sheet: “Remdesivir is an adenosine nucleotide prodrug that distributes into cells where it is metabolized to form the pharmacologically active nucleoside triphosphate metabolite. Metabolism of remdesivir to remdesivir triphosphate has been demonstrated in multiple cell types. Remdesivir triphosphate acts as an analog of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and competes with the natural ATP substrate for incorporation into nascent RNA chains by the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which results in chain termination during replication of the viral RNA. Remdesivir triphosphate is a weak inhibitor of mammalian DNA and RNA polymerases with low potential for mitochondrial toxicity.”¹

Treatment protocols

Remdesivir is authorized for treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 disease, defined as patients with an oxygen saturation ≤ 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The optimal dose and duration of treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir is unknown.¹

Prior to initiating treatment, the estimated glomerular filtration rate should be documented to be ≥ 30 mL/min. An excipient used in the remdesivir formulation—sulfobutylether-β-cylcodextrin sodium salt—is renally cleared and accumulates in patients with decreased renal function. 

Baseline liver function tests should be performed prior to treatment and daily during the course of treatment. Remdesivir should not be initiated in patients with an alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal at baseline. Remdesivir should be discontinued in patients who develop an ALT level ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal or in patients who develop elevated ALT levels and have increased bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, or international normalized ratio.¹

In one open-label study (GS-US-540-5773), remdesivir treatment was discontinued due to an adverse event in 5% of patients on a 5-day regimen and in 10% of patients on a 10-day regimen.¹

Under the emergency use authorization, two treatment protocols have been proposed depending on the clinical severity of the COVID-19 infection¹:

• Protocol 1: For people with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 10 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 9 days.
• Protocol 2: For people with COVID-19 disease not requiring mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO, the duration of therapy is 5 days, beginning with a loading dose of remdesivir 200 mg infused intravenously for 30 to 120 minutes on day 1 followed by a once-daily dose of 100 mg for 4 days. If the patient does not show clinical improvement, treatment may be extended for an additional 5 days. ​​​​​​

Continue to: Randomized placebo-controlled trial results...

Randomized placebo-controlled trial results

The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT), sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted by Gilead Sciences. The study began in February and evaluated up to 10 days of remdesivir treatment—200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. Patients were enrolled in a 1:1 manner to remdesivir or placebo, and time to recovery within 28 days after randomization was the trial’s endpoint. According to preliminary analysis of 606 recovered patients, recovery took a median of 11 days in the remdesivir group and 15 days in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12‒1.54; P<.001). Mortality rates were 8.0% and 11.6% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (P=.059).¹

5 vs 10 days of remdesivir treatment

The Gilead Sciences‒sponsored study GS-US-540-5773 was a randomized, open-label multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19. A total of 197 adult patients received 10-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily for 1 day followed by 100 mg IV once daily for 9 days). An additional 200 adult patients received 5-day remdesivir treatment (200 mg IV once daily followed by 100 mg IV for 4 days). Both groups also received standard of care. Results suggested that patients receiving 10 days of remdesivir had similar improvement in clinical status compared with those receiving a 5-day treatment course (10-to-5 day odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51‒1.13] on day 14).¹ Improvement in clinical status was defined as an improvement of 2 or more points from baseline on a predefined 7-point scale that ranged from hospital discharge to increasing levels of oxygen support to death. Clinical recovery was achieved if patients ceased the need for oxygen support or were discharged.¹

The time to clinical improvement for 50% of patients was similar in each treatment group (10 days in the 5-day group versus 11 days in the 10-day group). By day 14, observed clinical improvement rates were 65% and 54% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups, respectively. Clinical recovery rates were 70% and 59% in the 5- and 10-day treatment groups and mortality rates were 8% and 11%.¹

Adverse events

The use of remdesivir is contraindicated in patients who are hypersensitive to the drug. Its infusion may cause hypotension, nausea, vomiting, diaphoresis, and shivering. If signs of a clinically significant infusion reaction are observed the infusion should be discontinued. As noted above, elevation in ALT levels occurs with remdesivir treatment.¹

Reporting serious adverse events. If a serious and unexpected adverse event occurs and appears to be associated with the use of remdesivir, the prescribing health care provider and/or the provider’s designee should complete and submit a MedWatch form to the FDA using one of the following methods¹:

• Complete and submit the report online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
• Return form FDA 3500 (available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM163919.pdf) to the FDA by mail (MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787) or fax (1-800-FDA-0178)
• Gilead requests that all FDA MedWatch forms also be returned to Gilead Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology: fax: 1-650-522-5477 726; e-mail: Safety_fc@gilead.com

Continue to: Drug interactions...

Drug interactions

Remdesivir has not been evaluated for drug-drug interactions in humans. The clinical relevance of in vitro drug interactions also has not been established. According to the FDA, remdesivir is a substrate for the drug metabolizing enzymes CYP2C8, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4, and is a substrate for organic anion transporting polypeptides 1B1 (OAPT1B1) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transporters. In vitro, remdesivir inhibits CYP3A4, OATP1B1, OATP1B3, BSEP, MRP4, and NTCP.¹

Pregnancy risk summary

Remdesivir has not been studied adequately in pregnant women and only should be used during pregnancy if the potential benefit of the drug justifies the potential risk to both mother and fetus.

