Clinical Information Search
Search Results for "american academy"
- Online Learning Center (1)
- Policy Library (1179)
- Performance Measures (28)
- Annals of Internal Medicine (1286)
- Annals of Internal Medicine: Clinical Cases (11)
- IM Matters (59)
- ACP Hospitalist (135)
- ACP Diabetes Monthly (6)
- ACP Gastroenterology Monthly (5)
Displaying 601 - 610 of 1179 in Policy Library
Displaying 601 - 610 of 1286 in Annals of Internal Medicine
These Annals of Internal Medicine results only contain recent articles.
- Visit annals.org to search all content back to 1927.
- View Annals of Internal Medicine CME by topic here.
Comparison of Patients Infected With Delta Versus Omicron COVID-19 Variants Presenting to Paris Emergency Departments: A Retrospective Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 6
Background: At the end of 2021, the B.1.1.529 SARS-CoV-2 variant (Omicron) wave superseded the B.1.617.2 variant (Delta) wave. Objective: To compare baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Delta variant versus the Omicron variant in the emergency department (ED). Design: Retrospective chart reviews. Setting: 13 adult EDs in academic hospitals in the Paris area from 29 November 2021 to 10 January 2022. Patients: Patients with a positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result for SARS-CoV-2 and variant identification. Measurements: Main outcome measures were baseline clinical and biological characteristics at ED presentation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 3728 patients had a positive RT-PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period; 1716 patients who had a variant determination (818 Delta and 898 Omicron) were included. Median age was 58 years, and 49% were women. Patients infected with the Omicron variant were younger (54 vs. 62 years; difference, 8.0 years [95% CI, 4.6 to 11.4 years]), had a lower rate of obesity (8.0% vs. 12.5%; difference, 4.5 percentage points [CI, 1.5 to 7.5 percentage points]), were more vaccinated (65% vs. 39% for 1 dose and 22% vs. 11% for 3 doses), had a lower rate of dyspnea (26% vs. 50%; difference, 23.6 percentage points [CI, 19.0 to 28.2 percentage points]), and had a higher rate of discharge home from the ED (59% vs. 37%; difference, 21.9 percentage points [−26.5 to −17.1 percentage points]). Compared with Delta, Omicron infection was independently associated with a lower risk for ICU admission (adjusted difference, 11.4 percentage points [CI, 8.4 to 14.4 percentage points]), mechanical ventilation (adjusted difference, 3.6 percentage points [CI, 1.7 to 5.6 percentage points]), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted difference, 4.2 percentage points [CI, 2.0 to 6.5 percentage points]). Limitation: Patients with COVID-19 illness and no SARS-CoV-2 variant determination in the ED were excluded. Conclusion: Compared with the Delta variant, infection with the Omicron variant in patients in the ED had different clinical and biological patterns and was associated with better in-hospital outcomes, including higher survival. Primary Funding Source: None.
Adenoma Detection Rate and Risk for Interval Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in Fecal Immunochemical Test–Based Screening: A Population-Based Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 10
Background: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an essential quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as it is associated with postcolonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Currently, data on ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based screening, the most common screening method, are scarce. Also, the association between the ADR and PCCRC has not been demonstrated in this setting. Objective: To evaluate the association between the ADR and PCCRC risk in colonoscopies done after a positive FIT result. Design: Population-based cohort. Setting: Dutch, FIT-based, CRC screening program. Participants: Patients undergoing colonoscopy, done by accredited endoscopists, after a positive FIT result. Measurements: Quality indicator performance and PCCRC incidence for colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees were assessed. The PCCRCs were classified as interval, a cancer detected before recommended surveillance, or noninterval. The association between ADR and interval PCCRC was evaluated with a multivariable Cox regression model and PCCRC incidence was determined for different ADRs. Results: 362 endoscopists performed 116 360 colonoscopies with a median ADR of 67%. In total, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified. The ADR was associated with interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.97) per 1% increase in ADR. For every 1000 patients undergoing colonoscopy, the expected number of interval PCCRC diagnoses after 5 years was approximately 2 for endoscopists with ADRs of 70%, compared with more than 2.5, almost 3.5, and more than 4.5 for endoscopists with ADRs of 65%, 60%, and 55%, respectively. Limitation: The relative short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a limitation. Conclusion: The ADR of endoscopists is inversely associated with the risk for interval PCCRC in FIT-positive colonoscopies. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy in FIT-based screening should aim for markedly higher ADRs compared with primary colonoscopy. Primary Funding Source: None.
