Publications

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common medical condition presenting with heartburn, regurgitation, cough, hoarseness, and/or wheezing. Patients with classic GERD symptoms often do not require diagnostic studies before empirical treatment is initiated. However, if atypical features are present, including alarm symptoms for malignancy, or if symptoms do not respond to conventional treatment, upper endoscopy may be necessary. The optimal management of GERD, which is the subject of debate, depends on the frequency and severity of symptoms. In 2021, the American College of Gastroenterology published updated recommendations for diagnosis and management of GERD. In addition to histamine-2 receptor antagonist or proton-pump inhibitor therapy, which may be prescribed as needed or continuously, lifestyle and dietary modification are often advised. Here, 2 physicians, a primary care practitioner and a gastroenterologist, debate how to manage a patient with GERD symptoms. They discuss the diagnosis of this condition, its initial management, indications for upper endoscopy, and how to care for the patient whose condition does not respond to empirical therapy.

AbstractDuring hospitalization, patients' blood pressure often varies substantially from their outpatient steady state and many patients experience marked fluctuations. Given a lack of guidelines for inpatient blood pressure management, treatment patterns vary and recent observational studies demonstrate intensive inpatient blood pressure treatment may be been associated with harm. This article reviews current knowledge in inpatient blood pressure management and proposes a randomized trial to compare clinical outcomes of more versus less restrictive blood pressure goals.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan was recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2018 for carcinogenic impurities, resulting in a drug shortage and management challenges for valsartan users. The influence of the valsartan recall on clinical outcomes is unknown. We compared the risk of adverse events between hypertensive patients using valsartan and a propensity score-matched group using nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

METHODS AND RESULTS: We used Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Hypertensive patients who received valsartan or nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for 1 year before and on the recall date were compared. Primary outcomes were measured in the 6 months following the recall and included: (1) a composite measure of all-cause hospitalization, all-cause emergency department visit, and all-cause urgent care visit, and (2) a composite cardiac event measure of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/emergency department visits/urgent care visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure, or hypertension. We compared the risk of outcomes between treatment groups using Cox proportional hazard models. Of the hypertensive patients, 76 934 received valsartan, and 509 472 received a nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Valsartan use at the time of recall was associated with a higher risk of all-cause hospitalization, emergency department use, or urgent care use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.00-1.04]) and the composite of cardiac events (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.15-1.29]) within 6 months after the recall.

CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall and shortage affected hypertensive patients. Local- and national-level systems need to be enhanced to protect patients from drug shortages by providing safe and reliable medication alternatives.

BACKGROUND: Despite decreases in opioid prescribing from 2016 through 2019, some dentists (general, specialists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons) in the United States continue to prescribe opioids at high rates. The authors' objective was to define dentists' trajectories of opioid prescribing.

METHODS: The authors identified actively prescribing dentists from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription data set, from 2015 through 2019. Group-based trajectory modeling identified opioid prescribing trajectories on the basis of dentists' annual prescribing rates for the overall sample (model 1) and for high prescribers (model 2). The authors used χ2 or Mann-Whitney U tests to characterize the model 2 trajectory groups.

RESULTS: In model 1 (n = 199,145 prescribers), group-based trajectory modeling identified 8 trajectories that were grouped into 5 categories. A total of 14.8% were nonprescribers who composed less than 1% of all prescriptions, low prescribers (3 groups; 46.0%) prescribed at low rates (2015: 5.5%-16.9%; 2019: 1.5%-11.9%), decliners (7.3%) decreased prescribing rapidly (2015: 29.4%; 2019: 5.1%), moderately high prescribers (2 groups; 28.5%) prescribed moderately (2015: 28.7% and 39.2%; 2019: 18.1% and 28.8%), and consistently high prescribers (3.4%) prescribed at high rates (2015: 54.6%; 2019: 44.7%). In model 2, from consistently high prescribers (n = 6,845), 4 trajectories were identified. Of these 4 groups, 1 group (7.5%) declined prescribing rapidly. The groups did not differ meaningfully; however, the rapid decliners included fewer oral and maxillofacial surgeons (13.0% vs 18.4%), saw more Medicaid patients (2.5% vs 1.0%), and had higher opioid prescribing rates in 2015 (95.5% vs 91.6%) (P < .001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified variations in dentists' opioid prescribing rates. Although 60% of dentists decreased prescribing rates by 30% through 83%, 3.4% of dentists consistently prescribed at high rates.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Some dentists continue to prescribe opioids at high levels, indicating that additional information is needed to better inform policy and clinical decision making.

OBJECTIVE: Inappropriate diagnosis and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) and urinary tract infection (UTI) are leading causes of antibiotic overuse but have not been well-studied in patients with risks for complicated UTI such as neurogenic bladder (NB). Our aim was to describe ASB and UTI management in patients with NB and assess factors associated with inappropriate management.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: Four Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) medical centers.

PARTICIPANTS: Adults with NB due to spinal cord injury/disorder (SCI/D), multiple sclerosis (MS), or Parkinson disease (PD) and encounters with an ASB or UTI diagnosis between 2017 and 2018. Clinical and encounter data were extracted from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and medical record reviews for a stratified sample of 300 encounters from N=291 patients.

INTERVENTIONS: None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of appropriate and inappropriate ASB and UTI diagnosis and treatment was summarized. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed factors associated with inappropriate management.

RESULTS: N=200 UTI and N=100 ASB encounters were included for the 291 unique patients (SCI/D, 39.9%; MS, 36.4%; PD, 23.7%). Most patients were men (83.3%), >65 years (62%), and used indwelling or intermittent catheterization (68.3%). Nearly all ASB encounters had appropriate diagnosis (98%). 70 (35%) UTI encounters had inappropriate diagnosis, including 55 (27.5%) with true ASB, all with inappropriate treatment. Among the remaining 145 UTI encounters, 54 (27%) had inappropriate treatment. Peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and cerebrovascular disease were associated with increased odds of inappropriate management; indwelling catheter (aOR 0.35, P=.01) and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation provider (aOR 0.29, P<.01) were associated with decreased odds.

CONCLUSION: Up to half of UTI encounters for patients with NB had inappropriate management, largely due to inappropriate UTI diagnosis in patients with true ASB. Interventions to improve ASB and UTI management in patients with NB should target complex patients with comorbidities being seen by non-rehabilitation providers.