Nonclinical animal studies that included systemic exposure of the predominant circulating metabolite of remdesivir in pregnant rats and rabbits (at 4 times the recommended dose of human exposure) demonstrated no adverse effect on embryofetal development.¹

Breastfeeding

The only information regarding breastfeeding and remdesivir comes from animal studies. The drug and its metabolites were detected in the plasma of nursing rat pups whose mothers given intravenous remdesivir daily from gestation day 6 to lactation day 20. Measured on lactation day 10, remdesivir exposure in the pups was about 1% that of maternal exposure.¹

“Because of the potential for viral transmission to SARS-CoV-2-negative infants and adverse reactions from the drug in breastfeeding infants, the developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for remdesivir and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed child from remdesivir or from the underlying maternal condition.”¹

PING – you look down at your phone and the words “URGENT – Meeting Today” stare back at you. The elevator door opens, and you step inside – 1 minute, the seemingly perfect amount of time for a quick inbox check.

As a hospitalist, chances are you have experienced this scenario, likely more than once. Email has become a double-edged sword, both a valuable communication tool and a source of stress and frustration.¹ A 2012 McKinsey analysis found that the average professional spends 28% of the day reading and answering emails.² Smartphone technology with email alerts and push notifications constantly diverts hospitalists’ attention away from important and nonurgent responsibilities such as manuscript writing, family time, and personal well-being.³

How can we break this cycle of compulsive connectivity? To keep email from controlling your life, we suggest the “Three Rs” (Resist, Reorganize, and Respond) of email effectiveness.
 

RESIST

The first key to take control of your inbox is to resist the urge to impulsively check and respond to emails. Consider these three solutions to bolster your ability to resist.

• Disable email push notifications. This will reduce the urge to continuously refresh your inbox on the wards.⁴ Excessively checking email can waste as much as 21 minutes per day.²
• Set an email budget.⁵ Schedule one to two appointments each day to handle email.⁶ Consider blocking 30 minutes after rounds and 30 minutes at the end of each day to address emails.
• Correspond at a computer. Limit email correspondence to your laptop or desktop. Access to a full keyboard and larger screen will maximize the efficiency of each email appointment.

REORGANIZE

After implementing these strategies to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox with the following two-pronged approach.

• Focus your inbox: There are many options for reducing the volume of emails that flood your inbox. Try collaborative tools like Google Docs, Dropbox, Doodle polls, and Slack to shift communication away from email onto platforms optimized to your project’s specific needs. Additionally, email management tools like SaneBox and OtherInbox triage less important messages directly to folders, leaving only must-read-now messages in your inbox.² Lastly, activate spam filters and unsubscribe from mailing lists to eliminate email clutter.
• Commit to concise filing and finding: Archiving emails into a complex array of folders wastes as much as 14 minutes each day. Instead, limit your filing system to two folders: “Action” for email requiring further action and “Reading” for messages to reference at a later date.² Activating “Communication View” on Microsoft Outlook allows rapid review of messages that share the same subject heading.

RESPOND

Finally, once your inbox is reorganized, use the Four Ds for Decision Making model to optimize the way you respond to email.⁶ When you sit down for an email appointment, use the Four Ds, detailed below to avoid reading the same message repeatedly without taking action.

• Delete: Quickly delete any emails that do not directly require your attention or follow-up. Many emails can be immediately deleted without further thought.
• Do: If a task or response to an email will take less than 2 minutes, do it immediately. It will take at least the same amount to retrieve and reread an email as it will to handle it in real time.⁷ Often, this can be accomplished with a quick phone call or email reply.
• Defer: If an email response will take more than 2 minutes, use a system to take action at a later time. Move actionable items from your inbox to a to-do list or calendar appointment and file appropriate emails into the Action or Reading folders, detailed above. This method allows completion of important tasks in a timely manner outside of your fixed email budget. Delaying an email reply can also be advantageous by letting a problem mature, given that some of these issues will resolve without your specific intervention.
• Delegate: This can be difficult for many hospitalists who are accustomed to finishing each task themselves. If someone else can do the task as good as or better than you can, it is wise to delegate whenever possible.

Over the next few weeks, challenge yourself to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox, and methodically respond to emails. This practice will help structure your day, maximize your efficiency, manage colleagues’ expectations, and create new time windows throughout your on-service weeks.

Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans. Dr. Esquivel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

References

1. MacKinnon R. How you manage your emails may be bad for your health. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104081249.htm. Published Jan 4, 2016.

2. Plummer M. How to spend way less time on email every day. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-to-spend-way-less-time-on-email-every-day. 2019 Jan 22.

3. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. New York: Free Press, 2004.

4. Ericson C. 5 Ways to Take Control of Your Email Inbox. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/03/17/5-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email-inbox/#3711f5946342. 2014 Mar 17.

5. Limit the time you spend on email. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/limit-the-time-you-spend-on-email. 2014 Feb 6.

6. McGhee S. Empty your inbox: 4 ways to take control of your email. Internet and Telephone Blog. https://www.itllc.net/it-support-ma/empty-your-inbox-4-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email/.

7. Allen D. Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. New York: Penguin Books, 2015.

PING – you look down at your phone and the words “URGENT – Meeting Today” stare back at you. The elevator door opens, and you step inside – 1 minute, the seemingly perfect amount of time for a quick inbox check.

