VITAMINS Trial Presentation and Discussion

Time Sucked Away from Patients by EHRs

Sticking results from this descriptive study – on an average physicians are spending 16 minutes per encounter working with electronic health record. Now you know why your physicians are spending little time with you and always appear in a hurry. They are still very busy, reviewing the chart, ordering tests, and documenting the encounter. Machine has taken over the space between a doctor and a patient.

Obviously, very few (likely none) physicians enjoy spending time away from their patients. However, the regulatory burdens, some national mandates,some state mandates, some regulatory body mandates, and some institutional mandates require increasing documentation. All this increased documentation requirement has been placed without providing any additional time to a physician. As a result, physicians decreased the only discrete time they had – time with the patient.

Most of these mandates are there to make sure that the quality of care delivered is adequate. However, these mandates have worsened physician burnout and are perhaps not improving overall care except only those processes that are being measured.

The Saga of Vitamin C and Septic Shock

Vitamin C has been proposed as a drug that may help patients with sepsis due to its antioxidant effects. Earlier studies have been inconclusive. Another randomized trial was reported this week. Investigators wanted to examine if the combination of vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine, compared with hydrocortisone alone, improves the duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration in patients with septic shock.

This was a multicenter studies conducted in 10 ICU in Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil. The study was open label (treating physicians were aware of the therapy), randomized (patients were allocated to the treatment or control arm randomly) clinical trial.  Investigators recruited 216 patients fulfilling the Sepsis-3 definition of septic shock.

Patients in the vitamin C arm (n = 109) received intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g every 6 hours), hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 hours), and thiamine (200 mg every 12 hours). Patients in the control arm (n = 107) received only intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 hours) alone until shock resolution or up to 10 days.

Median time alive and vasopressor free up to day 7 was 122.1 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 76.3-145.4 hours) in the intervention group and 124.6 hours (IQR, 82.1-147.0 hours) in the control group; the median of all paired differences was –0.6 hours (95% CI, –8.3 to 7.2 hours; P = .83). Ninety-day mortality was 30/105 (28.6%) in the intervention group and 25/102 (24.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.69-2.00). No serious adverse events were reported.

The findings strengthen the clinical data, which is in contrast to the basic science data, that vitamin C may have clinical benefit in septic patients. At the minimum, the study findings suggest that treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine does not lead to a more rapid resolution of septic shock compared with intravenous hydrocortisone alone. For some, this might be end of vitamin C story, others may still want to examine vitamin C potential little more.

Vitamin D, Calcium Supplementation, and Bone Fracture Risk

Osteoporosis can be considered an aging process. In a lifetime, osteoporotic fracture affects about 1 in 2 women and 1 in 5 men aged 50 years or older with hip fracture being the most serious type of osteoporotic fracture. Vitamin D is essential for optimal musculoskeletal health because it promotes calcium absorption, mineralization of bone, and maintenance of muscle function. Vitamin D supplementation in several observational studies have been shown to decrease the risk of fracture. Similarly, calcium supplementation has also been shown to be preventive. However, results from the randomized clinical trials, the gold standard for determining if a given therapy is effective or not are lacking.

Yao and colleagues published a systematic review and meta-analysis and pooled data from large observation studies and randomized clinical trials to answer some key questions. In particular, they wanted to assess the risks of fracture associated with supplementation with vitamin D alone or in combination with calcium in RCTs. To identify relevant studies, they searched several medical literature databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and other randomized controlled trial databases. The search was from the start of database until December 31, 2018. They selected observational studies involving at least 200 fracture cases and randomized clinical trials enrolling at least 500 participants and reporting at least 10 incident fractures were included.

They identified 11 observational studies with a total number of 39 141 participants who had total of 6278 fractures, out of which 2367 were hip fractures. When they pooled the study results, they found that each increase of 10.0 ng/mL (ie, 25 nmol/L) in vitamin D was associated with an adjusted rate ratio for any fracture of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and an adjusted rate ratio for hip fracture of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86).

They also identified 11 RCTs of vitamin D supplementation alone enrolling 34 243 participants, 2843 fractures of which 740 were hip fractures. These trials did not find any decrease in risk of any fracture with Vitamin D supplementation alone (rate ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.14). Similarly, there was no decrease in risk of hip fracture (rate ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.98-1.32).

In contrast, a meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (49 282 participants, 5449 fractures, 730 hip fractures) of combined supplementation with daily vitamin D (daily doses of 400-800 IU) and daily calcium (daily doses of 1000-1200 mg) found a 6% reduced risk of any fracture (rate ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99) and a 16% reduced risk of hip fracture (rate ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97).

The final word: If you take vitamin D and/or calcium to reduce the risk of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures, you should take both calcium and vitamin D supplements together. Taking just one medication is unlikely to decrease fracture risk.

Physician Burnout and Self-perception of Medical Errors

Another study was just published examining the relationship between surgeon burnout and self-perceived medical errors. As expected, they found a strong correlation between the two. It is pretty well-known that when a physician is burned out, his/her own perception of quality of work goes down.In other words, finding a relationship between burnout and self-perception of medical errors is an issue of physician’s perception and not that actually medical errors occurred. To be confident, we need to objectively measure medical errors.

