scholarly journals 1362. Adding Insult to Injury: Association of Stigmatizing Language and Suboptimal Outcomes in People Who Inject Drugs

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S767-S768
Author(s):  
Joseph Carpenter ◽  
Jillian S Catalanotti ◽  
Melissa Notis ◽  
Christopher J Brokus ◽  
Timothy P Moran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Continuum Of Care ◽  
Discharge Summary ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Transitions Of Care ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background The National Academy of Medicine has identified stigma surrounding substance use disorders (SUDs) and infectious diseases (ID) as a key barrier to integration of opioid use disorder (OUD) and ID services. Prior literature on stigmatizing language in OUD clinical care focuses on surveys and theoretical scenarios rather than real-world data. As part of a larger study of patients admitted for infectious complications of injection drug use (CHOICE), we sought to determine how inpatient physicians describe persons with OUD, as well as associations of this language with outcomes along the OUD continuum of care. Methods CHOICE is a retrospective review of adults hospitalized with an infectious complication of OUD and IDU at four academic medical centers. Included patients were hospitalized between 1/1/2018-12/31/2018, had ICD9/10 diagnosis codes consistent with OUD and acute bacterial/fungal infection, and chart review verification of active infection associated with OUD. Data was abstracted regarding demographics, inpatient interventions, transitions of care, and outcomes 1 year after admission. Potentially stigmatizing language was identified based on the discharge summary. “Abuse” and “misuse” were considered potentially stigmatizing; “use disorder” was considered best practice. Associations of language and outcomes were analyzed via logistic generalized estimating equations. Results A total of 287 subjects met inclusion criteria; 119 (42%) were female and the median age was 40 years (IQR: 32 – 52). The most common terms used to describe OUD were “abuse” (190, 66%) and “IVDU” (119, 42%). “Use disorder” was noted in only 72 (25%) charts. In a regression analysis, any mention of “use disorder” was associated with not leaving against medical advice (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.24 – 4.95), a plan for ongoing OUD treatment (OR 5.17, 95% CI 2.05-13.0), and addiction-specific follow up (OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.34-3.68). Conclusion In this multicenter retrospective study, inpatient physicians commonly referred to patients with OUD using stigmatizing language. When NIH-preferred language was used this was associated with improved outcomes along the OUD continuum of care, possibly reflecting increased awareness of best practices for treating patients with OUD. Disclosures Ellen Eaton, MD , Gilead (Grant/Research Support) Ellen Eaton, MD , Gilead (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Research Grant or Support Greer A. Burkholder, MD, MSPH, Eli Lilly (Grant/Research Support) Sarah Kattakuzhy, MD, Gilead Sciences (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support) Elana S. Rosenthal, MD, Gilead Sciences (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)

scholarly journals 611. No Source Control: Low Rates of Medication for Opioid Use Disorder in Individuals Hospitalized with Infectious Complications of Injection Opioid Use at Four Academic Medical Centers