As a hospitalist, chances are you have experienced this scenario, likely more than once. Email has become a double-edged sword, both a valuable communication tool and a source of stress and frustration.¹ A 2012 McKinsey analysis found that the average professional spends 28% of the day reading and answering emails.² Smartphone technology with email alerts and push notifications constantly diverts hospitalists’ attention away from important and nonurgent responsibilities such as manuscript writing, family time, and personal well-being.³

How can we break this cycle of compulsive connectivity? To keep email from controlling your life, we suggest the “Three Rs” (Resist, Reorganize, and Respond) of email effectiveness.
 

RESIST

The first key to take control of your inbox is to resist the urge to impulsively check and respond to emails. Consider these three solutions to bolster your ability to resist.

• Disable email push notifications. This will reduce the urge to continuously refresh your inbox on the wards.⁴ Excessively checking email can waste as much as 21 minutes per day.²
• Set an email budget.⁵ Schedule one to two appointments each day to handle email.⁶ Consider blocking 30 minutes after rounds and 30 minutes at the end of each day to address emails.
• Correspond at a computer. Limit email correspondence to your laptop or desktop. Access to a full keyboard and larger screen will maximize the efficiency of each email appointment.

REORGANIZE

After implementing these strategies to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox with the following two-pronged approach.

• Focus your inbox: There are many options for reducing the volume of emails that flood your inbox. Try collaborative tools like Google Docs, Dropbox, Doodle polls, and Slack to shift communication away from email onto platforms optimized to your project’s specific needs. Additionally, email management tools like SaneBox and OtherInbox triage less important messages directly to folders, leaving only must-read-now messages in your inbox.² Lastly, activate spam filters and unsubscribe from mailing lists to eliminate email clutter.
• Commit to concise filing and finding: Archiving emails into a complex array of folders wastes as much as 14 minutes each day. Instead, limit your filing system to two folders: “Action” for email requiring further action and “Reading” for messages to reference at a later date.² Activating “Communication View” on Microsoft Outlook allows rapid review of messages that share the same subject heading.

RESPOND

Finally, once your inbox is reorganized, use the Four Ds for Decision Making model to optimize the way you respond to email.⁶ When you sit down for an email appointment, use the Four Ds, detailed below to avoid reading the same message repeatedly without taking action.

• Delete: Quickly delete any emails that do not directly require your attention or follow-up. Many emails can be immediately deleted without further thought.
• Do: If a task or response to an email will take less than 2 minutes, do it immediately. It will take at least the same amount to retrieve and reread an email as it will to handle it in real time.⁷ Often, this can be accomplished with a quick phone call or email reply.
• Defer: If an email response will take more than 2 minutes, use a system to take action at a later time. Move actionable items from your inbox to a to-do list or calendar appointment and file appropriate emails into the Action or Reading folders, detailed above. This method allows completion of important tasks in a timely manner outside of your fixed email budget. Delaying an email reply can also be advantageous by letting a problem mature, given that some of these issues will resolve without your specific intervention.
• Delegate: This can be difficult for many hospitalists who are accustomed to finishing each task themselves. If someone else can do the task as good as or better than you can, it is wise to delegate whenever possible.

Over the next few weeks, challenge yourself to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox, and methodically respond to emails. This practice will help structure your day, maximize your efficiency, manage colleagues’ expectations, and create new time windows throughout your on-service weeks.

Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans. Dr. Esquivel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

References

1. MacKinnon R. How you manage your emails may be bad for your health. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104081249.htm. Published Jan 4, 2016.

2. Plummer M. How to spend way less time on email every day. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-to-spend-way-less-time-on-email-every-day. 2019 Jan 22.

3. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. New York: Free Press, 2004.

4. Ericson C. 5 Ways to Take Control of Your Email Inbox. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/03/17/5-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email-inbox/#3711f5946342. 2014 Mar 17.

5. Limit the time you spend on email. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/limit-the-time-you-spend-on-email. 2014 Feb 6.

6. McGhee S. Empty your inbox: 4 ways to take control of your email. Internet and Telephone Blog. https://www.itllc.net/it-support-ma/empty-your-inbox-4-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email/.

7. Allen D. Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. New York: Penguin Books, 2015.

PING – you look down at your phone and the words “URGENT – Meeting Today” stare back at you. The elevator door opens, and you step inside – 1 minute, the seemingly perfect amount of time for a quick inbox check.

As a hospitalist, chances are you have experienced this scenario, likely more than once. Email has become a double-edged sword, both a valuable communication tool and a source of stress and frustration.¹ A 2012 McKinsey analysis found that the average professional spends 28% of the day reading and answering emails.² Smartphone technology with email alerts and push notifications constantly diverts hospitalists’ attention away from important and nonurgent responsibilities such as manuscript writing, family time, and personal well-being.³

How can we break this cycle of compulsive connectivity? To keep email from controlling your life, we suggest the “Three Rs” (Resist, Reorganize, and Respond) of email effectiveness.
 

RESIST

The first key to take control of your inbox is to resist the urge to impulsively check and respond to emails. Consider these three solutions to bolster your ability to resist.

