Search Results for ""

Internal Medicine Meetings & Courses | ACP

Get complete information about the ACP Internal Medicine Meeting, chapter meetings, live courses and recordings. View schedules.

Internists Urge CMS ‘To Re-Imagine Quality Measurement’

ACP letter makes more than 30 recommendations for transition to Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Models (APMs).

How ACP members can support current disaster recovery and aid efforts in Hawai'i

Hawaiʻi Community Foundation and Maui United Way are accepting online monetary donations to benefit Maui residents affected by fires. The Hawaiʻi Community Foundation started a Maui Strong Fund to support residents affected by the wildfires, which firefighting crews continue to battle in Lahaina, Pulehu/Kīhei and Upcountry areas. Donations can be made at www.hawaiicommunityfoundation.org/maui-strong.

How ACP members can support current disaster recovery and aid efforts

The earthquakes in Turkey and Syria are being described as the worst in that area in a century. ACP members who wish to provide support in the recovery efforts can help via these organizations. - The U.S. non-profit Bridge to Turkiye has a history of supporting cultural and educational initiatives in Turkey, and is working on providing food and water through the Turkish aid organization, Ahbap Association

Follow ACP | Blogs, Social Media, RSS

Stay up to date on the latest from the American College of Physicians and Annals of Internal Medicine by following our various media accounts. Social Media American College of Physicians

Access ACP's The Works 2025 Content

Thank you for your purchase of ACP 2025: The Works Package, a massive library of over 235 total hours of high-yield, on-demand educational content.Please use the links below to access your content.

ACP 2025: The Works Package

Meet your end-of-year CME/ MOC requirements with the new ACP product, The Works! Gain immediate access to 160+ hours of video lectures & more. See details & pricing.

PPE Materials Available to ACP Members

Log in to see the special members-only offers below.

MKSAP 19 Tracker

Targeted Learning Assessment and Remediation

These Annals of Internal Medicine results only contain recent articles.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Wakefulness-Promoting Agents for Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 5

Background: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is common among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic agents is unknown. Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of drugs for EDS in OSA using network meta-analysis. Data Sources: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 7 November 2022. Study Selection: Reviewers identified randomized trials that enrolled patients with EDS-associated OSA on or eligible for conventional therapy assigned to any pharmacologic intervention. Data Extraction: Paired reviewers independently extracted data addressing effects of drugs on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), and adverse events at the longest reported follow-up. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Data Synthesis: Fourteen trials (3085 patients) were eligible. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol improves ESS scores (mean difference [MD], −3.85 [95% CI, −5.24 to −2.50]; high certainty), and armodafinil–modafinil (MD, −2.25 [CI, −2.85 to −1.64]; moderate certainty) and pitolisant–H3-autoreceptor blockers (MD, −2.78 [CI, −4.03 to −1.51]; moderate certainty) probably improve ESS scores. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.9 [CI, 0.64 to 1.17]) and armodafinil–modafinil (SMD, 0.41 [CI, 0.27 to 0.55]) improve MWT (both high certainty), whereas pitolisant–H3-autoreceptor blockers probably do not (moderate certainty). At 4 weeks, armodafinil–modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk [RR], 2.01 [CI, 1.14 to 3.51]; moderate certainty); solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (RR, 2.07 [CI, 0.67 to 6.25]; low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggests these interventions may not increase the risk for serious adverse events. Limitations: There is limited evidence on long term or effectiveness among patients nonadherent or with mixed adherence to conventional OSA therapies. Conclusion: Solriamfetol, armodafinil–modafinil, and pitolisant reduce daytime sleepiness for patients with OSA already on conventional therapy, with solriamfetol likely superior. Adverse events probably increase the risk for discontinuation of armodafinil–modafinil and may increase the risk for discontinuation with solriamfetol. Primary Funding Source: None.

Safety and Efficacy of Combination SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies Amubarvimab Plus Romlusevimab in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Background: Development of safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics is a high priority. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab are noncompeting anti–SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies with an extended half-life. Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of amubarvimab plus romlusevimab. Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 and 3 platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410) Setting: Nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines. Patients: Adults within 10 days onset of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who are at high risk for clinical progression. Intervention: Combination of monoclonal antibodies amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo. Measurements: Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 symptoms, safety, and progression to hospitalization or death. Results: Eight-hundred and seven participants who initiated the study intervention were included in the phase 3 analysis. Median age was 49 years (quartiles, 39 to 58); 51% were female, 18% were Black, and 50% were Hispanic or Latino. Median time from symptom onset at study entry was 6 days (quartiles, 4 to 7). Hospitalizations and/or death occurred in 9 (2.3%) participants in the amubarvimab plus romlusevimab group compared with 44 (10.7%) in the placebo group, with an estimated 79% reduction in events (P < 0.001). This reduction was similar between participants with 5 or less and more than 5 days of symptoms at study entry. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events through day 28 were seen less frequently among participants randomly assigned to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab (7.3%) than placebo (16.1%) (P < 0.001), with no severe infusion reactions or drug-related serious adverse events. Limitation: The study population was mostly unvaccinated against COVID-19 and enrolled before the spread of Omicron variants and subvariants. Conclusion: Amubarvimab plus romlusevimab was safe and significantly reduced the risk for hospitalization and/or death among nonhospitalized adults with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection at high risk for progression to severe disease. Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

How Would You Resuscitate This Patient With Septic Shock?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 2

Sepsis is a potentially life-threatening systemic dysregulatory response to infection, and septic shock occurs when sepsis leads to systemic vasodilation and subsequent tissue hypoperfusion. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign published updated guidelines in 2021 on the management of sepsis and septic shock. Here, in the context of a patient with septic shock, 2 critical care specialists discuss and debate conditional guideline recommendations on using lactate to guide resuscitation, the use of balanced crystalloids versus normal saline, and the use of corticosteroids.

Reproductive Health Policy in the United States: An American College of Physicians Policy Brief

The legal landscape around access to reproductive health care services was substantially altered after the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. In the aftermath of the decision, some state governments have begun to impose stringent restrictions and complete bans on the provision of abortion, whereas others have sought to protect and expand access. Some have gone as far as imposing criminal and civil penalties on physicians and other clinicians who provide evidence-based, clinically indicated reproductive health care services and information that is guided by biomedical ethics and provided in the best interest of the patient's health and well-being. In several states, lawmakers have attempted and successfully used new approaches to enforcing and achieving these prohibitions, including prohibitions on crossing state lines to obtain abortion care, prohibitions on the mailing of medication abortion, and the authorization of third-party civil lawsuits. In this policy brief, the American College of Physicians (ACP) updates and expands on its previous public policy positions on abortion from its 2018 policy paper, “Women's Health Policy in the United States,” to reflect this new reality. The College also offers policymakers and payers recommendations to promote equitable access to reproductive health care services and safeguard maternal health. ACP reaffirms its opposition to undue and unnecessary governmental interference in the patient–physician relationship that criminalizes the provision of health care made in the physician's clinical judgment and based on clinical evidence and the standard of care.