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S408-S409
Author(s):  
Elana S Rosenthal ◽  
Jillian S Catalanotti ◽  
Christopher J Brokus ◽  
Joseph Carpenter ◽  
Ellen Eaton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Transitions Of Care ◽  
Academic Medical Centers ◽  
Source Control ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Medical Centers ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background Rates of hospitalization for bacterial infections due to opioid use disorder (OUD) are rising. Medication for OUD (MOUD) is an evidence-based intervention to treat OUD; however, MOUD initiation during hospitalization remain suboptimal. We aim to understand the continuum of MOUD and impact of MOUD initiation on outcomes of patients hospitalized with infectious complications of OUD. Methods CHOICE is a retrospective review of adults hospitalized with an infectious complication of OUD and IDU at four academic medical centers (Figure 1). Patients were hospitalized between 1/1/2018 and 12/31/2018, had ICD9/10 diagnosis codes consistent with OUD and acute bacterial/fungal infection, and chart review verification of active infection associated with OUD. Data were abstracted regarding demographics, inpatient interventions, transitions of care, and 1 year outcomes. Linear regression model with generalized estimating equation was used to evaluate associations of MOUD initiation with outcomes. Results 287 patients were predominately male (59%), white (63%), and median age 40 (32;52), with 72 (25%) uninsured, 103 (36%) unstably housed, and 84 (29%) were on MOUD prior to admission. 129 (45%) received MOUD during admission, 113 (39%) had MOUD prescribed on discharge, and 24 (8.4%) were linked to MOUD after admission [fig 2]. During sentinel admission, 62 (22%) were discharged prematurely/eloped, of whom 43 (69%) left without an antibiotic plan. Of the 202 (71%) not on MOUD at baseline, 55 (27%) initiated MOUD during admission. MOUD initiation was associated with higher odds of planned discharge (OR 6.7; p=0.0002) and being discharged on MOUD (OR 174; p< 0.0001) [fig 3]. Being uninsured was associated with lower odds of planned discharge (OR 0.55; < 0.0001) and discharge on MOUD (OR 0.59; p=0.02). CHOICE Baseline Demographics (N=287) Conclusion Across four healthcare systems, we found that patients hospitalized with infectious complications of OUD had low rates of MOUD initiation and high rates of premature discharge with incomplete ID treatment. Interventions to increase MOUD initiation and expand access to insurance may serve to mitigate the morbidity and mortality associated with OUD-related infections. Disclosures Elana S. Rosenthal, MD, Gilead Sciences (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support) Ellen Eaton, MD , Gilead (Grant/Research Support) Ellen Eaton, MD , Gilead (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Research Grant or Support Greer A. Burkholder, MD, MSPH, Eli Lilly (Grant/Research Support) Sarah Kattakuzhy, MD, Gilead Sciences (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)

scholarly journals OP0211 TIME TO DISCONTINUATION OF TOFACITINIB AND TNF INHIBITORS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS WITH AND WITHOUT METHOTREXATE: DATA FROM A RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS COHORT

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 131.2-132
Author(s):  
M. Movahedi ◽  
A. Cesta ◽  
X. LI ◽  
E. Keystone ◽  
C. Bombardier
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Rheumatoid Arthritis Cohort ◽  
Research Initiative ◽  
Significant Difference

Background:Tofacitinib (TOFA) is an oral, small molecule drug used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment and is prescribed alone or with methotrexate (MTX). Tofa can be used as an alternative to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).Objectives:We aimed to evaluate the discontinuation rate of this drug, with and without concurrent MTX in comparison with TNFi, in patients with RA in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI).Methods:RA patients enrolled in the OBRI initiating their TOFA or TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab, etancercept, golimumab, and infliximab) within 30 days prior to or any time after enrolment between 1stJune 2014 (TOFA approval date in Canada) and 31stDec 2018 were included. Time to discontinuation (due to any reason) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival (adjusted for propensity score using inverse probability of treatment weight) to compare patients with and without MTX use at initiation of TOFA or TNFi.Results:A total of 565 patients initiated TOFA (n=208) or TNFi (n=357). Of those, 106 (51%) and 222 (62%) were treated with MTX in the TOFA and TNFi group, respectively and mean (SD) disease duration were 13.1 (9.4) and 9.5 (9.4) years. In the TOFA group, 86% were female and mean (SD) age at treatment initation was 60.4 (10.6) years. In the TNFi group 82% were female and mean age (SD) at treatment initation was 57.0 (12.6) years. The TOFA group was more likely to have prior biologic use (61.5%) compared with the TNFi group (31%). At treatment initiation, the mean (SD) clinical disease activcity index was 24.8 (12.1) in the TOFA group and 21.8 (12.0) in the TNFi group.Over a mean of 17.3 month follow-up, discontinuation was reported in 75 (36%) and 103 (29%) of all TOFA and TNFi patients, respectively. After adjusting for propensity score, patients treated with TNFi and MTX remained on treatment longer than those treated without MTX (Logrank p=0.002) while there was no significant difference in TOFA discontinuation in patients with and without MTX (Logrank p=0.31).Conclusion:In this real world data study, we found that TOFA retention is similar in patients with and without MTX, while patients treated with TNFi and MTX remained on treatment longer than those treated without MTX. Merging data with other RA registries in Canada is proposed to increase study power and to provide more robust results.Disclosure of Interests:Mohammad Movahedi Consultant of: Allergan, Angela Cesta: None declared, Xiuying Li: None declared, Edward Keystone Grant/research support from: AbbVie; Amgen; Gilead Sciences, Inc; Lilly Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; PuraPharm; Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie; Amgen; AstraZeneca Pharma; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Celltrion; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.; Genentech, Inc; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen, Inc; Lilly Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Myriad Autoimmune; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsung Bioepsis., Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Amgen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celltrion; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, Janssen, Inc; Merck; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; Sanofi-Genzyme; UCB, Claire Bombardier Grant/research support from: Dr Bombardier reports sources of funding for Ontario Best Practice Research Initiative Research grants from Abbvie, Janssen, Amgen, Medexus, Merck, Pfizer, and Novartis outside of the submitted work. Consulting Agreements: Abbvie, Covance, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and Novartis outside of the submitted work. Advisory Board Membership: Hospira, Sandoz, Merck, Pfizer and Novartis outside of the submitted work.

