Search

Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common cause for hospitalization and antibiotic overuse. We aimed to improve antibiotic duration for CAP across 41 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS). Methods This prospective collaborative quality initiative included patients hospitalized with uncomplicated CAP who qualified for a 5-day antibiotic duration. Between 23 February 2017 and 5 February 2020, HMS targeted appropriate 5-day antibiotic treatment through benchmarking, sharing best practices, and pay-for-performance incentives. Changes in outcomes, including appropriate receipt of 5 ± 1–day antibiotic treatment and 30-day postdischarge composite adverse events (ie, deaths, readmissions, urgent visits, and antibiotic-associated adverse events), were assessed over time (per 3-month quarter), using logistic regression and controlling for hospital clustering. Results A total of 41 hospitals and 6553 patients were included. The percentage of patients treated with an appropriate 5 ± 1–day duration increased from 22.1% (predicted probability, 20.9% [95% confidence interval: 17.2%–25.0%]) to 45.9% (predicted probability, 43.9% [36.8%–51.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per quarter, 1.10 [1.07–1.14]). Thirty-day composite adverse events occurred in 18.5% of patients (1166 of 6319) and decreased over time (aOR per quarter, 0.98 [95% confidence interval: .96–.99]) owing to a decrease in antibiotic-associated adverse events (aOR per quarter, 0.91 [.87–.95]). Conclusions Across diverse hospitals, HMS participation was associated with more appropriate use of short-course therapy and fewer adverse events in hospitalized patients with uncomplicated CAP. Establishment of national or regional collaborative quality initiatives with data collection and benchmarking, sharing of best practices, and pay-for-performance incentives may improve antibiotic use and outcomes for patients hospitalized with uncomplicated CAP.

Of 100 patients discharged from short-stay units (SSUs) with antibiotics, 47 had a skin and soft-tissue infection, 22 had pneumonia, and 21 had a urinary tract infection. Among all discharge antibiotic prescriptions, 78% involved antibiotic overuse, most commonly excess duration (54 of 100) and guideline discordant selection (44 of 100).

Background A recent randomized trial, the MICHELLE trial, demonstrated improved posthospital outcomes with a 35‐day course of prophylactic rivaroxaban for patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 at high risk of venous thromboembolism. We explored how often these findings may apply to an unselected clinical population of patients hospitalized with COVID‐19. Methods and Results Using a 35‐hospital retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and January 23, 2021, with COVID‐19 (MI‐COVID19 database), we quantified the percentage of hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 who would be eligible for rivaroxaban at discharge per MICHELLE trial criteria and report clinical event rates. The main clinical outcome was derived from the MICHELLE trial and included a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolus‐related death, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and cardiovascular death at 35 days. Multiple sensitivity analyses tested different eligibility and exclusion criteria definitions to determine the effect on eligibility for postdischarge anticoagulation prophylaxis. Of 2016 patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 who survived to discharge and did not have another indication for anticoagulation, 25.9% (n=523) would be eligible for postdischarge thromboprophylaxis per the MICHELLE trial criteria (range, 2.9%–39.4% on sensitivity analysis). Of the 416 who had discharge anticoagulant data collected, only 13.2% (55/416) were actually prescribed a new anticoagulant at discharge. Of patients eligible for rivaroxaban per the MICHELLE trial, the composite clinical outcome occurred in 1.2% (6/519); similar outcome rates were 5.7% and 0.63% in the MICHELLE trial's control (no anticoagulation) and intervention (rivaroxaban) groups, respectively. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism events and all‐cause mortality were 6.2% (32/519) and 5.66% in the MI‐COVID19 and MICHELLE trial control cohorts, respectively. Conclusions Across 35 hospitals in Michigan, ≈1 in 4 patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 would qualify for posthospital thromboprophylaxis. With only 13% of patients actually receiving postdischarge prophylaxis, there is a potential opportunity for improvement in care.

Background:We sought to determine the incidence of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to evaluate associated predictors and outcomes.Methods:In this multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to August 2020 across 38 Michigan hospitals, we assessed prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfections. In-hospital and 60-day mortality, readmission, discharge to long-term care facility (LTCF), and mechanical ventilation duration were assessed for patients with versus without coinfection.Results:Of 2,205 patients with COVID-19, 141 (6.4%) had a coinfection: 3.0% community onset and 3.4% hospital acquired. Of patients without coinfection, 64.9% received antibiotics. Community-onset coinfection predictors included admission from an LTCF (OR, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.34–6.76; P < .001) and admission to intensive care (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 2.87–6.55; P < .001). Hospital-acquired coinfection predictors included fever (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.15–5.27; P = .02) and advanced respiratory support (OR, 40.72; 95% CI, 13.49–122.93; P < .001). Patients with (vs without) community-onset coinfection had longer mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.67–6.56; P = .001) and higher in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06–3.40; P = .03) and 60-day mortality (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05–3.29; P = .03). Patients with (vs without) hospital-acquired coinfection had higher discharge to LTCF (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 3.30–21.76; P < .001), in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.37–7.33; P ≤ .001), and 60-day mortality (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.11–6.33; P ≤ .001).Conclusion:Despite community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection being uncommon, most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 received antibiotics. Admission from LTCF and to ICU were associated with increased risk of community-onset coinfection. Future studies should prospectively validate predictors of COVID-19 coinfection to facilitate the reduction of antibiotic use.

BackgroundThe Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) provides evidence-based criteria for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use. Whether implementing MAGIC improves PICC appropriateness and reduces complications is unknown.MethodsA quasiexperimental study design to implement MAGIC in 52 Michigan hospitals was used. Data were collected from medical records by trained abstractors. Hospital performance on three appropriateness criteria was measured: short-term PICC use (≤5 days), use of multilumen PICCs and PICC placement in patients with chronic kidney disease. PICC appropriateness and device complications preintervention (January 2013 to December 2016) versus postintervention (January 2017 to January 2020) were compared. Change-point analysis was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention on device appropriateness. Logistic regression and Poisson models were fit to assess the association between appropriateness and complications (composite of catheter occlusion, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI)).ResultsAmong 38 592 PICCs, median catheter dwell ranged from 8 to 56 days. During the preintervention period, the mean frequency of appropriate PICC use was 31.9% and the mean frequency of complications was 14.7%. Following the intervention, PICC appropriateness increased to 49.0% (absolute difference 17.1%, pConclusionsImplementation of MAGIC in Michigan hospitals was associated with improved PICC appropriateness and fewer complications. These findings have important quality, safety and policy implications for hospitals, patients and payors.

Opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing after COVID-19 hospitalization is not well understood. We aimed to characterize opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing among naïve patients hospitalized for COVID and to identify the risk factors associated with a new prescription at discharge. In this retrospective study of patients across 39 Michigan hospitals from March to November 2020, we identified 857 opioid- and benzodiazepine-naïve patients admitted with COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation. Of these, 22% received opioids, 13% received benzodiazepines, and 6% received both during the hospitalization. At discharge, 8% received an opioid prescription, and 3% received a benzodiazepine prescription. After multivariable adjustment, receipt of an opioid or benzodiazepine prescription at discharge was associated with the length of inpatient opioid or benzodiazepine exposure. These findings suggest that hospitalization represents a risk of opioid or benzodiazepine initiation among naïve patients, and judicious prescribing should be considered to prevent opioid-related harms.