• Disable email push notifications. This will reduce the urge to continuously refresh your inbox on the wards.⁴ Excessively checking email can waste as much as 21 minutes per day.²
• Set an email budget.⁵ Schedule one to two appointments each day to handle email.⁶ Consider blocking 30 minutes after rounds and 30 minutes at the end of each day to address emails.
• Correspond at a computer. Limit email correspondence to your laptop or desktop. Access to a full keyboard and larger screen will maximize the efficiency of each email appointment.

REORGANIZE

After implementing these strategies to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox with the following two-pronged approach.

• Focus your inbox: There are many options for reducing the volume of emails that flood your inbox. Try collaborative tools like Google Docs, Dropbox, Doodle polls, and Slack to shift communication away from email onto platforms optimized to your project’s specific needs. Additionally, email management tools like SaneBox and OtherInbox triage less important messages directly to folders, leaving only must-read-now messages in your inbox.² Lastly, activate spam filters and unsubscribe from mailing lists to eliminate email clutter.
• Commit to concise filing and finding: Archiving emails into a complex array of folders wastes as much as 14 minutes each day. Instead, limit your filing system to two folders: “Action” for email requiring further action and “Reading” for messages to reference at a later date.² Activating “Communication View” on Microsoft Outlook allows rapid review of messages that share the same subject heading.

RESPOND

Finally, once your inbox is reorganized, use the Four Ds for Decision Making model to optimize the way you respond to email.⁶ When you sit down for an email appointment, use the Four Ds, detailed below to avoid reading the same message repeatedly without taking action.

• Delete: Quickly delete any emails that do not directly require your attention or follow-up. Many emails can be immediately deleted without further thought.
• Do: If a task or response to an email will take less than 2 minutes, do it immediately. It will take at least the same amount to retrieve and reread an email as it will to handle it in real time.⁷ Often, this can be accomplished with a quick phone call or email reply.
• Defer: If an email response will take more than 2 minutes, use a system to take action at a later time. Move actionable items from your inbox to a to-do list or calendar appointment and file appropriate emails into the Action or Reading folders, detailed above. This method allows completion of important tasks in a timely manner outside of your fixed email budget. Delaying an email reply can also be advantageous by letting a problem mature, given that some of these issues will resolve without your specific intervention.
• Delegate: This can be difficult for many hospitalists who are accustomed to finishing each task themselves. If someone else can do the task as good as or better than you can, it is wise to delegate whenever possible.

Over the next few weeks, challenge yourself to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox, and methodically respond to emails. This practice will help structure your day, maximize your efficiency, manage colleagues’ expectations, and create new time windows throughout your on-service weeks.

Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans. Dr. Esquivel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

References

1. MacKinnon R. How you manage your emails may be bad for your health. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104081249.htm. Published Jan 4, 2016.

2. Plummer M. How to spend way less time on email every day. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-to-spend-way-less-time-on-email-every-day. 2019 Jan 22.

3. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. New York: Free Press, 2004.

4. Ericson C. 5 Ways to Take Control of Your Email Inbox. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/03/17/5-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email-inbox/#3711f5946342. 2014 Mar 17.

5. Limit the time you spend on email. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/limit-the-time-you-spend-on-email. 2014 Feb 6.

6. McGhee S. Empty your inbox: 4 ways to take control of your email. Internet and Telephone Blog. https://www.itllc.net/it-support-ma/empty-your-inbox-4-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email/.

7. Allen D. Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. New York: Penguin Books, 2015.

Internists spent an average of 18.5 hours per week on paperwork, according to the Medscape Internist Compensation Report 2020. That number was surpassed only by intensivists, who spent 19.1 hours on such tasks.

Again this year, internists’ income ranked near the bottom of the more than 30 specialties in the survey, with average pay of $251,000. Although that number was up $8,000 from last year, it was still less than half that of the top-earning specialists.

The top four specialties in terms of pay were the same this year as they were last year and ranked in the same order: orthopedists made the most, at $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000).

However, internists ranked in the middle of all physicians as to feeling fairly compensated. Just more than half (52%) reported they were fairly compensated, compared with 67% of oncologists, emergency medicine physicians, and radiologists, who were at the top of the ranking, and 44% of nephrologists, who were on the low end.

Also, just as last year, male internists earned 23% more than their female colleagues, which is a slightly smaller pay gap than the 31% gap seen overall.
 

COVID-19 reversing income gains

However, the compensation picture is changing for all physicians. This report reflects data gathered between Oct. 4, 2019, and Feb. 10, 2020. Since that time, the COVID-19 crisis has reversed income gains for physicians overall. A study from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) indicates that more than half of medical practices reported a drop in revenue by early April of 55% and a drop in patient volume of 60%.

The MGMA noted, “Practices are struggling to stay afloat – and many fear that this is only the beginning.”
 

Specialty choice may vary

In the Medscape survey, internists were the physicians least likely to say they would choose their specialty again. Only 66% said they would choose it again, compared with the most enthusiastic specialists: orthopedists (97%), oncologists (96%), and ophthalmologists and dermatologists (both at 95%).

However, three-fourths of internists (75%) said they would choose medicine again, which was a larger proportion than that reported by family physicians (74%), neurologists (73%), and plastic surgeons (72%).

This year’s Medscape survey is the first to ask about incentive bonuses. More than half of all physicians (56%) reported receiving one. Bonuses for internists ranked near the bottom, at an average of $27,000. Orthopedists averaged $96,000 bonuses, and family physicians received the least, at an average of $24,000.