U.S. Trends in Registration for Medical Cannabis and Reasons for Use From 2016 to 2020: An Observational Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 7
Background: Cannabis policy liberalization has increased cannabis availability for medical or recreational purposes. Up-to-date trends in medical cannabis licensure can inform clinical policy and care. Objective: To describe recent trends in medical cannabis licensure in the United States. Design: Ecological study with repeated measures. Setting: State registry data via state reports and data requests on medical cannabis licensure from 2016 to 2020. Participants: Medical cannabis patients (persons with medical cannabis licenses) in the United States. Measurements: Total patient volume, patients per 10 000 of total population, and patient-reported qualifying conditions (that is, symptoms or conditions qualifying patients for licensure)—including whether these symptoms align with current therapeutic evidence of cannabis–cannabinoid efficacy. Results: In 2020, 26 states and Washington, DC reported patient numbers, and 19 states reported patient-reported qualifying conditions. Total enrolled patients increased approximately 4.5-fold from 678 408 in 2016 to 2 974 433 in 2020. Patients per 10 000 total population generally increased from 2016 to 2020, most dramatically in Oklahoma (927.1 patients per 10 000 population). However, enrollment increased in states without recreational legalization (that is, medical-only states), whereas enrollment decreased in 5 of 7 with recreational legalization (that is, recreational states). In 2020, 68.2% of patient-reported qualifying conditions had substantial or conclusive evidence of therapeutic value versus 84.6% in 2016. Chronic pain was the most common patient-reported qualifying condition in 2020 (60.6%), followed by posttraumatic stress disorder (10.6%). Limitation: Missing state data; lack of rationale for discontinuing medical cannabis licensure. Conclusion: Enrollment in medical cannabis programs approximately increased 4.5-fold from 2016 to 2020, although enrollment decreased in recreational states. Use for conditions or symptoms without a strong evidence basis increased from 15.4% (2016) to 31.8% (2020). Thoughtful regulatory and clinical strategies are needed to effectively manage this rapidly changing landscape. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction and BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Tests at a Community Site During an Omicron Surge: A Cross-Sectional Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 5
Background: SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests are an important public health tool. Objective: To evaluate field performance of the BinaxNOW rapid antigen test (Abbott) compared with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detecting infection with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Design: Cross-sectional surveillance study. Setting: Free, walk-up, outdoor, urban community testing and vaccine site led by Unidos en Salud, serving a predominantly Latinx community highly impacted by COVID-19. Participants: Persons seeking COVID-19 testing in January 2022. Measurements: Simultaneous BinaxNOW and RT-PCR from nasal, cheek, and throat swabs, including cycle threshold (Ct) measures; a lower Ct value is a surrogate for higher amounts of virus. Results: Among 731 persons tested with nasal swabs, there were 296 (40.5%) positive results on RT-PCR; 98.9% were the Omicron variant. BinaxNOW detected 95.2% (95% CI, 91% to 98%) of persons who tested positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 30, 82.1% (CI, 77% to 87%) of those who tested positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 35, and 65.2% (CI, 60% to 71%) of all who were positive on RT-PCR. Among 75 persons with simultaneous nasal and cheek swabs, BinaxNOW using a cheek swab failed to detect 91% (20 of 22) of specimens that were positive on BinaxNOW with a nasal swab. Among persons with simultaneous nasal and throat swabs who were positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 30, 42 of 49 (85.7%) were detected by nasal BinaxNOW, 23 of 49 (46.9%) by throat BinaxNOW, and 44 of 49 (89.8%) by either. Limitation: Participants were a cross-sectional sample from a community-based sentinel surveillance site, precluding study of viral or symptom dynamics. Conclusion: BinaxNOW detected persons with high SARS-CoV-2 levels during the Omicron surge, enabling rapid responses to positive test results. Cheek or throat swabs should not replace nasal swabs. As currently recommended, high-risk persons with an initial negative BinaxNOW result should have repeated testing. Primary Funding Source: University of California, San Francisco.