Background Antibiotics are commonly prescribed to patients as they leave the hospital. We aimed to create a comprehensive metric to characterize antibiotic overuse after discharge among hospitalized patients treated for pneumonia or urinary tract infection (UTI), and to determine whether overuse varied across hospitals and conditions. Methods In a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients treated for pneumonia or UTI in 46 hospitals between 1 July 2017–30 July 2019, we quantified the proportion of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse, defined as unnecessary antibiotic use, excess antibiotic duration, or suboptimal fluoroquinolone use. Using linear regression, we assessed hospital-level associations between antibiotic overuse after discharge in patients treated for pneumonia versus a UTI. Results Of 21 825 patients treated for infection (12 445 with pneumonia; 9380 with a UTI), nearly half (49.1%) had antibiotic overuse after discharge (56.9% with pneumonia; 38.7% with a UTI). For pneumonia, 63.1% of overuse days after discharge were due to excess duration; for UTIs, 43.9% were due to treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria. The percentage of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse varied 5-fold among hospitals (from 15.9% [95% confidence interval, 8.7%–24.6%] to 80.6% [95% confidence interval, 69.4%–88.1%]) and was strongly correlated between conditions (regression coefficient = 0.85; P < .001). Conclusions Antibiotic overuse after discharge was common and varied widely between hospitals. Antibiotic overuse after discharge was associated between conditions, suggesting that the prescribing culture, physician behavior, or organizational processes contribute to overprescribing at discharge. Multifaceted efforts focusing on all 3 types of overuse and multiple conditions should be considered to improve antibiotic prescribing at discharge., Of 21 825 hospitalized patients with pneumonia or urinary tract infection in 46 hospitals, half (49.1%) had antibiotic overuse after discharge. Overuse varied 5-fold among hospitals (15.9%–80.6%) and was correlated between conditions. To improve prescribing, stewardship should include care transitions.

The treatment landscape for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) continues to evolve. Sipuleucel-T was the first immunotherapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC. The androgen receptor-targeting agents (ARTAs) abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide were initially approved to treat mCRPC. Looking at chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC, we compared survival outcomes between the sipuleucel-T + ARTA cohort (men who received either sipuleucel-T or an ARTA in the first line, and then the other in the second line within 6 months) and the ARTA monotherapy cohort (men who only received ARTA monotherapy).This retrospective cohort analysis used longitudinal, adjudicated claims data from the US Medicare Fee-for-Service 100% research identifiable dataset that includes both urologic and oncologic practice settings. Eligible men started their first mCRPC treatment with either sipuleucel-T or ARTA in either 2014 or 2015 and had continuous Medicare Parts A, B, and D eligibility for the subsequent 3 years. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to analyze overall survival (OS), both overall and by index year, and to control for differences.The sipuleucel-T + ARTA and ARTA monotherapy cohorts comprised 773 and 4642 men, respectively, with different characteristics at treatment start. The most commonly used ARTAs were enzalutamide in the former and abiraterone in the latter cohort. Median OS was 30.4 and 14.3 months in the sipuleucel-T + ARTA and ARTA monotherapy cohorts, respectively, with the sipuleucel-T + ARTA cohort having a 28.3% lower risk of death than the ARTA monotherapy cohort (hazard ratio 0.717; 95% CI 0.648, 0.793; p 0.01).This real-world study of mCRPC treatment indicates that men receiving sipuleucel-T and ARTAs had a longer median OS than patients receiving treatment with an ARTA alone, suggesting that leveraging mechanisms of action can be beneficial in treating patients with mCRPC.The treatment landscape for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) continues to evolve. There are multiple treatments for mCRPC, including sipuleucel-T, the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved immunotherapy, and the androgen receptor-targeting agents (ARTAs) abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide. Although sipuleucel-T uses a unique mechanism of action that may be useful in developing a treatment strategy for mCRPC, an optimal treatment algorithm for prostate cancer remains undefined. Therefore, survival was compared in men with mCRPC who received sipuleucel-T and an ARTA in the first 6 months of treatment with those who received only ARTA monotherapy. A retrospective longitudinal study was conducted using the US Medicare Fee-for-Service 100% research identifiable dataset linked to the National Death Index. Eligible men started their first mCRPC treatment with either sipuleucel-T or ARTA in either 2014 or 2015 and had continuous Medicare eligibility for the subsequent 3 years. Men who received treatment with both sipuleucel-T and an ARTA had a longer median survival (30.4 months) than men who received an ARTA without sipuleucel-T (14.3 months). This represents a 28% reduced risk of death with sipuleucel-T. This real-world study of mCRPC treatment indicates that men receiving sipuleucel T and an ARTA survive longer than men who only receive an ARTA, suggesting that changing the mechanism of action can be beneficial in treating patients with mCRPC.

Background Strategies to optimize antibiotic prescribing at discharge are not well understood. Methods In fall 2019, we surveyed 39 Michigan hospitals on their antibiotic stewardship strategies. The association of reported strategies with discharge antibiotic overuse (unnecessary, excess, suboptimal fluoroquinolones) for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and urinary tract infection (UTI) was evaluated in 2 ways: (1) all strategies assumed equal weight and (2) strategies were weighted based on the ROAD (Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge) Home Framework (ie, Tier 1—Critical infrastructure, Tier 2—Broad inpatient interventions, Tier 3—Discharge-specific strategies) with Tier 3 strategies receiving the highest weight. Results Between 1 July 2017 and 30 July 2019, 39 hospitals with 20 444 patients (56.5% CAP; 43.5% UTI) were included. Survey response was 100%. Hospitals reported a median (interquartile range [IQR]) 12 (9–14) of 34 possible stewardship strategies. On analyses of individual stewardship strategies, the Tier 3 intervention, review of antibiotics prior to discharge, was the only strategy consistently associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 0.543, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .335–.878). On multivariable analysis, weighting by ROAD Home tier predicted antibiotic overuse at discharge for both CAP and UTI. For diseases combined, having more weighted strategies was associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (aIRR 0.957, 95% CI: .927–.987, per weighted intervention); discharge-specific stewardship strategies were associated with a 12.4% relative decrease in antibiotic overuse days at discharge. Conclusions The more stewardship strategies a hospital reported, the lower its antibiotic overuse at discharge. However, Tier 3, or discharge-specific strategies, appeared to have the largest effect on antibiotic prescribing at discharge.

Although characteristics and in-hospital outcomes for persons with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been well described, less is known about the longer-term outcomes of hospitalized patients Although characteristics and in-hospital outcomes for persons with COVID-19 have been well described, less is known about the longer-term outcomes of hospitalized patients Here, a study that aims to describe the 6-day postdischarge clinical, financial, and mental health outcomes of patients with COVID-19 using an observational cohort study is offered

OBJECTIVES High-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) testing was approved in the United States to better facilitate diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Although hsTnT has been widely studied internationally, the impact of hsTnT on discharge diagnoses and health care utilization within the United States is less known. We sought to evaluate the effects of implementing hsTnT on diagnosis patterns and stress testing utilization. STUDY DESIGN We performed a retrospective cohort analysis consisting of patients with suspected ACS undergoing either conventional troponin I (n = 14,631) or hsTnT (n = 7237) testing between January 2016 and February 2019. METHODS Log-binomial regression with interrupted time series modeled diagnosis patterns, and logistic regression with segmented time trends modeled stress testing rates. Observed trends were compared with expected trends using average marginal effect (AME). RESULTS Rates of acute myocardial infarction-related diagnoses were similar in the post-hsTnT period (AME, -0.6%; P = .065). Post hsTnT introduction, patients were more likely to receive a diagnosis of heart failure (2.1%; P