Most internists (63%) said their bonus had no effect on the number of hours worked, which was similar to physicians in other specialties.

In good news, internists lost less money on claims that were denied or that required resubmission than most of their colleagues in other specialties. By comparison, internists reported losing 15% on such claims, and plastic surgeons lost almost twice that percentage (28%).

The survey authors noted, “One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.”
 

Relationships with patients most rewarding

When asked about the most rewarding part of their job, internists ranked “gratitude/relationships with patients” at the top. In this survey, internists spent about the same amount of time with patients that all physicians spent with patients on average, 37.9 hours per week.

“Making good money at a job I like” was the fourth-biggest driver of satisfaction (only 11% said that was the most rewarding part), behind “being very good at what I do/finding answers, diagnoses” and “knowing that I’m making the world a better place.”

Some questions on the survey pertained to the use of advanced practice providers. More than half of internists (54%) reported their practice included nurse practitioners (NPs), and 36% included physician assistants (PAs); 37% employed neither.

Half of the internists who employed NPs and PAs said they had no effect on profitability, 44% said they increased it, and 6% said they decreased it. Physicians overall were split (47% each) on whether NPs and PAs increased profitability or had no effect on it.

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

Internists spent an average of 18.5 hours per week on paperwork, according to the Medscape Internist Compensation Report 2020. That number was surpassed only by intensivists, who spent 19.1 hours on such tasks.

Again this year, internists’ income ranked near the bottom of the more than 30 specialties in the survey, with average pay of $251,000. Although that number was up $8,000 from last year, it was still less than half that of the top-earning specialists.

The top four specialties in terms of pay were the same this year as they were last year and ranked in the same order: orthopedists made the most, at $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000).

However, internists ranked in the middle of all physicians as to feeling fairly compensated. Just more than half (52%) reported they were fairly compensated, compared with 67% of oncologists, emergency medicine physicians, and radiologists, who were at the top of the ranking, and 44% of nephrologists, who were on the low end.

Also, just as last year, male internists earned 23% more than their female colleagues, which is a slightly smaller pay gap than the 31% gap seen overall.
 

COVID-19 reversing income gains

However, the compensation picture is changing for all physicians. This report reflects data gathered between Oct. 4, 2019, and Feb. 10, 2020. Since that time, the COVID-19 crisis has reversed income gains for physicians overall. A study from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) indicates that more than half of medical practices reported a drop in revenue by early April of 55% and a drop in patient volume of 60%.

The MGMA noted, “Practices are struggling to stay afloat – and many fear that this is only the beginning.”
 

Specialty choice may vary

In the Medscape survey, internists were the physicians least likely to say they would choose their specialty again. Only 66% said they would choose it again, compared with the most enthusiastic specialists: orthopedists (97%), oncologists (96%), and ophthalmologists and dermatologists (both at 95%).

However, three-fourths of internists (75%) said they would choose medicine again, which was a larger proportion than that reported by family physicians (74%), neurologists (73%), and plastic surgeons (72%).

This year’s Medscape survey is the first to ask about incentive bonuses. More than half of all physicians (56%) reported receiving one. Bonuses for internists ranked near the bottom, at an average of $27,000. Orthopedists averaged $96,000 bonuses, and family physicians received the least, at an average of $24,000.

Most internists (63%) said their bonus had no effect on the number of hours worked, which was similar to physicians in other specialties.

In good news, internists lost less money on claims that were denied or that required resubmission than most of their colleagues in other specialties. By comparison, internists reported losing 15% on such claims, and plastic surgeons lost almost twice that percentage (28%).

The survey authors noted, “One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.”
 

Relationships with patients most rewarding

When asked about the most rewarding part of their job, internists ranked “gratitude/relationships with patients” at the top. In this survey, internists spent about the same amount of time with patients that all physicians spent with patients on average, 37.9 hours per week.

“Making good money at a job I like” was the fourth-biggest driver of satisfaction (only 11% said that was the most rewarding part), behind “being very good at what I do/finding answers, diagnoses” and “knowing that I’m making the world a better place.”

Some questions on the survey pertained to the use of advanced practice providers. More than half of internists (54%) reported their practice included nurse practitioners (NPs), and 36% included physician assistants (PAs); 37% employed neither.

Half of the internists who employed NPs and PAs said they had no effect on profitability, 44% said they increased it, and 6% said they decreased it. Physicians overall were split (47% each) on whether NPs and PAs increased profitability or had no effect on it.

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

Internists spent an average of 18.5 hours per week on paperwork, according to the Medscape Internist Compensation Report 2020. That number was surpassed only by intensivists, who spent 19.1 hours on such tasks.

Again this year, internists’ income ranked near the bottom of the more than 30 specialties in the survey, with average pay of $251,000. Although that number was up $8,000 from last year, it was still less than half that of the top-earning specialists.

The top four specialties in terms of pay were the same this year as they were last year and ranked in the same order: orthopedists made the most, at $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000).

However, internists ranked in the middle of all physicians as to feeling fairly compensated. Just more than half (52%) reported they were fairly compensated, compared with 67% of oncologists, emergency medicine physicians, and radiologists, who were at the top of the ranking, and 44% of nephrologists, who were on the low end.