scholarly journals POS0293 TRheuMa REGISTRY PROVIDES FIRST EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENT COURSE OF RHEUMATIC IMMUNE-RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS AND TUMOUR RESPONSE RATES DEPENDING ON THE TUMOUR ENTITY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 372.3-372
Author(s):  
L. Diekmann ◽  
L. Daniello ◽  
J. Kunz ◽  
J. Leipe ◽  
H. M. Lorenz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tumour Response ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Underlying Malignancy ◽  
Tumour Entity ◽  
Melanoma Patients ◽  
Funding Institution ◽  
Nsclc Patients ◽  
Research Grant

Background:Rheumatic immune-related adverse events (irAE) are associated with a better tumour response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). In contrast to other irAEs, their potentially chronic course may require long-term immunosuppressive treatment.Objectives:Our registry-based study analyses real-world data on the characteristics and outcome of rheumatic irAEs and underlying malignancy. Herein, we present first evidence that these parameters and the optimal clinical management may differ depending on the tumour entity.Methods:The TRheuMa registry is a prospective long-term observational study of a patient cohort suffering from rheumatic side effects of cancer therapies with focus on ICI. It is part of the MalheuR project initiated in July 2018 at the University Hospital Heidelberg to explore interrelations of malignancies and RMDs.Results:64 patients were recruited due to a rheumatic irAE under ICI treatment (nivolumab n=30, pembrolizumab n=33, ipilimumab n=12, PD-L1i n=5, ipi/nivo n=10) with a follow-up of up to 30 months. Of these, 47% had NSCLC and 41% melanoma. In local cohorts of patients receiving ICI, 4% of NSCLC (n total=888) and 13% of melanoma (n total=195) developed a rheumatic irAE. 7% of NSCLC and 23% of melanoma patients experienced a flare of a pre-existing RMD. De novo irAE mostly resembled phenotypes of spondyloarthritis both in NSCLC (43%) as well as in melanoma patients (33%). CRP levels were increased in 83% of NSCLC and 71% of melanoma patients. Almost all irAE patients showed autoantibody negativity and signs of inflammation in ultrasound examination (96%). Comparison of best responses to treatment in patients with and without rheumatic irAE in melanoma and without any irAE in NSCLC patients were as following: Complete remission (CR) in 48% vs. 4% of melanoma patients and partial remission (PR) in 68% vs. 41% of NSCLC patients. In accordance with our severity-based treatment algorithm, 25% of the melanoma patients in CR and 16% of the NSCLC patients in PR needed add-on DMARDs for sufficient irAE-treatment. ICI-treatment was discontinued in 7 cases (17% NSCLC, 8% melanoma)Conclusion:Prospective real-world data from the TRheuMa-registry provide first evidence that rheumatic irAE have distinct characteristics depending on the underlying malignancy. Oncological outcome was better with rheumatic irAE than in their absence and this effect was more pronounced in melanoma patients despite a larger use of immunosuppressants for irAE-treatment.Disclosure of Interests:Leonore Diekmann: None declared, Lea Daniello: None declared, Julia Kunz: None declared, Jan Leipe Consultant of: Pfizer; Novartis; Honoraria (self), Abbvie; Astra Zeneca; BMS; Celgene; Hospira; Janssen-Cilag; Gilead; LEO Pharma; Lilly; MSD; Roche; Sanofi; UCB., Grant/research support from: Research grant/Funding (self): Pfizer; Novartis; Honoraria (self), Hanns-Martin Lorenz Consultant of: Abbvie; BMS; MSD; Pfizer; Celgene; Roche; Chugai; Medac; GSK; Honoraria (self), Novartis; UCB; Janssen-Cilag; Astra Zeneca; Lilly, Grant/research support from: Research grant/Funding (institution): Abbvie; BMS; MSD; Pfizer; Celgene; Roche; Chugai; Medac; GSK; Honoraria (self), Research grant/Funding (institution), Novartis; UCB; Janssen-Cilag; Astra Zeneca; Lilly; Research grant/Funding (institution): Baxter; SOBI; Biogen; Actelion; Mundipharma; Bayer Vital; Octapharm; Sanofi; Hexal; Thermo Fischer; Shire., Jessica Hassel Consultant of: MDS; Honoraria (self): Roche; Novartis; Pierre Fabre., Grant/research support from: BMS; Honoraria (self), Karin Jordan Consultant of: Advisory/Consultancy: Amgen; Merck; MSD; Riemser; Helsinn; Tesaro; Kreussler; Voluntis; Pfizer; Pomme-med; Hexal., Petros Christopoulos Consultant of: advisory board/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda., Grant/research support from: research funding from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Karolina Benesova Grant/research support from: Foundations and Awards” commission of the University of Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg; AbbVie; Novartis; Rheumaliga Baden-Württemberg e.V