ObjectiveTo describe patient characteristics, symptoms, patterns of care and outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Michigan.DesignMulticentre retrospective cohort study.Setting32 acute care hospitals in the state of Michigan.ParticipantsPatients discharged (16 March–11 May 2020) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were identified. Trained abstractors collected demographic information on all patients and detailed clinical data on a subset of COVID-19-positive patients.Primary outcome measurementsPatient characteristics, treatment and outcomes including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mortality and venous thromboembolism within and across hospitals.ResultsDemographic-only data from 1593 COVID-19-positive and 1259 persons under investigation discharges were collected. Among 1024 cases with detailed data, the median age was 63 years; median body mass index was 30.6; and 51.4% were black. Cough, fever and shortness of breath were the top symptoms. 37.2% reported a known COVID-19 contact; 7.0% were healthcare workers; and 16.1% presented from congregated living facilities.During hospitalisation, 232 (22.7%) patients were treated in an intensive care unit (ICU); 558 (54.9%) in a ‘cohorted’ unit; 161 (15.7%) received mechanical ventilation; and 90 (8.8%) received high-flow nasal cannula. ICU patients more often received hydroxychloroquine (66% vs 46%), corticosteroids (34% vs 18%) and antibiotic therapy (92% vs 71%) than general ward patients (pAcross 14 hospitals, the proportion of patients admitted directly to an ICU ranged from 0% to 43.8%; mechanical ventilation on admission from 0% to 12.8%; mortality from 7.9% to 45.7%. Use of at least one COVID-19-specific therapy varied from 32% to 96.3% across sites.ConclusionsDuring the early days of the Michigan outbreak of COVID-19, patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes varied widely within and across hospitals.

Sipuleucel-T has demonstrated survival benefit in phase 3 trials but is utilized in few men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in part due to low rates of PSA and objective response. Given the requirement to develop immune-mediated antitumor activity as vaccine-based therapy, sipuleucel-T may have delayed clinical activity. We explored this in a cohort of men from PROCEED (NCT01306890), an FDA-requested outcomes registry, and in a separate institutional cohort of mCRPC patients treated with sipuleucel-T at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI).Men with mCRPC who received 3 infusions of sipuleucel-T and did not initiate a new mCRPC directed therapy for ≥6 months after completion of sipuleucel-T were included. All patients had rising PSA before starting sipuleucel-T and available post-treatment PSA measurements. Clinical outcomes of interest included: PSAOf 1902 men with mCRPC treated in PROCEED and 255 patients treated consecutively with sipuleucel-T between 4/2010 and 4/2017 at DFCI, 171 and 28 patients were included, respectively. In the PROCEED sample, PSAIn this analysis of mCRPC patients treated with sipuleucel-T who did not immediately initiate subsequent therapy using two datasets, delayed PSA response was observed in a subset of patients indicating delayed clinical activity.

Key Points Question What is the frequency with which patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are treated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylactic- and treatment-dose anticoagulation, and what is the association of anticoagulation with in-hospital and 60-day mortality? Findings In this cohort study of 1351 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in which 1127 patients received anticoagulation, 34.8% missed 2 or more days of VTE prophylaxis. Use of only prophylactic-dose or treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality vs no anticoagulation; however, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. Meaning These findings suggest that prophylactic-dose VTE anticoagulation may be optimal therapy for patients hospitalized with COVID-19., This cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 examines the association of anticoagulation treatment with mortality rates, and assesses differences between prophylactic- and treatment-doses in in-hospital and 60-day mortality., Importance Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of COVID-19. It is not well understood how hospitals have managed VTE prevention and the effect of prevention strategies on mortality. Objective To characterize frequency, variation across hospitals, and change over time in VTE prophylaxis and treatment-dose anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, as well as the association of anticoagulation strategies with in-hospital and 60-day mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 used a pseudorandom sample from 30 US hospitals in the state of Michigan participating in a collaborative quality initiative. Data analyzed were from patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and June 17, 2020. Data were analyzed through March 2021. Exposures Nonadherence to VTE prophylaxis (defined as missing ≥2 days of VTE prophylaxis) and receipt of treatment-dose or prophylactic-dose anticoagulants vs no anticoagulation during hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures The effect of nonadherence and anticoagulation strategies on in-hospital and 60-day mortality was assessed using multinomial logit models with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results Of a total 1351 patients with COVID-19 included (median [IQR] age, 64 [52-75] years; 47.7% women, 48.9% Black patients), only 18 (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE, and 219 (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation. Use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.31-1.61 per week). Of 1127 patients who ever received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 or more days of prophylaxis. Missed prophylaxis varied from 11% to 61% across hospitals and decreased markedly over time (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.97 per week). VTE nonadherence was associated with higher 60-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03-1.67) but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03). Receiving any dose of anticoagulation (vs no anticoagulation) was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (only prophylactic dose: aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.52; any treatment dose: aHR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.58). However, only the prophylactic dose of anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days (prophylactic dose: aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90; treatment dose: aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63-1.35). Conclusions and Relevance This large, multicenter cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, found evidence of rapid dissemination and implementation of anticoagulation strategies, including use of treatment-dose anticoagulation. As only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with lower 60-day mortality, prophylactic dosing strategies may be optimal for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Background: This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the management of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations. Results: The panel addressed 16 specific areas for recommendations spanning questions of diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Although some recommendations remain unchanged from the 2007 guideline, the availability of results from new therapeutic trials and epidemiological investigations led to revised recommendations for empiric treatment strategies and additional management decisions. Conclusions: The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on selected diagnostic and treatment strategies for adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

BackgroundWhile midline vascular catheters are gaining popularity in clinical practice, patterns of use and outcomes related to these devices are not well known.MethodsTrained abstractors collected data from medical records of hospitalised patients who received midline catheters in 12 hospitals. Device characteristics, patterns of use and outcomes were assessed at device removal or at 30 days. Rates of major (upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis [DVT], bloodstream infection [BSI] and catheter occlusion) and minor complications were assessed. χ2 tests were used to examine differences in rates of complication by number of lumens, reasons for catheter removal l, and hospital-level differences in rates of midline use.ResultsComplete data on 1161 midlines representing 5%–72% of all midlines placed in participating hospitals between 1 January 2017 and 1 March 2018 were available. Most (70.8%) midlines were placed in general ward settings for difficult intravenous access (61.4%). The median dwell time of midlines across hospitals was 6 days; almost half (49%) were removed within 5 days of insertion. A major or minor complication occurred in 10.3% of midlines, with minor complications such as dislodgement, leaking and infiltration accounting for 71% of all adverse events. While rates of major complications including occlusion, upper-extremity DVT and BSI were low (2.2%, 1.4% and 0.3%, respectively), they were just as likely to lead to midline removal as minor complications (53.8% vs 52.5%, p=0.90). Across hospitals, absolute volume of midlines placed varied from 100 to 1837 devices, with corresponding utilisation rates of 0.97%–12.92% (pConclusionMidline use and outcomes vary widely across hospitals. Although rates of major complications are low, device removal as a result of adverse events is common.