Also, just as last year, male internists earned 23% more than their female colleagues, which is a slightly smaller pay gap than the 31% gap seen overall.
 

COVID-19 reversing income gains

However, the compensation picture is changing for all physicians. This report reflects data gathered between Oct. 4, 2019, and Feb. 10, 2020. Since that time, the COVID-19 crisis has reversed income gains for physicians overall. A study from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) indicates that more than half of medical practices reported a drop in revenue by early April of 55% and a drop in patient volume of 60%.

The MGMA noted, “Practices are struggling to stay afloat – and many fear that this is only the beginning.”
 

Specialty choice may vary

In the Medscape survey, internists were the physicians least likely to say they would choose their specialty again. Only 66% said they would choose it again, compared with the most enthusiastic specialists: orthopedists (97%), oncologists (96%), and ophthalmologists and dermatologists (both at 95%).

However, three-fourths of internists (75%) said they would choose medicine again, which was a larger proportion than that reported by family physicians (74%), neurologists (73%), and plastic surgeons (72%).

This year’s Medscape survey is the first to ask about incentive bonuses. More than half of all physicians (56%) reported receiving one. Bonuses for internists ranked near the bottom, at an average of $27,000. Orthopedists averaged $96,000 bonuses, and family physicians received the least, at an average of $24,000.

Most internists (63%) said their bonus had no effect on the number of hours worked, which was similar to physicians in other specialties.

In good news, internists lost less money on claims that were denied or that required resubmission than most of their colleagues in other specialties. By comparison, internists reported losing 15% on such claims, and plastic surgeons lost almost twice that percentage (28%).

The survey authors noted, “One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.”
 

Relationships with patients most rewarding

When asked about the most rewarding part of their job, internists ranked “gratitude/relationships with patients” at the top. In this survey, internists spent about the same amount of time with patients that all physicians spent with patients on average, 37.9 hours per week.

“Making good money at a job I like” was the fourth-biggest driver of satisfaction (only 11% said that was the most rewarding part), behind “being very good at what I do/finding answers, diagnoses” and “knowing that I’m making the world a better place.”

Some questions on the survey pertained to the use of advanced practice providers. More than half of internists (54%) reported their practice included nurse practitioners (NPs), and 36% included physician assistants (PAs); 37% employed neither.

Half of the internists who employed NPs and PAs said they had no effect on profitability, 44% said they increased it, and 6% said they decreased it. Physicians overall were split (47% each) on whether NPs and PAs increased profitability or had no effect on it.

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

A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

A 46-year-old man who lives in Tacoma, Wash., is seen for fatigue. He has a no significant past medical history. He is not taking any medications. His physical exam is unremarkable. His hemoglobin is 12 gm/dL, hematocrit is 37 gm/dL, mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is 103 fL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone level is 1.2 mU/L.

What workup do you recommend?

A) B₁₂, folate testing

B) Alcohol history, B₁₂, folate testing

C) Alcohol history, B₁₂ testing

I would choose doing a careful alcohol history and vitamin B₁₂ testing.

Dr. Seppä and colleagues looked at all outpatients who had a blood count done over an 8-month period.¹ A total of 9,527 blood counts were ordered, and 287 (3%) had macrocytosis.¹ Further workup was done for 113 of the patients. The most common cause found for macrocytosis was alcohol abuse, in 74 (65%) of the patients (80% of the men and 36% of the women). In several studies, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was the cause of macrocytosis in 5%-7% of patients.^2,3

In 1978, a study by Davidson and Hamilton looked at 200 consecutive patients with MCVs over 100, and were able to find a cause in 80%.⁴ Sixteen of these patients had a low B₁₂ level and 10 had a low folate level.

In recent years, folate has become an extremely unlikely cause of macrocytic anemias. In 1998, the Food and Drug Administration required folic acid fortification of enriched grain products in the United States to help decrease the risk of neural tube defects. Similar fortification efforts were undertaken in Canada. Since 1998, anemia due to folate deficiency has essentially disappeared in individuals who have access to fortified grain products.

Joelson and colleagues looked at data on folate testing from the year prior to fortification of the grain supply (1997) and after (2004).⁵ They found that, in 1997, 4.8% of tests had a folate level less than 160 ng/mL compared with only 0.6% of tests in 2004.

When a more stringent cutoff for deficiency was used (94 ng/mL) 0.98% of tests were below that level in 1997, and 0.09% in 2004. The mean RBC folate level in 1997 was 420 ng/mL and rose to 697 ng/mL in 2004. Of the patients who did have low folate levels, only a minority had elevated MCVs.

Shojania et al. looked at folate testing in Canada after widespread fortification had started.⁶ They found that 0.5% of 2,154 serum folate levels were low and 0.7% of 560 red blood cell folate levels were low. Folate deficiency was not the cause of anemia in any of the patients with low folate levels.