Preventing Obesity in Midlife Women: A Systematic Review for the Women's Preventive Services Initiative
Background: Despite high prevalence rates of obesity in the United States, no clinical guidelines exist for obesity prevention in midlife women who commonly experience weight gain. Purpose: To evaluate evidence on the effectiveness and harms of behavioral interventions to reduce weight gain and improve health outcomes for women aged 40 to 60 years without obesity. Data Sources: English-language searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (inception to 26 October 2021); ClinicalTrials.gov (October 2021); and reference lists of studies and reviews. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling predominantly midlife women comparing behavioral interventions to prevent weight gain with control groups and reporting health outcomes and potential harms. Data Extraction: Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies. Data Synthesis: Seven RCTs in 12 publications (n = 51 638) were included. Four RCTs showed statistically significant favorable differences in weight change for counseling interventions versus control groups (mean difference of weight change, −0.87 to −2.5 kg), whereas 1 trial of counseling and 2 trials of exercise showed no differences; 1 of 2 RCTs reported improved quality-of-life measures. Interventions did not increase measures of depression or stress in 1 trial; self-reported falls (37% vs. 29%; P < 0.001) and injuries (19% vs. 14%; P = 0.03) were higher with exercise counseling in 1 trial. Limitation: Trials were generally small, heterogeneous, and lacked data on harms, long-term health outcomes, and specific patient populations. Conclusion: Counseling interventions to prevent weight gain in women during midlife may result in modest differences in weight change without causing important harms. More research is needed to determine optimal content, frequency, length, and number of sessions required and should include additional patient populations. Primary Funding Source: Health Resources and Services Administration.
Effect of Social Needs Case Management on Hospital Use Among Adult Medicaid Beneficiaries: A Randomized Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 8
Background: Case management programs assisting patients with social needs may improve health and avoid unnecessary health care use, but little is known about their effectiveness. Objective: This large-scale study assessed the population-level impact of a case management program designed to address patients' social needs. Design: Single-site randomized encouragement design with administrative enrollment from an eligible population and intention-to-treat analysis. Study participants were enrolled between August 2017 and December 2018 and followed for 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04000074) Setting: Contra Costa County, an economically and culturally diverse community in the San Francisco Bay Area. Participants: 57 972 randomized enrollments of adult Medicaid patients at elevated risk for health care use (top 15%) to the intervention or control group. Intervention: Enrollees were offered 12 months of social needs case management, which provided more intensive services to patients with higher demonstrated needs. Measurements: Medical use was measured via emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient admissions, some of which were classified as avoidable. Results: Participants in the intervention group visited the ED at ratios of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00) for all visits and 0.97 (CI, 0.92 to 1.03) for avoidable visits relative to the control group. The intervention group was hospitalized at ratios of 0.89 (CI, 0.81 to 0.98) for all admissions and 0.72 (CI, 0.55 to 0.88) for avoidable admissions. Limitations: Only 40% of the intervention group engaged with the program. The program was in continual development during the trial period. Conclusion: Although social needs case management programs may reduce health care use, these savings may not cover full program costs. More work is needed to identify ways to increase patient uptake and define characteristics of successful programs. Primary Funding Source: Contra Costa Health Services via the Medicaid waiver program.
Addressing Inequities in SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Uptake: The Boston Medical Center Health System Experience
Academic medical centers could play an important role in increasing access to and uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, especially in Black and Latino communities that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. This article describes the vaccination program developed by the Boston Medical Center (BMC) health system (New England's largest safety-net health system), its affiliated community health centers (CHCs), and community partners. The program was based on a conceptual framework for community interventions and aimed to increase equitable access to vaccination in the hardest-hit communities through community-based sites in churches and community centers, mobile vaccination events, and vaccination on the BMC campus. Key strategies included a communication campaign featuring trusted messengers, a focus on health equity, established partnerships with community leaders and CHCs, and strong collaboration with local health departments and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to ensure equitable allocation of the vaccine supply. Process factors involved the use of robust analytics relying on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). The vaccination program administered 109 938 first doses, with 94 703 (86%) given at community sites and 2466 (2%) given at mobile sites. Mobile vaccination events were key in reaching younger people living in locations with the highest SVIs. Challenges included the need for a robust operational infrastructure and mistrust of the health system given the long history of economic disinvestment in the surrounding community. The BMC model could serve as a blueprint for other medical centers interested in implementing programs aimed at increasing vaccine uptake during a pandemic and in developing an infrastructure to address other health-related disparities.