To quantify variation in use and complications from peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the general ward.Retrospective cohort study.Fifty-two hospital Michigan quality collaborative.Twenty-seven-thousand two-hundred eighty-nine patients with peripherally inserted central catheters placed during hospitalization.Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient, provider, and device characteristics. Bivariate tests were used to assess differences between peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the ward. Multilevel mixed-effects generalized linear models adjusting for patient and device factors with a logit link clustered by hospital were used to examine the association between peripherally inserted central catheter complications and location of peripherally inserted central catheter placement. Variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use, rates of complications, and appropriateness of use across hospitals was also examined. Eight-thousand two-hundred eighty patients (30.3%) received peripherally inserted central catheters in the ICU versus 19,009 (69.7%) on the general ward. The commonest indication for peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU was difficult IV access (35.1%) versus antibiotic therapy (53.3%) on wards. Compared with peripherally inserted central catheters placed in wards, peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU were more often multilumen (59.5% vs 39.3; p0.001) and more often associated with a complication (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18-1.43; p0.001). Substantial variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use and outcomes across hospitals was observed, with median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell time ranging from 3 to 38.5 days (p0.001) and complications from 0% to 40.2% (p0.001). Importantly, 87% (n = 45) of ICUs reported median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell times less than or equal to 14 days, a duration where traditional central venous catheters, not peripherally inserted central catheters, are considered appropriate by published criteria.Peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU is highly variable, associated with complications and often not appropriate. Further study of vascular access decision-making in the ICU appears necessary.

Key Points Question Is approval by an infectious disease physician prior to placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for intravenous antimicrobials associated with appropriate device use or complications? Findings In this cohort study of 21 653 PICCs placed for intravenous antimicrobials in 42 hospitals, 47% of PICCs were placed with approval of an infectious disease physician. Compared with nonapproved PICCs, approved PICCs were more likely to be appropriately placed, and the patients less likely to experience complications. Meaning This cohort study suggests that infectious disease physician approval of PICCs prior to placement for intravenous antimicrobial therapy is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications., Importance Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous antimicrobial therapy. However, inappropriate PICC use may lead to patient harm. Objective To evaluate whether infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for intravenous antimicrobials is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study of 21 653 PICCs placed for a primary indication of intravenous antimicrobial therapy between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, was conducted in 42 hospitals participating in a quality collaborative across Michigan among hospitalized medical patients. Main Outcomes and Measures Appropriateness of PICCs was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters as a composite measure of (1) single-lumen catheter use, (2) avoiding use of PICCs for 5 days or less, and (3) avoiding use of PICCs for patients with chronic kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate, This cohort study evaluates whether infectious disease physician approval prior to placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for intravenous antimicrobials is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications.

Introduction Since sipuleucel-T approval in 2010, the treatment landscape for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) now includes the androgen-receptor signaling pathway inhibitors (ASPIs) abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. In 2013 and 2014, these oral agents were approved for use in men with metastatic prostate cancer who had minimal to no symptoms. We compared overall survival (OS) in men who received their first mCRPC treatment using the Medicare Fee-for-Service 100% administrative claims research dataset with patient-level linkage to the National Death Index. Methods This retrospective cohort analysis (January 2013 to December 2017) included men who were chemo-naïve at treatment start in 2014 and who had continuous Medicare Parts A, B, and D eligibility during the 3-year observation period. We compared: first-line sipuleucel-T vs. first-line ASPIs and any-line sipuleucel-T vs. any-line ASPIs (without sipuleucel-T). We used a multivariable regression model to help control for potentially confounding factors while assessing survival outcomes. Results The model included 6044 eligible men (average age 75–78 years) with similar disease severity; > 80% were white. Median OS, presented as sipuleucel-T vs. ASPI, was 35.2 vs. 20.7 months (n, 906 vs. 5092; any-line cohort) and 34.9 vs. 21.0 months (n, 647 vs. 4810; first-line cohort). Model outcomes indicated sipuleucel-T was associated with significantly prolonged OS compared with ASPIs: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59 (95% CI 0.527–0.651) and 0.56 (0.494–0.627) for the any-line and first-line cohorts, respectively. Conclusion This analysis suggests use of sipuleucel-T at any time was associated with improved OS compared with ASPI use alone. Of note, these analyses are intended as descriptive rather than definitive as this dataset contains limited data on key clinical factors. While selection bias is a risk in secondary claims data, this research provides important insight into real-world treatment outcomes. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01509-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective A newly approved, high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) assay may offer opportunities to more rapidly assess for acute coronary syndrome and identify lower thresholds of myocardial injury. As more emergency departments begin to utilize the hsTnT assay, anticipating barriers to hsTnT implementation success are critical to realizing potential benefits in rapid, accurate patient assessment. Methods At a tertiary health system emergency department, hsTnT was implemented along with a diagnostic algorithm and decision tree to aid in utilization. Qualitative interviews with 18 physicians and advance practice providers were conducted two months post-implementation and again four-to-six months post-implementation to capture clinician perceptions to hsTnT implementation efforts. Deductive coding was performed using implementation science determinants frameworks to identify emerging themes related to this topic. Results Four themes emerged from the interviews: (1) the need for additional clinician education, (2) challenges with care handoffs, (3) lack of buy-in from the hospital community, and (4) key successes. Conclusion Interviews demonstrated that implementation of hsTnT was associated with several implementation barriers from the perspective of emergency department clinicians. Future implementation efforts should focus on diverse and sustained staff educational efforts, models that address challenges with care hand offs between emergency department clinicians and inpatient clinicians, and operational teams that include inpatient clinicians to facilitate buy-in.

Introduction Enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate (plus prednisone) are new hormonal treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study compared treatment duration, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and treatment costs for chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate in the USA. Methods Chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients initiating treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate were identified from administrative claims. Continuous enrollment ≥ 6 months before and ≥ 3 months after the index date (initiation date of enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate) was required. Treatment duration, all-cause and prostate cancer-related HRU, and costs were estimated during the post-index period. Multivariable analyses compared HRU and costs between cohorts, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results Overall, 920 chemotherapy-naïve patients initiated enzalutamide and 2310 initiated abiraterone acetate (median follow-up, 10.7 and 13.5 months, respectively). More enzalutamide-treated patients had corticosteroid-sensitive comorbidities at baseline. Treatment duration was longer with enzalutamide versus abiraterone acetate (median, 10.7 vs. 8.8 months; P = 0.008). Enzalutamide was associated with fewer all-cause inpatient admissions [adjusted incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.87 (0.76, 0.99)], days of hospitalization [0.84 (0.70, 1.02)], and outpatient visits [0.94 (0.90, 0.98)], and fewer prostate cancer-related outpatient visits [0.92 (0.87, 0.96)] compared with abiraterone acetate. Enzalutamide was also associated with lower prostate cancer-related inpatient and emergency department costs [adjusted differences, $122 (P = 0.024) and $28 (P = 0.009), respectively]. Conclusion Chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients treated with enzalutamide versus abiraterone acetate had longer treatment duration and incurred lower HRU and prostate cancer-related inpatient and emergency department costs. Funding Astellas Pharma Inc. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0774-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) can be prevented through infection prevention practices and antibiotic stewardship. Diagnostic stewardship (ie, strategies to improve use of microbiological testing) can also improve antibiotic use. However, little is known about the use of such practices in US hospitals, especially after multidisciplinary stewardship programs became a requirement for US hospital accreditation in 2017. Thus, we surveyed US hospitals to assess antibiotic stewardship program composition, practices related to CDI, and diagnostic stewardship.Surveys were mailed to infection preventionists at 900 randomly sampled US hospitals between May and October 2017. Hospitals were surveyed on antibiotic stewardship programs; CDI prevention, treatment, and testing practices; and diagnostic stewardship strategies. Responses were compared by hospital bed size using weighted logistic regression.Overall, 528 surveys were completed (59% response rate). Almost all (95%) responding hospitals had an antibiotic stewardship program. Smaller hospitals were less likely to have stewardship team members with infectious diseases (ID) training, and only 41% of hospitals met The Joint Commission accreditation standards for multidisciplinary teams. Guideline-recommended CDI prevention practices were common. Smaller hospitals were less likely to use high-tech disinfection devices, fecal microbiota transplantation, or diagnostic stewardship strategies.Following changes in accreditation standards, nearly all US hospitals now have an antibiotic stewardship program. However, many hospitals, especially smaller hospitals, appear to struggle with access to ID expertise and with deploying diagnostic stewardship strategies. CDI prevention could be enhanced through diagnostic stewardship and by emphasizing the role of non-ID-trained pharmacists and clinicians in antibiotic stewardship.