Theisen-Toupal and colleagues did a retrospective study looking at folate testing over an 11-year period after fortification.⁷ The researchers examined the results of 84,187 assessments of folate levels. Forty-seven (0.056%) of the tests found patients with folate deficiency, 166 (0.197%), found patients with low-normal folate levels, 57,411 (68.195%) of tests yielded normal results, and 26,563 (31.552%) of tests found high folate levels. The opinion of the authors was that folate testing should be severely reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, states: “Do not order red blood cell folate levels at all.”⁸

So what does this all mean? We have been taught to have a reflex response to the evaluation of macrocytosis to test for B₁₂ and folate. Neither of these are particularly common causes of macrocytosis, and in countries where there is grain fortification, folate deficiency is exceedingly uncommon, and should not be tested for early in any diagnostic process.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Seppä K et al. Evaluation of macrocytosis by general practitioners. J Stud Alcohol. 1996 Jan;57(1):97-100.

2. Seppä K et al. Blood count and hematologic morphology in nonanemic macrocytosis: Differences between alcohol abuse and pernicious anemia. Alcohol. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):343-7.

3. Wymer A, Becker DM. Recognition and evaluation of red blood cell macrocytosis in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1990 May-Jun;5(3):192-7.

4. Davidson RJ, Hamilton PJ. High mean red cell volume: Its incidence and significance in routine haematology. J Clin Pathol. 1978 May;31[5]:493-8.

5. Joelson DW, Fiebig EW. Diminished need for folate measurements among indigent populations in the post folic acid supplementation era. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Mar;131(3):477-80.

6. Shojania AM, von Kuster K. Ordering folate assays is no longer justified for investigation of anemias, in folic acid fortified countries. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 25;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-22.

7. Theisen-Toupal et al. Low yield of outpatient serum folate testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3593.

8. Choosing Wisely: American Society for Clinical Pathology, Oct. 19, 2017. Recommendation.

Chiesi Global Rare Diseases announced that the Food and Drug Administration has approved a new formulation of deferiprone (Ferriprox) for the treatment of patients with transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes when current chelation therapy is inadequate. The new formulation of twice-a-day Ferriprox 1,000 mg oral tablets eliminates the midday dose, according to a company press release.

“A treatment option that reduces serum ferritin, cardiac iron, and liver iron with an established safety profile and now twice-a-day tablet dosing can represent a significant advantage for patients,” stated Thomas Coates, MD, in the press release. Dr. Coates is the section head of hematology at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Deferiprone was originally approved by the FDA in 2011 for the treatment of transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes. Ferriprox contains a label warning that it can cause agranulocytosis that can lead to serious infections and death. As neutropenia may precede the development of agranulocytosis, the warning advises measurement of the absolute neutrophil count before starting Ferriprox and monitoring the ANC weekly on therapy. In addition, Ferriprox should be interrupted if infection develops, and the ANC should be monitored more frequently.

As Ferriprox can cause fetal harm, women of reproductive potential should be advised to use an effective method of contraception during treatment and for at least 6 months after the last dose, according to the company release.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Chiesi Global Rare Diseases announced that the Food and Drug Administration has approved a new formulation of deferiprone (Ferriprox) for the treatment of patients with transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes when current chelation therapy is inadequate. The new formulation of twice-a-day Ferriprox 1,000 mg oral tablets eliminates the midday dose, according to a company press release.

“A treatment option that reduces serum ferritin, cardiac iron, and liver iron with an established safety profile and now twice-a-day tablet dosing can represent a significant advantage for patients,” stated Thomas Coates, MD, in the press release. Dr. Coates is the section head of hematology at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Deferiprone was originally approved by the FDA in 2011 for the treatment of transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes. Ferriprox contains a label warning that it can cause agranulocytosis that can lead to serious infections and death. As neutropenia may precede the development of agranulocytosis, the warning advises measurement of the absolute neutrophil count before starting Ferriprox and monitoring the ANC weekly on therapy. In addition, Ferriprox should be interrupted if infection develops, and the ANC should be monitored more frequently.

As Ferriprox can cause fetal harm, women of reproductive potential should be advised to use an effective method of contraception during treatment and for at least 6 months after the last dose, according to the company release.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Chiesi Global Rare Diseases announced that the Food and Drug Administration has approved a new formulation of deferiprone (Ferriprox) for the treatment of patients with transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes when current chelation therapy is inadequate. The new formulation of twice-a-day Ferriprox 1,000 mg oral tablets eliminates the midday dose, according to a company press release.

“A treatment option that reduces serum ferritin, cardiac iron, and liver iron with an established safety profile and now twice-a-day tablet dosing can represent a significant advantage for patients,” stated Thomas Coates, MD, in the press release. Dr. Coates is the section head of hematology at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Deferiprone was originally approved by the FDA in 2011 for the treatment of transfusional iron overload caused by thalassemia syndromes. Ferriprox contains a label warning that it can cause agranulocytosis that can lead to serious infections and death. As neutropenia may precede the development of agranulocytosis, the warning advises measurement of the absolute neutrophil count before starting Ferriprox and monitoring the ANC weekly on therapy. In addition, Ferriprox should be interrupted if infection develops, and the ANC should be monitored more frequently.

As Ferriprox can cause fetal harm, women of reproductive potential should be advised to use an effective method of contraception during treatment and for at least 6 months after the last dose, according to the company release.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Key clinical point: Inner nuclear layer (INL) and outer nuclear layer (ONL) measures may be novel biomarkers of neurodegeneration in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS).

Major finding: Independent of age, PMS vs. relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) was associated with a faster thinning of peri-papillary retinal nerve fiber layer (β = −0.34%/year; P less than .001), ganglion cell+inner plexiform layer (β = −0.27%/year; P less than .001), INL (β = −0.10%/year; P = .01), and ONL (β = −0.13%/year; P = .01).