High Utilizers and Social Support

There is a common theme within the readmission reduction community that a large number of readmissions are due to limited social network around patients and only if we can provide patients with resources in community, we will be able to decrease these readmissions. Some observations studies have noticed a decrease in readmissions when patients are provided access to social/community resources, however, such studies are limited by risk of bias due to the ‘regression to the mean’ phenomenon.

Regression to mean phenomenon stipulates that if we examine participants once only performing a certain activity (or for an outcome), some of them will perform better while others will perform poorly simply due to some random factors. If we observe these participants longitudinally, we will find that those who performed well will perform poorly while those who performed poorly will perform better than their initial performance. Both groups will try to reach towards their mean (or true value).

Similarly, when we examine high-utilizer patients of health care services during a given period, those patients are likely at their worst and will do better anyway during the follow-up. This has nothing to do with the intervention but rather due to the regression to mean phenomenon. The way to address this problem is either to have several longitudinal measurements of the whole cohort where we can identify regression to the mean or to conduct a randomized clinical trial.

Finkelstein et al., conducted such a trial. They randomly assigned 800 hospitalized patients with medically and socially complex conditions with at least one additional hospitalization in the preceding 6 months, to either usual care (control group) or to the intervention group where social workers and community health workers coordinated and helped patients to access community resources.

To their, and frankly everyone else’s, surprise, they found to benefit of all the efforts of social workers and community health workers in reducing readmissions. The 180-day readmission rate was 62.3% in the intervention group and 61.7% in the control group. The adjusted between-group difference was not significant (0.82 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −5.97 to 7.61).

More importantly, study highlighted the phenomenon of regression to the mean showing that the patients with high readmission rates resulting in enrollment generally had a decline in their readmission rate irrespective of whether they received intervention or not.

The study has few caveats but still raises very important questions – what should hospitals, healthcare systems, physicians, and other healthcare team members do to reduce readmissions and healthcare resource utilization in a very vulnerable population.

Are Young Women Getting Unnecessary Medical Care?

The annual pelvic examination in otherwise healthy women is considered part of the well-woman visit. Similarly, Pap-smear is performed for cervical cancer screening among sexually active women. Screening for cervical cancer is not recommended for women younger than 21 years, a consensus reached by the US Preventive Services Task Force, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and American Cancer Society. The general recommendation is against performing pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, nonpregnant women younger than 21 years. However, young women are still undergoing such exams during their physical examinations.

How big is the problem of these unnecessary exams? Qin et al has recently published their findings using the National Survey of Family Growth. They estimated that between 2011 and 2017, an estimated 2.6 million women aged 15 to 20 years in the United States (22.9%) received a pelvic examination in the past year, and 54.4% of these examinations were potentially unnecessary. Further, an estimated 2.2 million young women (19.2%) received a Pap-smear test in the past year, and 71.9% of these tests were potentially unnecessary.

The Best Time to Take Your Blood Pressure Pills

Majority of blood pressure medicines are one daily and people take their blood pressure medicines often in the morning. There have been some data based on our understanding of the diurnal variations or circadian rhythms that taking medications at bedtime may work better. For example, peak activity of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) occurs during sleep. Further, data from some uncontrolled studies have suggested that taking blood pressure medications at evening (or bedtime) may be beneficial. However, a randomized controlled clinical trial (the gold standard for scientific evidence) has been lacking. That is until now!

A recent study published in the European Heart Journal, by Hermida et al, addressed this very same question. Investigators enrolled 19 084 hypertensive patients (10 614 men and 8470 women) and assigned patients to take the entire dose of their blood pressure pills at bedtime or in the morning. Of all the patients, 1752 experienced either a death due to heart attack, heart attack without death, had stent placed in their heart blood vessels, developed new heart failure, or a stroke. Patients who were taking their medications had 45% lower risk of all outcomes combined, 56% lower risk of heart attach death, 34% lower risk of heart attack, 40% lower risk of stents in their heart blood vessels, 42% lower risk of heart failure, and 49% lower risk of stroke.

Note, these are large differences – these patients were taking their blood pressure pills but just taking pills at a different time made a huge difference. The difference is larger than many other pills that are often prescribed by physicians. If you, or your loved one, takes blood pressure pills, consider talking to your doctor if you should take your pills at bed-time.

Tele-Health and Liver Transplant

Liver transplantation is the only treatment that increases survival times of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Patients who live further away from a transplant center are disadvantaged. Health care delivery via telehealth is an effective way to remotely manage patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Authors investigated the effects of telehealth on the liver transplant evaluation process.

Using regression models, authors evaluated the differential effects of telehealth vs. usual care on placement on the liver transplant waitlist. We also investigated the effects of telehealth on time from referral to initial evaluation by a transplant hepatologist, liver transplantation, and mortality.

Authors found that the use of telehealth was associated with a substantial reduction in time from referral to initial evaluation by a hepatologist and placement on the liver transplant waitlist-especially for patients with low MELD scores, with no changes in time to transplantation or pre-transplant mortality.