Background The guidelines for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) recommend avoiding insertion if the anticipated duration of use is =5 days. However, short-term PICC use is common in hospitals. We sought to identify patient, provider, and device characteristics and the clinical outcomes associated with short-term PICCs. Methods Between January 2014 and June 2016, trained abstractors at 52 Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety (HMS) Consortium sites collected data from medical records of adults that received PICCs during hospitalization. Patients were prospectively followed until PICC removal, death, or 70 days after insertion. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to identify factors associated with short-term PICCs, defined as dwell time of =5 days. Complications associated with short-term use, including major (eg, venous thromboembolism [VTE] or central lineassociated bloodstream infection [CLABSI]) or minor (eg, catheter occlusion, tip migration) events were assessed. Results Of the 15,397 PICCs placed, 3902 (25.3%) had a dwell time of =5 days. Most (95.5%) short-term PICCs were removed during hospitalization. Compared to PICCs placed for >5 days, variables associated with short-term PICCs included difficult venous access (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.69), multilumen devices (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.69), and teaching hospitals (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52). Among those with short-term PICCs, 374 (9.6%) experienced a complication, including 99 (2.5%) experiencing VTE and 17 (0.4%) experiencing CLABSI events. The most common minor complications were catheter occlusion (4%) and tip migration (2.2%). Conclusion Short-term use of PICCs is common and associated with patient, provider, and device factors. As PICC placement, even for brief periods, is associated with complications, efforts targeted at factors underlying such use appear necessary.

BackgroundAlthough important in clinical care, reports of inappropriate peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use are growing.ObjectiveTo test whether implementation of the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) can improve PICC use and patient outcomes.DesignQuasi-experimental, interrupted time series design at one study site with nine contemporaneous external controls.SettingTen hospitals participating in a state-wide quality collaborative from 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2016.Patients963 hospitalised patients who received a PICC at the study site vs 6613 patients at nine control sites.InterventionA multimodal intervention (tool, training, electronic changes, education) derived from MAGIC.MeasurementsAppropriateness of PICC use and rates of PICC-associated complications. Segmented Poisson regression was used for analyses.ResultsAbsolute rates of inappropriate PICC use decreased substantially at the study site versus controls (91.3% to 65.3% (−26.0%) vs 72.2% to 69.6% (−2.6%); PLimitationsNon-randomised design limits inference; the most effective component of the multimodal intervention is unknown; effects following implementation were modest.ConclusionsIn a multihospital quality improvement project, implementation of MAGIC improved PICC appropriateness and reduced complications to a modest extent. Given the size and resources required for this study, future work should consider cost-to-benefit ratio of similar approaches.

Background Although common, the impact of low-cost bedside visual tools, such as whiteboards, on patient care is unclear. Purpose To systematically review the literature and assess the influence of bedside visual tools on patient satisfaction. Data sources Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. Data extraction Studies of adult or pediatric hospitalized patients reporting physician identification, understanding of provider roles, patient-provider communication, and satisfaction with care from the use of visual tools were included. Outcomes were categorized as positive, negative, or neutral based on survey responses for identification, communication, and satisfaction. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of study bias. Data synthesis Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Visual tools included whiteboards (n = 4), physician pictures (n = 7), whiteboard and picture (n = 1), electronic medical record-based patient portals (n = 3), and formatted notepads (n = 1). Tools improved patients' identification of providers (13/13 studies). The impact on understanding the providers' roles was largely positive (8/10 studies). Visual tools improved patient-provider communication (4/5 studies) and satisfaction (6/8 studies). In adults, satisfaction varied between positive with the use of whiteboards (2/5 studies) and neutral with pictures (1/5 studies). Satisfaction related to pictures in pediatric patients was either positive (1/3 studies) or neutral (1/3 studies). Differences in tool format (individual pictures vs handouts with pictures of all providers) and study design (randomized vs cohort) may explain variable outcomes. Conclusion The use of bedside visual tools appears to improve patient recognition of providers and patient-provider communication. Future studies that include better design and outcome assessment are necessary before widespread use can be recommended.

As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to spread, easy-to-use risk models that predict hospital mortality can assist in clinical decision making and triage. We aimed to develop a risk score model for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) that was robust across hospitals and used clinical factors that are readily available and measured standardly across hospitals. In this retrospective observational study, we developed a risk score model using data collected by trained abstractors for patients in 20 diverse hospitals across the state of Michigan (Mi-COVID19) who were discharged between March 5, 2020 and August 14, 2020. Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 during hospitalization or were discharged with an ICD-10 code for COVID-19 (U07.1) were included. We employed an iterative forward selection approach to consider the inclusion of 145 potential risk factors available at hospital presentation. Model performance was externally validated with patients from 19 hospitals in the Mi-COVID19 registry not used in model development. We shared the model in an easy-to-use online application that allows the user to predict in-hospital mortality risk for a patient if they have any subset of the variables in the final model. Two thousand one hundred and ninety-three patients in the Mi-COVID19 registry met our inclusion criteria. The derivation and validation sets ultimately included 1690 and 398 patients, respectively, with mortality rates of 19.6% and 18.6%, respectively. The average age of participants in the study after exclusions was 64 years old, and the participants were 48% female, 49% Black, and 87% non-Hispanic. Our final model includes the patient's age, first recorded respiratory rate, first recorded pulse oximetry, highest creatinine level on day of presentation, and hospital's COVID-19 mortality rate. No other factors showed sufficient incremental model improvement to warrant inclusion. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the derivation and validation sets were .796 (95% confidence interval, .767–.826) and .829 (95% confidence interval, .782–.876) respectively. We conclude that the risk of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients can be reliably estimated using a few factors, which are standardly measured and available to physicians very early in a hospital encounter.

Essentials How best to quantify thrombosis risk with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) is unknown. Data from a registry were used to develop the Michigan Risk Score (MRS) for PICC thrombosis. Five risk factors were associated with PICC thrombosis and used to develop a risk score. MRS was predictive of the risk of PICC thrombosis and can be useful in clinical practice. SummaryBackground Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We developed a score to predict risk of PICC-related thrombosis. Methods Using data from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, image-confirmed upper-extremity DVT cases were identified. A logistic, mixed-effects model with hospital-specific random intercepts was used to identify factors associated with PICC-DVT. Points were assigned to each predictor, stratifying patients into four classes of risk. Internal validation was performed by bootstrapping with assessment of calibration and discrimination of the model. Results Of 23 010 patients who received PICCs, 475 (2.1%) developed symptomatic PICC-DVT. Risk factors associated with PICC-DVT included: history of DVT; multi-lumen PICC; active cancer; presence of another CVC when the PICC was placed; and white blood cell count greater than 12 000. Four risk classes were created based on thrombosis risk. Thrombosis rates were 0.9% for class I, 1.6% for class II, 2.7% for class III and 4.7% for class IV, with marginal predicted probabilities of 0.9% (0.7, 1.2), 1.5% (1.2, 1.9), 2.6% (2.2, 3.0) and 4.5% (3.7, 5.4) for classes I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The risk classification rule was strongly associated with PICC-DVT, with odds ratios of 1.68 (95% CI, 1.19, 2.37), 2.90 (95% CI, 2.09, 4.01) and 5.20 (95% CI, 3.65, 7.42) for risk classes II, III and IV vs. risk class I, respectively. Conclusion The Michigan PICC-DVT Risk Score offers a novel way to estimate risk of DVT associated with PICCs and can help inform appropriateness of PICC insertion.