Study details: In all, 178 RRMS, 186 PMS, and 66 control participants were followed for a median of 3.7 years; retinal imaging was performed with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the NIH/NINDS, National MS Society, Race to Erase MS, Walters Foundation, and ACTRIMS. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Sotirchos ES et al. Ann Neurol. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1002/ana.25738.

Key clinical point: Inner nuclear layer (INL) and outer nuclear layer (ONL) measures may be novel biomarkers of neurodegeneration in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS).

Major finding: Independent of age, PMS vs. relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) was associated with a faster thinning of peri-papillary retinal nerve fiber layer (β = −0.34%/year; P less than .001), ganglion cell+inner plexiform layer (β = −0.27%/year; P less than .001), INL (β = −0.10%/year; P = .01), and ONL (β = −0.13%/year; P = .01).

Study details: In all, 178 RRMS, 186 PMS, and 66 control participants were followed for a median of 3.7 years; retinal imaging was performed with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the NIH/NINDS, National MS Society, Race to Erase MS, Walters Foundation, and ACTRIMS. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Sotirchos ES et al. Ann Neurol. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1002/ana.25738.

Key clinical point: Inner nuclear layer (INL) and outer nuclear layer (ONL) measures may be novel biomarkers of neurodegeneration in patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS).

Major finding: Independent of age, PMS vs. relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) was associated with a faster thinning of peri-papillary retinal nerve fiber layer (β = −0.34%/year; P less than .001), ganglion cell+inner plexiform layer (β = −0.27%/year; P less than .001), INL (β = −0.10%/year; P = .01), and ONL (β = −0.13%/year; P = .01).

Study details: In all, 178 RRMS, 186 PMS, and 66 control participants were followed for a median of 3.7 years; retinal imaging was performed with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the NIH/NINDS, National MS Society, Race to Erase MS, Walters Foundation, and ACTRIMS. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Citation: Sotirchos ES et al. Ann Neurol. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1002/ana.25738.

Key clinical point: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis (MS) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) are more likely to have subtly impaired cognitive function irrespective of race/ethnicity.

Major finding: Mean oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) scores were lower in patients with MS/CIS vs. control participants (52.2 vs. 58.3; P less than .0001). Independent predictors of lower oral SDMT scores included being black (β = −5.97) or Hispanic (β = −3.06), having MS (β = −6.04), lower educational attainment (β = −5.02), and having a household income ≤$65,000 (β = −2.28). No significant interaction was found between race/ethnicity and having MS on SDMT scores (P = .41).

Study details: 1,174 adult patients (mean age, 40.7 years) from the MS Sunshine Study were included in this analysis (MS/CIS cases, n = 554; matched control participants, n = 620).

 Disclosures: This study was supported in part by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke. The presenting author received personal compensation or funding from Genzyme, Biogen, Serrono, MedDay, and Novartis, and grant support from the NIH, the National MS Society, California Community Foundation, and the Charitable Guthy-Jackson Foundation.

Citation: Amezcua L et al. Neurology. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009210.

Key clinical point: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis (MS) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) are more likely to have subtly impaired cognitive function irrespective of race/ethnicity.

Major finding: Mean oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) scores were lower in patients with MS/CIS vs. control participants (52.2 vs. 58.3; P less than .0001). Independent predictors of lower oral SDMT scores included being black (β = −5.97) or Hispanic (β = −3.06), having MS (β = −6.04), lower educational attainment (β = −5.02), and having a household income ≤$65,000 (β = −2.28). No significant interaction was found between race/ethnicity and having MS on SDMT scores (P = .41).

Study details: 1,174 adult patients (mean age, 40.7 years) from the MS Sunshine Study were included in this analysis (MS/CIS cases, n = 554; matched control participants, n = 620).

 Disclosures: This study was supported in part by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke. The presenting author received personal compensation or funding from Genzyme, Biogen, Serrono, MedDay, and Novartis, and grant support from the NIH, the National MS Society, California Community Foundation, and the Charitable Guthy-Jackson Foundation.

Citation: Amezcua L et al. Neurology. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009210.

Key clinical point: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis (MS) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) are more likely to have subtly impaired cognitive function irrespective of race/ethnicity.

Major finding: Mean oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) scores were lower in patients with MS/CIS vs. control participants (52.2 vs. 58.3; P less than .0001). Independent predictors of lower oral SDMT scores included being black (β = −5.97) or Hispanic (β = −3.06), having MS (β = −6.04), lower educational attainment (β = −5.02), and having a household income ≤$65,000 (β = −2.28). No significant interaction was found between race/ethnicity and having MS on SDMT scores (P = .41).

Study details: 1,174 adult patients (mean age, 40.7 years) from the MS Sunshine Study were included in this analysis (MS/CIS cases, n = 554; matched control participants, n = 620).

 Disclosures: This study was supported in part by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke. The presenting author received personal compensation or funding from Genzyme, Biogen, Serrono, MedDay, and Novartis, and grant support from the NIH, the National MS Society, California Community Foundation, and the Charitable Guthy-Jackson Foundation.

Citation: Amezcua L et al. Neurology. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009210.