scholarly journals 872. Number of Sexual Partners and Patient-Reported Outcomes among Older Adults Living With HIV

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S527-S528
Author(s):  
Peter Mazonson ◽  
Jeff Berko ◽  
Theoren Loo ◽  
Giselle D Coelho ◽  
Erik Lowman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Partner ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Sexual Partners ◽  
Pairwise Comparisons ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Independent Contractor ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Number Of Sexual Partners ◽  
Living With Hiv ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background Many older (age 50+) adults living with HIV (OALWH) are sexually active. However, little is known about the relationship between number of sexual partners and mental health outcomes among OALWH. Methods Data were utilized from the Aging with Dignity, Health, Optimism and Community (ADHOC) cohort, an observational study of OALWH from ten US clinics. To measure sexual activity, participants were asked “How many sexual partners have you had in the last year?” with response options ranging from zero to “greater than five.” Loneliness was measured using the Three-item Loneliness Scale, and depression was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Significance was determined by Kruskal-Wallis tests followed by unadjusted pairwise comparisons. Results Of 1,027 participants, the mean (SD) age was 58.9 (6.1) and 876 (85%) were male. 312 (30%) had zero sexual partners in the past year, 308 (30%) had one partner, 197 (19%) had 2-5 partners, and 210 (20%) had >5 partners. Of the participants with one partner, 230 (75%) were married, coupled or partnered, and 78 (25%) were single, widowed, separated, or divorced (Single). Figure 1 shows that people with one partner were significantly less lonely than any other group (p< 0.01 for pairwise comparisons), and all other groups were statistically similar to each other. This pattern was also seen with depression (p< 0.01 for pairwise comparisons, Figure 2). Among subgroup of people with one sexual partner, those who were married, coupled or partnered were less lonely (4.41 vs. 5.67, p< 0.01) and less depressed (0.95 vs 1.38, p=0.02) than those who were single, widowed, separated, or divorced. Conclusion Among OALWH, people with one sexual partner were less lonely and depressed than people with zero or with ≥2 partners. Furthermore, people with one sexual partner who were married or in a committed relationship were less lonely and depressed than people with one sexual partner who were not. Disclosures Peter Mazonson, MD, MBA, ViiV Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) Jeff Berko, MPH, BS, ViiV Healthcare (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Theoren Loo, MPH, ViiV Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) Giselle D. Coelho, MD. MPHTM, Lilly (Research Grant or Support)Medscape, Clinical Care Options (Independent Contractor)Viiv, Gilead, Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support) Erik Lowman, MD, Gilead (Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Grant/Research Support)ViiV (Grant/Research Support) Peter Shalit, MD, PhD, Abbvie (Grant/Research Support)Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Speaker’s Bureau)Glaxo Smithkline (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Speaker’s Bureau)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Speaker’s Bureau)Thera (Speaker’s Bureau)ViiV Healthcare (Speaker’s Bureau) Frank Spinelli, MD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee)