Objective: To estimate the healthcare costs and characteristics of docetaxel chemotherapy episodes of care for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods: This study used the Medicare 5% sample and MarketScan Commercial (2010–2013) claims data sets to identify men with mCRPC and initial episodes of docetaxel treatment. Docetaxel episodes included docetaxel claim costs from the first claim until 30 days after the last claim, with earlier termination for death, insurance disenrollment, or the end of a 24-month look-forward period from initial docetaxel index date. Docetaxel drug claim costs were adjusted for 2011 generic docetaxel introduction, while other costs were adjusted to 2015 values using the national average annual unit cost increase. Results: This study identified 281 Medicare-insured and 155 commercially insured men, with 325 and 172 docetaxel episodes, respectively. The average number of cycles (unique docetaxel infusion days) per episode was 6.9 for Medicare and 6.3 for commercial cohorts. The average cost per episode was $28,792 for Medicare and $67,958 for commercial cohorts, with docetaxel drug costs contributing $2,588 and $13,169 per episode, respectively. The average cost per episode on docetaxel infusion days was $8,577 (30%) for Medicare and $28,412 (42%) for commercial. Non-docetaxel infusion day costs included $7,074 (25%) for infused or injected drugs for Medicare, $10,838 (16%) for commercial cohorts, and $6,875 (24%) and $9,324 (14%) for inpatient admissions, respectively. Limitations: The applicability is only to the metastatic castration-resistance clinical setting, rather than the metastatic hormone-sensitive setting, and the lack of data on the cost effectiveness of different sequencing strategies of a range of systemic therapies including enzalutamide, abiraterone, radium-223, and taxane chemotherapy. Conclusion: The majority of docetaxel episode costs in Medicare and commercial mCRPC populations were non-docetaxel drug costs. Future research should evaluate the total cost of care in mCPRC.

Aim: This study seeks to improve the understanding of treatment patterns and associated health-related quality of life (HRQoL), clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization in US patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Patients & methods: Treatment Registry for Outcomes in CRPC Patients (TRUMPET) is a US-based, prospective, observational multicenter registry (NCT02380274) involving patients with CRPC and their caregivers. Patients initiating their first active treatment course will be enrolled from urology and medical oncology practices, with data captured up to 4 years. Results: Information on prescribing patterns, HRQoL, clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization will be collected. Conclusion: TRUMPET will enable scientific understanding of disease management in terms of HRQoL, clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization in clinical practice for patients with CRPC.

Objective: The aim of this analysis was to examine treatment patterns in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in routine clinical practice in the United States, including factors influencing the choice of front-line treatment intensity and the effect of age and treatment line. Methods: We used data from the Adelphi AML Disease Specific Programme, a real-world, cross-sectional survey conducted in 2015. Physicians completed patient record forms providing patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: In total, 61 academic, non-academic, and office-based hematologists and hematology/oncology specialists provided data on 457 patients with AML; 284 had ≥20% blasts (World Health Organization-defined AML) and were included in the analysis. In the front-line setting, 60% of patients received high-intensity therapy, most commonly cytarabine plus anthracycline; the most common low-intensity treatments were hypomethylating agents. Primary drivers for selecting high-intensity versus low-intensity treatment were age, performance status, and comorbidities; 67%, 64%, and 61% of physicians stated they would prescribe high-intensity treatment to patients aged p0001). In a selected cohort of relapsed/refractory patients, 69% of patients received high-intensity therapy (78% of patients aged Conclusions: Most patients in this analysis of real-world survey data received well-established, front-line induction therapies. Treatment intensity was determined by age, comorbidities, and performance status, as recommended by guidelines.

Enzalutamide (ENZA) and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) are approved second-generation hormone therapies for chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study compared ENZA with AA in chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC by calculating the number needed to treat (NNT) and associated incremental costs to achieve one additional chemotherapy-naïve patient with mCRPC free of radiographic progression, chemotherapy, or death over a 1-year time horizon.Clinical outcomes were obtained from the PREVAIL and COU-AA-302 trials. Three outcomes were evaluated: radiographic progression-free survival, time to cytotoxic chemotherapy initiation, and overall survival at 1 year. NNT was calculated as the reciprocal of the outcome event rate difference for ENZA compared with AA. The incremental costs to achieve one additional outcome at 1 year were calculated as the difference in cost per treated patient multiplied by the NNT. Per-treated-patient costs were considered from a US payer perspective and included medications, monitoring, adverse events, post-progression treatments, and end-of-life care.Within a 1-year time horizon, the total cost per treated patient for ENZA was $2,666 less than AA. Compared with AA, treating 14 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient free of progression or death over 1 year; treating 26 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient with chemotherapy delayed over 1 year; and treating 91 patients with ENZA resulted in one additional patient free of death over 1 year. Therefore, ENZA is cost-effective compared with AA for all three outcomes evaluated, and the modeled results suggest ENZA is associated with potentially improved clinical outcomes in delaying chemotherapy initiation and disease progression for chemotherapy-naïve patients. The results are robust in sensitivity analyses, where the effect of changes in key model inputs and assumptions were tested.The results modeled in the present study suggest ENZA is cost-effective compared with AA for treating chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC.

Background The optimal approach to assess risk of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients is unknown. We examined how well the Caprini risk assessment model predicts venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Methods Between January 2011 and March 2014, venous thromboembolism events and risk factors were collected from non-intensive care unit medical patients hospitalized in facilities across Michigan. After calculation of the Caprini score for each patient, mixed logistic spline regression was used to determine the predicted probabilities of 90-day venous thromboembolism by receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis across the Caprini risk continuum. Results A total of 670 (1.05%) of 63,548 eligible patients experienced a venous thromboembolism event within 90 days of hospital admission. The mean Caprini risk score was 4.94 (range, 0-28). Predictive modeling revealed a consistent linear increase in venous thromboembolism for Caprini scores between 1 and 10; estimates beyond a score of 10 were unstable. Receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis resulted in a modest decrease in venous thromboembolism risk (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.99; P = .04). However, the low overall incidence of venous thromboembolism led to large estimates of numbers needed to treat to prevent a single venous thromboembolism event. A Caprini cut-point demonstrating clear benefit of prophylaxis was not detected. Conclusions Although a linear association between the Caprini risk assessment model and the risk of venous thromboembolism was noted, an extremely low incidence of venous thromboembolism events in non-intensive care unit medical patients was observed. The Caprini risk assessment model was unable to identify a subset of medical patients who benefit from pharmacologic prophylaxis.

