Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2023.

The expansive scope of internal medicine can make it challenging for clinicians to stay informed about new literature that changes practice. Guideline updates and synthesis of relevant evidence can facilitate incorporation of advancements into clinical practice. The titles and abstracts from the seven general medicine journals with highest impact factors and relevance to outpatient internal medicine were reviewed by six internal medicine physicians. Coronavirus disease 19 research was excluded. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings were reviewed. Additionally, article synopsis collections and databases were evaluated: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster ACCESSSS/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertinent to the same topic were considered together. In total, seven practice-changing articles were included.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2022.

It can be difficult for clinicians to stay updated on practice-changing articles.  Synthesis of relevant articles and guideline updates can facilitate staying informed on important new data impacting clinical practice.  The titles and abstracts from the 7 general internal medicine outpatient journals with highest impact factors and relevance were reviewed by 8 internal medicine physicians. Coronavirus disease 2019 research was excluded.  The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, The British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Public Library of Science Medicine were reviewed. Additionally, article synopsis collections and databases were reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertinent to the same topic were considered together. In total, 5 practice-changing articles were included, along with a highlight of key guideline updates.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2021.

It can be challenging to identify new evidence that may shift clinical practice within internal medicine. Synthesis of relevant articles and guideline updates can facilitate staying informed of these changes. The titles and abstracts from the 7 general internal medicine outpatient journals with highest impact factors and relevance were reviewed by 8 internal medicine physicians. Coronavirus disease 2019 research was excluded. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Public Library of Science Medicine were reviewed. Additionally, article synopsis collections and databases were reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertinent to the same topic were considered together. In total, 8 practice-changing articles were included.

Symptoms COVID 19 Positive Vapers Compared to COVID 19 Positive Non-vapers.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to assess and describe the severity of symptoms reported by Covid-19 positive patients who vaped (smoked e-cigarettes) when compared to those who did not vape or smoke at the time of the diagnosis of Covid-19. METHODS: Patients from this study are from a well-characterized patient cohort collected at Mayo Clinic between March 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021; with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis defined as a positive result on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays from nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Among the 1734 eligible patients, 289 patients reported current vaping. The cohort of vapers (N = 289) was age and gender matched to 1445 covid-19 positive patients who did not vape. The data analyzed included: date of birth, gender, ethnicity, race, marital status, as well as lifestyle history such as vaping and smoking and reported covid-19 symptoms experienced. RESULTS: A logistic regression analysis was performed separately for each symptom using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance estimates in order to account for the 1:5 age, sex, and race matched set study design. Patients who vaped and developed Covid-19 infection were more likely to have chest pain or tightness (16% vs 10%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .005), chills (25% vs 19%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .0016), myalgia (39% vs 32%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .004), headaches (49% vs 41% vapers vs non vapers, P = .026), anosmia/dysgeusia (37% vs 30%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .009), nausea/vomiting/abdominal pain (16% vs 10%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .003), diarrhea (16% vs 10%, vapers vs non vapers, P = .004), and non-severe light-headedness (16% vs 9%, vapers vs non vapers, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Vapers experience higher frequency of covid-19 related symptoms when compared with age and gender matched non-vapers. Further work should examine the impact vaping has on post-covid symptom experience.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2020.

In a time of rapidly shifting evidence-based medicine, it is challenging to stay informed of research that modifies clinical practice. To enhance knowledge of practice-changing literature, a group of 7 internists reviewed titles and abstracts in 7 internal medicine journals with the highest impact factors and relevance to outpatient general internal medicine. Coronavirus disease-19 research was purposely excluded to highlight practice changes beyond the pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), JAMA Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine were reviewed. The following collections of article synopses and databases were also reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on relevance to outpatient internal medicine, impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Clusters of articles pertaining to the same topic were considered together. In total, 7 practice-changing articles were included.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2019.

Clinicians are challenged to stay informed of new and changing medical literature. To facilitate knowledge updates and synthesis of practice-changing information, a group of 6 internists reviewed the titles and abstracts in the 7 outpatient general internal medicine journals with the highest impact factors and relevance to outpatient internal medicine physicians: New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), JAMA Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine. The following collections of article synopses and databases were also reviewed: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertaining to the same topic were considered together. In total, 7 practice-changing articles were included.

Outbreak of leptospirosis among triathlon participants and community residents in Springfield, Illinois, 1998.

We investigated an outbreak of leptospirosis among athletes and community residents after a triathlon was held in Springfield, Illinois. A telephone survey was conducted to collect clinical information and data on possible risk factors, community surveillance was established, and animal specimens and lake water samples were collected to determine the source of the leptospiral contamination. A total of 834 of 876 triathletes were contacted; 98 (12%) reported being ill. Serum samples obtained from 474 athletes were tested; 52 of these samples (11%) tested positive for leptospirosis. Fourteen (6%) of 248 symptomatic community residents tested positive for leptospirosis. Heavy rains that preceded the triathlon are likely to have increased leptospiral contamination of Lake Springfield. Among athletes, ingestion of 1 or more swallows of lake water was a predominant risk factor for illness. This is the largest outbreak of leptospirosis that has been reported in the United States. Health care providers and occupational and recreational users of bodies of freshwater in the United States should be aware of the risk of contracting leptospirosis, particularly after heavy rains.