scholarly journals 113. Reliability of Nasopharyngeal PCR for the Detection of Otopathogens in Children with Uncomplicated Acute Otitis Media

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S69-S70
Author(s):  
Holly M Frost ◽  
Thresia Sebastian ◽  
Amy Keith ◽  
Melanie Kurtz ◽  
Andreas Bress ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Negative Predictive Value ◽  
Otitis Media ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
San Diego ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Acute Otitis Media ◽  
Nucleic Acid Amplification ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background Among children with acute otitis media (AOM) S.pneumoniae, H.influenzae, and M.catarrhalis are the predominant bacterial otopathogens. There is a high correlation between nasopharyngeal (NP) and middle ear fluid (MEF) organisms during AOM. Thus, NP samples could serve as a surrogate for detection of otopathogens and are more easily collected in a typical practice environment than MEF. Though culture is considered the gold standard for detection, it is time-consuming, which can limit its diagnostic utility to guide clinical care. We aimed to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for NP qualitative PCR for bacterial otopathogens compared to NP culture. Methods Patients age 6-35 months with uncomplicated AOM who were prospectively enrolled in an AOM study in Denver, CO from Jan 2019-Dec 2020 were included. All patients had an NP flocked swab (Eswab®, Copan Diagnostics) at enrollment. Otopathogen culture was completed using standard techniques. Nucleic acids were extracted using the NucliSENS® easyMAG® system (Quidel, San Diego, CA) per manufacturer’s instructions. Multiplex RT-PCR for S.pneumoniae, H.influenzae, and M.catarrhalis was completed using Lyra® (Quidel, San Diego, CA) and AnDiaTec® assay kits (Quidel Germany GmbH, Kornwestheim, Germany). Nucleic acid amplification and detection was completed on the Applied Biosystems® (ABI) 7500 Fast Dx Real-Time PCR Instrument. Results Of the 80 children included, 18 (22.5%) had no organism detected on culture, 31 (38.8%) had one and 31 (38.8%) had multiple organisms detected. The most commonly identified organisms on culture were M.catarrhalis (42, 52.5%), followed by S.pneumoniae (30, 37.5%), and H.influenzae (17, 21.3%). Of H.influenzae isolates 8 (47.1%) produced beta-lactamase. The sensitivity of PCR was high ( >94%) for all organisms whereas the specificity was lower (50.0-77.8%) and varied by organism (Table). NPV were high ( >96%) for all otopathogens, whereas, PPV ranged from 53.3 to 68.9%. PCR detected 1.6 times more organisms than culture (149 vs. 96). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of PCR compared to culture for otopathogens. Conclusion NP PCR has a high predictive value for excluding otopathogens and warrants further exploration as a diagnostic tool to evaluate for otopathogens in children. Disclosures Andreas Bress, PhD, Quidel Laboratories- Germany (Employee) Richard Egan, PhD, Quidel Laboratories (Employee) Samuel R. Dominguez, MD, PhD, BioFire Diagnostics (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)DiaSorin Molecular (Consultant)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support) Samuel R. Dominguez, MD, PhD, BioFire (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Research Grant or Support; DiaSorin Molecular (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; Pfizer (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support