Inappropriate antimicrobial use in hospitalized patients contributes to antimicrobial-resistant infections and complications. We sought to evaluate the impact, barriers, and facilitators of antimicrobial stewardship best practices in a diverse group of hospital medicine programs. This multihospital initiative included 1 community nonteaching hospital, 2 community teaching hospitals, and 2 academic medical centers participating in a collaborative with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. We conducted multimodal physician education on best practices for antimicrobial use including: (1) enhanced antimicrobial documentation, (2) improved quality and accessibility of local clinical guidelines, and (3) a 72-hour antimicrobial "timeout." Implementation barriers included variability in physician practice styles, lack of awareness of stewardship importance, and overly broad interventions. Facilitators included engaging hospitalists, collecting real time data and providing performance feedback, and appropriately limiting the scope of interventions. In 2 hospitals, complete antimicrobial documentation in sampled medical records improved significantly (4% to 51% and 8% to 65%, P < 0.001 for each comparison). A total of 726 antimicrobial timeouts occurred at 4 hospitals, and 30% resulted in optimization or discontinuation of antimicrobials. With careful attention to key barriers and facilitators, hospitalists can successfully implement effective antimicrobial stewardship practices. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:576-580. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

BACKGROUNDThe number of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) lumens is associated with thrombotic and infectious complications. Because multilumen PICCs are not necessary in all patients, policies that limit their use may improve safety and cost.OBJECTIVETo design a simulation-based analysis to estimate outcomes and cost associated with a policy that encourages single-lumen PICC use.METHODSModel inputs, including risk of complications and costs associated with single- and multilumen PICCs, were obtained from available literature and a multihospital collaborative quality improvement project. Cost savings and reduction in central line–associated bloodstream infection and deep vein thrombosis events from institution of a single-lumen PICC default policy were reported.RESULTSAccording to our model, a hospital that places 1,000 PICCs per year (25% of which are single-lumen and 75% multilumen) experiences annual PICC-related maintenance and complication costs of $1,228,598 (95% CI, $1,053,175–$1,430,958). In such facilities, every 5% increase in single-lumen PICC use would prevent 0.5 PICC-related central line-associated bloodstream infections and 0.5 PICC-related deep vein thrombosis events, while saving $23,500. Moving from 25% to 50% single-lumen PICC utilization would result in total savings of $119,283 (95% CI, $74,030–$184,170) per year. Regardless of baseline prevalence, a single-lumen default PICC policy would be associated with approximately 10% cost savings. Findings remained robust in multiway sensitivity analyses.CONCLUSIONHospital policies that limit the number of PICC lumens may enhance patient safety and reduce healthcare costs. Studies measuring intended and unintended consequences of this approach, followed by rapid adoption, appear necessary.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:811–817

BACKGROUND Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly used in hospitalized patients. Yet, little is known about the vascular access nurses who often place them. METHODS We conducted a Web-based survey to assess vascular access nursing experience, practice, knowledge, and beliefs related to PICC insertion and care in 47 Michigan hospitals. RESULTS The response rate was 81% (172 received invitations, 140 completed the survey). More than half of all respondents (58%) reported placing PICCs for ≥5 years, and 23% had obtained dedicated vascular access certification. The most common reported indications for PICC insertion included intravenous antibiotics, difficult venous access, and chemotherapy. Many respondents (46%) reported placing a PICC in a patient receiving dialysis; however, 91% of these respondents reported receiving approval from nephrology prior to insertion. Almost all respondents (91%) used ultrasound to find a suitable vein for PICC insertion, and 76% used electrocardiography guidance to place PICCs. PICC occlusion was reported as the most frequently encountered complication, followed by device migration and deep vein thrombosis. Although 94% of respondents noted that their hospitals tracked the number of PICCs placed, only 40% reported tracking duration of PICC use. Relatedly, 30% of nurses reported that their hospitals had a written policy to evaluate PICC necessity or appropriateness. CONCLUSION This survey of vascular nursing experiences highlights opportunities to improve practices such as avoiding PICC use in dialysis, better tracking of PICC dwell times, and necessity. Hospitalists may use these data to inform clinical practice, appropriateness, and safety of PICCs in hospitalized patients. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:269–275. 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine

This analysis estimated the number needed to treat with enzalutamide versus bicalutamide to achieve one additional patient with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who would obtain clinical benefit regarding progression-free survival, radiographic progression-free survival, or no prostate-specific antigen progression at 1 and 2 years following treatment initiation.Clinical event rates were obtained from the STRIVE (NCT01664923) and TERRAIN (NCT01288911) trials, and the number needed to treat was the inverse of the absolute rate difference between the event rates of enzalutamide and bicalutamide. The 95% Confidence Interval of the number needed to treat was derived from the 95% Confidence Interval of the event rate difference.Using STRIVE data (patients with metastatic disease: n = 128 enzalutamide; n = 129 bicalutamide) comparing enzalutamide with bicalutamide at 1 and 2 years, the numbers needed to treat to achieve one additional patient with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with progression-free survival were 2.0 and 2.8, respectively; with radiographic progression-free survival, 2.6 and 3.0, respectively; and without prostate-specific antigen progression, 1.8 and 2.4, respectively. Using TERRAIN data (n = 184 enzalutamide; n = 191 bicalutamide) comparing enzalutamide with bicalutamide at 1 and 2 years, the numbers needed to treat to achieve one additional patient with progression-free survival were 4.3 and 3.7, respectively; with radiographic progression-free survival, 10.0 and 2.8, respectively; and without prostate-specific antigen progression, 2.1 and 3.2, respectively.The combined data from TERRAIN and STRIVE demonstrated that treating chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with enzalutamide leads to more patients without clinical progression at 1 and 2 years than with bicalutamide.STRIVE (NCT01664923; registration date: August 10, 2012) and TERRAIN (NCT01288911; registration date: February 1, 2011).

Background:Many experts believe that hospitals with more frequent readmissions provide lower-quality care, but little is known about how the preventability of readmissions might change over the postdischarge time frame. Objective:To determine whether readmissions within 7 days of discharge differ from those between 8 and 30 days after discharge with respect to preventability. Design:Prospective cohort study. Setting:10 academic medical centers in the United States. Patients:822 adults readmitted to a general medicine service. Measurements:For each readmission, 2 site-specific physician adjudicators used a structured survey instrument to determine whether it was preventable and measured other characteristics. Results:Overall, 36.2% of early readmissions versus 23.0% of late readmissions were preventable (median risk difference, 13.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 5.5 to 26.4 percentage points]). Hospitals were identified as better locations for preventing early readmissions (47.2% vs. 25.5%; median risk difference, 22.8 percentage points [interquartile range, 17.9 to 31.8 percentage points]), whereas outpatient clinics (15.2% vs. 6.6%; median risk difference, 10.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 4.6 to 12.2 percentage points]) and home (19.4% vs. 14.0%; median risk difference, 5.6 percentage points [interquartile range, -6.1 to 17.1 percentage points]) were better for preventing late readmissions. Limitation:Physician adjudicators were not blinded to readmission timing, community hospitals were not included in the study, and readmissions to nonstudy hospitals were not included in the results. Conclusion:Early readmissions were more likely to be preventable and amenable to hospital-based interventions. Late readmissions were less likely to be preventable and were more amenable to ambulatory and home-based interventions. Primary Funding Source:Association of American Medical Colleges.

Aim: To validate the total illness burden index for prostate cancer (TIBI-CaP) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients. Patients & methods: Baseline comorbidity scores collected using the TIBI-CaP were compared with the baseline patient-reported health-related quality of life using the SF-12v2 and FACT-P questionnaires in 302 patients enrolled in the Treatment Registry for Outcomes in CRPC Patients (TRUMPET). Results: Baseline TIBI-CaP scores were negatively correlated with all baseline SF-12v2 domain/composite (p

The current study was performed to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, survival, health care resource use (HRU), and costs among older women in the United States with advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III/IV) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database.Women who were aged ≥66 years at the time of diagnosis and diagnosed with advanced TNBC between January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2011, in the SEER-Medicare database and who were followed for survival through December 31, 2013, were eligible. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics at the time of diagnosis, subsequent treatment patterns, and survival outcomes were analyzed. HRU and costs for the first 3 months after diagnosis, the last 3 months of life, and the time in between are summarized. All analyses were stratified by American Joint Committee on Cancer stage of disease.There were 1244 patients newly diagnosed with advanced TNBC; the majority were aged ≥75 years (61% with stage III disease and 57.4% with stage IV disease) and white (70% of patients in both disease stage groups). The most common treatment approaches were surgery combined with chemotherapy for patients for stage III disease (50.6%) and chemotherapy alone or with radiotherapy for patients with stage IV disease (31.3%). Diverse chemotherapy regimens were administered for each line of therapy; nevertheless, the medications used were consistent with national guidelines. Patients with stage III and stage IV disease were found to have a similar mean number of hospitalizations and outpatient visits, but mean monthly costs were greater for patients with stage IV disease at all 3 time points. The mean cost per patient-month (in 2013 US dollars) was $4810 for patients with stage III disease and $9159 for patients with stage IV disease.Among older women with advanced TNBC, significant treatment variations and considerable HRU and costs exist. Further research is needed to find effective treatments with which to reduce the clinical and economic burden of this disease. Cancer 2018;124:2104-14. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.

Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with upper extremity-deep vein thrombosis (DVT). However, patterns, risk factors and treatment associated with this event remain poorly defined. Objective To determine patterns, risk factors and treatment related to PICC-DVT in hospitalized patients. Design, Setting & Patients Between 2012–2013, consecutive cases of ultrasound-confirmed, symptomatic PICC-DVT were identified. For each case, at least two contemporaneous controls were identified and matched by age and gender. Patient- and device-specific data were obtained through electronic-medical records. Using variables selected a priori, multivariable logistic regression models were fit to the outcome of PICC-DVT, comparing cases to controls. Results 909 adult hospitalized patients (268 cases, 641 controls) were included in the study. Indications for PICC placement included long-term intravenous antibiotic therapy (n = 447; 49.1%), in-hospital venous access for blood draws or infusion of medications (n = 342; 44.2%), and total parenteral nutrition (n = 120; 6.7%). Patients with PICC-DVT were more likely to have a history of venous thromboembolism (OR 1.70, 95% CI = 1.02-2.82) or have undergone surgery while the PICC was in situ (OR 2.17, 95%CI = 1.17-4.01 for surgeries longer than two hours). Treatment for PICC-DVT varied and included heparin bridging, low molecular weight heparin only and device removal only; the average duration of treatment also varied across these groups. Compared to 4-Fr PICCs, 5- and 6-Fr PICCs were associated with greater risk of DVT (OR 2.74, 95%CI = 0.75-10.09 and OR 7.40 95%CI = 1.94-28.16, respectively). Patients who received both aspirin and statins were less likely to develop PICC-DVT than those that received neither treatment (OR 0.31, 95%CI = 0.16-0.61). Receipt of pharmacological DVT prophylaxis during hospitalization showed a non-significant trend towards reduction in risk of PICC-DVT (OR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.48-1.08). Conclusion Several factors appear associated with PICC-DVT. While some of these characteristics may be non-modifiable, future studies that target potentially modifiable variables to prevent this adverse outcome would be welcomed.

BACKGROUND Health care reform efforts and initiatives seek to improve quality and reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary care. However, little is known about overuse and its drivers, especially in hospitals. OBJECTIVE To assess the extent of and factors associated with overuse of testing in U.S. hospitals. DESIGN National survey of practice patterns for 2 common clinical vignettes: preoperative evaluation and syncope. Respondents were randomly selected and randomly provided 1 of 4 versions of each vignette. Each version contained identical clinical information but varied in factors that could change physician behavior. Respondents were asked to identify what they believed most hospitalists at their institution would recommend in each vignette. SETTING Mailed survey conducted from June through October 2011. PARTICIPANTS Physicians practicing adult hospital medicine in the United States. MEASUREMENTS Responses indicating overuse (more testing than recommended by American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines). RESULTS 68% (1020 of 1500) of hospitalists responded. They reported overuse in 52% to 65% of the preoperative evaluation vignettes and 82% to 85% of the syncope vignettes. Overuse more frequently resulted from a physician's desire to reassure patients or themselves than an incorrect belief that it was clinically indicated (preoperative evaluation, 63% vs. 37%; syncope, 69% vs. 31%; P < 0.001 for each). LIMITATION Survey responses may not represent actual clinical choices. CONCLUSION Physicians reported substantial overuse in 2 common clinical situations in the hospital. Improving provider knowledge of guidelines may help reduce overuse, but despite awareness of the guidelines, physicians often deviate from them to reassure patients or themselves. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation, Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, University of Michigan Specialist-Hospitalist Allied Research Program, and Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program.

Treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria contributes to antimicrobial overuse in hospitalized patients. Indications for urine culture, treatment, and targets for improvement were evaluated in 153 patients. Drivers of antimicrobial overuse included fever with an alternative source, altered mental status, and leukocytosis, which led 435 excess days of antimicrobial therapy.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;00(0): 1–4

Catheter exchange over a guidewire is frequently performed for malfunctioning peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Whether such exchanges are associated with venous thromboembolism is not known.We performed a retrospective cohort study to assess the association between PICC exchange and risk of thromboembolism. Adult hospitalized patients that received a PICC during clinical care at one of 51 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety consortium were included. The primary outcome was hazard of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (radiographically confirmed upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) in those that underwent PICC exchange vs those that did not.Of 23,010 patients that underwent PICC insertion in the study, 589 patients (2.6%) experienced a PICC exchange. Almost half of all exchanges were performed for catheter dislodgement or occlusion. A total of 480 patients (2.1%) experienced PICC-associated deep vein thrombosis. The incidence of deep vein thrombosis was greater in those that underwent PICC exchange vs those that did not (3.6% vs 2.0%, P .001). Median time to thrombosis was shorter among those that underwent exchange vs those that did not (5 vs 11 days, P = .02). Following adjustment, PICC exchange was independently associated with twofold greater risk of thrombosis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-2.85) vs no exchange. The effect size of PICC exchange on thrombosis was second in magnitude to device lumens (HR 2.06; 95% CI, 1.59-2.66 and HR 2.31; 95% CI, 1.6-3.33 for double- and triple-lumen devices, respectively).Guidewire exchange of PICCs may be associated with increased risk of thrombosis. As some exchanges may be preventable, consideration of risks and benefits of exchanges in clinical practice is needed.

BACKGROUNDPeripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). However, no tools to predict risk of PICC-CLABSI have been developed.OBJECTIVETo operationalize or prioritize CLABSI risk factors when making decisions regarding the use of PICCs using a risk model to estimate an individual’s risk of PICC-CLABSI prior to device placement.METHODSUsing data from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety consortium, patients that experienced PICC-CLABSI between January 2013 and October 2016 were identified. A Cox proportional hazards model with robust sandwich standard error estimates was then used to identify factors associated with PICC-CLABSI. Based on regression coefficients, points were assigned to each predictor and summed for each patient to create the Michigan PICC-CLABSI (MPC) score. The predictive performance of the score was assessed using time-dependent area-under-the-curve (AUC) values.RESULTSOf 23,088 patients that received PICCs during the study period, 249 patients (1.1%) developed a CLABSI. Significant risk factors associated with PICC-CLABSI included hematological cancer (3 points), CLABSI within 3 months of PICC insertion (2 points), multilumen PICC (2 points), solid cancers with ongoing chemotherapy (2 points), receipt of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) through the PICC (1 point), and presence of another central venous catheter (CVC) at the time of PICC placement (1 point). The MPC score was significantly associated with risk of CLABSI (PCONCLUSIONThe MPC score offers a novel way to inform decisions regarding PICC use, surveillance of high-risk cohorts, and utility of blood cultures when PICC-CLABSI is suspected. Future studies validating the score are necessary.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2017;38:1155–1166