scholarly journals 868. HIV, Opioid Use Disorder, and Injection related Infections: Clinical Outcomes in 4 Academic Hospitals

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S525-S526
Author(s):  
John R Bassler ◽  
Hana Akselrod ◽  
Greer A Burkholder ◽  
Elana S Rosenthal ◽  
Christopher J Brokus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antiretroviral Therapy ◽  
Bacterial Infections ◽  
Addiction Treatment ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Hiv Treatment ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Addiction Medicine ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background Because hospitals are a safety net for persons with injection drug use (IDU), they play a valuable role towards ending the HIV epidemic. The objective of this study is to evaluate the hospital outcomes of persons with HIV (PWH) and opioid use disorder (OUD). Methods CHOICE is a retrospective review of hospitalized persons with an infectious complication of OUD and IDU at University of Maryland, George Washington University, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Grady Memorial Hospital. Participants were hospitalized between 1/2/2018-12/21/2018, had ICD9/10 diagnosis codes consistent with OUD and acute bacterial/fungal infection, and verification of OUD-associated infection. HIV was defined by chart review. We explored HIV viral load (VL), antiretroviral therapy (ART) and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) on admission, discharge, consultation, and community care. Overall CHOICE Study Enrollment Results Overall, 287 were admitted with OUD and infections over the study period; 22 had HIV of whom 3 (14%) were diagnosed during the admission. Of the HIV negative, 1 was discharged on PrEP. Of PWH, most were Black (55%), male (68%), and Medicaid recipients (77%); median age was 48. Median length of stay was 10 days. Common bacterial infections were skin/soft tissue (55%), Bacteremia (41%), and Osteomyelitis (18%). On admission, few were on antiretroviral therapy (ART; 32%) or MOUD (23%). Of the 13 with a VL during admission, 100% had viremia (median VL 6,226 copies/mL). During the admission, 81% were evaluated by Infectious Diseases consultant and 50% by Addiction Medicine. At discharge, 11 and 6 had documentation of an ART plan and MOUD receipt, respectively. In the year following the admission, of 21 with follow up data, a majority were evaluated in the emergency department (68%) and readmitted (57%). HIV Outcomes for Hospitalized Persons with Injection Related Bacterial Infections Conclusion For patients with IDU, hospitalization is a missed opportunity to address HIV treatment and prevention through PrEP, VL surveillance, and ART linkage. Because addiction treatment improves HIV outcomes, Addiction consultation should be standard of care but was under-utilized. Subsequent ED visits and readmissions suggest that hospitals provide continuity of care for patients with IDU who would benefit from HIV, HCV, and other services in acute settings. Disclosures Greer A. Burkholder, MD, MSPH, Eli Lilly (Grant/Research Support) Elana S. Rosenthal, MD, Gilead Sciences (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support) Ellen Eaton, MD , Gilead (Grant/Research Support) Ellen Eaton, MD , Gilead (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Research Grant or Support

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Gastroenterologist's Perspective

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 89-99
Author(s):  
Michael F. Vaezi
Keyword(s):  
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux ◽  
Reflux Disease ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Diagnostic Tools ◽  
Swallowing Function ◽  
Atypical Symptoms

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a commonly diagnosed condition often associated with the typical symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation, although it may present with atypical symptoms such as chest pain, hoarseness, chronic cough, and asthma. In most cases, the patient's reduced quality of life drives clinical care and diagnostic testing. Because of its widespread impact on voice and swallowing function as well as its social implications, it is important that speech-language pathologists (SLPs) understand the nature of GERD and its consequences. The purpose of this article is to summarize the nature of GERD and GERD-related complications such as GERD-related peptic stricture, Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinoma, and laryngeal manifestations of GERD from a gastroenterologist's perspective. It is critical that SLPs who work with a multidisciplinary team understand terminology, diagnostic tools, and treatment to ensure best practice.

scholarly journals 57. Evaluating the Utility of a Penicillin Allergy Reconciliation Program within an Infectious Diseases Consult Population in a Community Health System

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S49-S50
Author(s):  
Bruce M Jones ◽  
Emily Plauche ◽  
Susan E Smith ◽  
Christopher M Bland
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Health System ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Intervention Program ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Panel Member ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background Penicillin allergy reconciliation is an important aspect of antimicrobial stewardship with ~10% of the population reporting a penicillin allergy. Our facility utilizes a Penicillin Allergy Reconciliation Program (PARP) led by an Infectious Diseases (ID) Pharmacist and pharmacy students to identify patients with penicillin allergies to reconcile and intervene when necessary. Information is collected by interview, electronic medical record (EMR) review, prescription outpatient fill history. This study evaluated reconciliations with and without a PARP in patients in a community health system. Methods This was a retrospective study that compared reconciliations performed on adult patients admitted at least once in 2019 with a self-reported penicillin allergy and ID physician consult at a hospital with a PARP (Institution 1) and one without a formal evaluation and intervention program (Institution 2) within the same community health system with same ID physicians. The primary outcome was documented reconciliation of a patient’s penicillin allergy during an inpatient visit in 2019. Reconciliation was defined as an edit or clarification (updating the severity, reaction, or comments section, as well as deleting) to a patient’s penicillin allergy in the EMR. The secondary outcome evaluated the percentage of total and ID consult patients with a penicillin allergy. Results There were 245 patients who met criteria and were included in the study, 113 from Institution 1 and 132 from Institution 2. For the primary outcome, there were 82 (72.6%) reconciliations at Institution 1 and 15 (11.4%) reconciliations at Institution 2 (p < 0.001). Interventions at Institution 1 and 2 resulted in 74 EMR updates and 8 removals and 14 EMR updates and 1 removal, respectively. Reconciliation was performed on the same visit as the ID consult in 59/82 patients (72%) at Institution 1 and 11/15 patients (73.3%) at Institution 2. All reconciliations at Institution 2 were made by pharmacist (10) or nurses (5). For the secondary outcome, 10.9% of patients with an ID consult and 12.6% of all patients admitted in 2019 had a penicillin allergy (p=0.027). Conclusion A PARP led by an ID pharmacist and students was an effective method to perform penicillin allergy reconciliations, even in the presence of active ID consultation. Disclosures Bruce M. Jones, PharmD, BCPS, ALK-Abello (Research Grant or Support)Allergan/Abbvie (Speaker’s Bureau) Christopher M. Bland, PharMD, FCCP, FIDSA, BCPS, ALK Abello, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Biomerieux (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)Tetraphase (Speaker’s Bureau)

scholarly journals AB1346-HPR REAL-WORLD EFFECTIVENESS AND PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF SYMPTOM CHECKERS IN RHEUMATOLOGY: INTERIM REPORT FROM THE PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER BETTER STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1961.1-1961
Author(s):  
J. Knitza ◽  
J. Mohn ◽  
C. Bergmann ◽  
E. Kampylafka ◽  
M. Hagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Real World ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Correct Diagnosis ◽  
Perceived Usefulness ◽  
Symptom Duration ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Link Type ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Research Grant

Background:Symptom checkers (SC) promise to reduce diagnostic delay, misdiagnosis and effectively guide patients through healthcare systems. They are increasingly used, however little evidence exists about their real-life effectiveness.Objectives:The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, usage time, usability and perceived usefulness of two promising SC, ADA (www.ada.com) and Rheport (www.rheport.de). Furthermore, symptom duration and previous symptom checking was recorded.Methods:Cross-sectional interim clinical data from the first of three recruiting centers from the prospective, real-world, multicenter bETTeR-study (DKRS DRKS00017642) was used. Patients newly presenting to a secondary rheumatology outpatient clinic between September and December 2019 completed the ADA and Rheport SC. The time and answers were recorded and compared to the patient’s actual diagnosis. ADA provides up to 5 disease suggestions, Rheport calculates a risk score for rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) (≥1=RMD). For both SC the sensitivity, specificity was calculated regarding RMDs. Furthermore, patients completed a survey evaluating the SC usability using the system usability scale (SUS), perceived usefulness, previous symptom checking and symptom duration.Results:Of the 129 consecutive patients approached, 97 agreed to participate. 38% (37/97) of the presenting patients presented with an RMD (Figure 1). Mean symptom duration was 146 weeks and a mean number of 10 physician contacts occurred previously, to evaluate current symptoms. 56% (54/96) had previously checked their symptoms on the internet using search engines, spending a mean of 6 hours. Rheport showed a sensitivity of 49% (18/37) and specificity of 58% (35/60) concerning RMDs. ADA’s top 1 and top 5 disease suggestions concerning RMD showed a sensitivity of 43% (16/37) and 54% (20/37) and a specificity of 58% (35/60) and 52% (31/60), respectively. ADA listed the correct diagnosis of the patients with RMDs first or within the first 5 disease suggestions in 19% (7/37) and 30% (11/37), respectively. The average perceived usefulness for checking symptoms using ADA, internet search engines and Rheport was 3.0, 3.5 and 3.1 on a visual analog scale from 1-5 (5=very useful). 61% (59/96) and 64% (61/96) would recommend using ADA and Rheport, respectively. The mean SUS score of ADA and Rheport was 72/100 and 73/100. The mean usage time for ADA and Rheport was 8 and 9 minutes, respectively.Conclusion:This is the first prospective, real-world, multicenter study evaluating the diagnostic accuracy and other features of two currently used SC in rheumatology. These interim results suggest that diagnostic accuracy is limited, however SC are well accepted among patients and in some cases, correct diagnosis can be provided out of the pocket within few minutes, saving valuable time.Figure:Acknowledgments:This study was supported by an unrestricted research grant from Novartis.Disclosure of Interests:Johannes Knitza Grant/research support from: Research Grant: Novartis, Jacob Mohn: None declared, Christina Bergmann: None declared, Eleni Kampylafka Speakers bureau: Novartis, BMS, Janssen, Melanie Hagen: None declared, Daniela Bohr: None declared, Elizabeth Araujo Speakers bureau: Novartis, Lilly, Abbott, Matthias Englbrecht Grant/research support from: Roche Pharma, Chugai Pharma Europe, Consultant of: AbbVie, Roche Pharma, RheumaDatenRhePort GbR, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Chugai Pharma Europe, Lilly, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, UCB, David Simon Grant/research support from: Else Kröner-Memorial Scholarship, Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis, Lilly, Arnd Kleyer Consultant of: Lilly, Gilead, Novartis,Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Lilly, Timo Meinderink: None declared, Wolfgang Vorbrüggen: None declared, Cay-Benedict von der Decken: None declared, Stefan Kleinert Shareholder of: Morphosys, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Novartis, Celgene, Roche, Chugai, Janssen, Andreas Ramming Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Gilead, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Janssen, Jörg Distler Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Paid instructor for: Boehringer Ingelheim, Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Peter Bartz-Bazzanella: None declared, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Axel Hueber Grant/research support from: Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Speakers bureau: GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Martin Welcker Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, UCB, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Roche, Celgene, Sanofi, Consultant of: Abbvie, Actelion, Aescu, Amgen, Celgene, Hexal, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Aescu, Amgen, Biogen, Berlin Chemie, Celgene, GSK, Hexal, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document