Breast Surgery in Adolescents: Cisgender Breast Reduction Versus Transgender and Nonbinary Chest Masculinization.

PURPOSE: Both breast reduction surgery (BRS) in adolescent girls and chest masculinization surgery (CMS) transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) individuals improve physical discomfort and psychological well-being. Nonetheless, CMS in adolescents is highly contested due to concerns regarding safety and capacity for consent. Here, we compare both procedures to quantify trends in incidence, minimum age, and surgical outcomes. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried from 2018 to 2021 for cisgender and TGNB adolescents 18 years or younger who underwent BRS or CMS. Our primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine if CMS was associated with postoperative complications. RESULTS: Of 2504 adolescents, the majority (n = 2186 [87.3%]) were cisgender female patients who underwent BRS, compared with TGNB adolescents (n = 318 [12.7%]) who underwent CMS. BRS patients were younger at time of surgery (mean [SD] 16.7 [1.2], 17.5 [0.9]; P < 0.001). The minimum age for BRS was consistently 2 to 3 years younger than that for CMS (12.1 to 12.6 years vs 14.0 to 15.1 years). A comparable frequency of BRS and CMS patients developed 1 or more complications within 30 days of surgery (n = 98 [4.5%], n = 13 [4.1%]; P = 0.775). CONCLUSION: Cisgender female adolescents undergo breast surgery at a 7-fold rate compared with TGNB adolescents and do so at significantly younger ages. Given the favorable effects of BRS and CMS on psychosocial well-being and their comparable surgical risk of complications, our data help recontextualize the concerns surrounding adolescent CMS.

Primary Care Practice Transformation in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond: Key Principles for General Internal Medicine Practitioners.

As members of the Clinical Practice Committee (CPC) of the Society for General Internal Medicine (SGIM), we support practice innovation and transformation to achieve a more just system by which all people can achieve and maintain optimal health. The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the US healthcare delivery system and sharpened our national awareness of long-standing and ingrained system shortcomings. In the face of crisis, SGIM members innovated and energetically mobilized to focus on the immediate needs of our patients and communities. Reflecting on these experiences, we are called to consider what was learned from the pandemic that applies to the future of healthcare delivery. CPC members include leaders in primary care delivery, practice finance, quality of care, patient safety, hospital practice, and health policy. CPC members provide expertise in clinical practice, serving as primary care doctors, hospitalists, and patient advocates who understand the intensity of care needed for those with severe COVID-19 infections, the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on Black and Brown communities, the struggles created for those with poor access to care, and the physical and emotional impact it has placed on patients, families, and clinicians. In this consensus statement, we summarize lessons learned from the 2020-2021 pandemic and their broader implications for reform in healthcare delivery. We provide a platform for future work by identifying many interactive elements of healthcare delivery that must be simultaneously addressed in order to ensure that care is accessible, equitably provided, patient-centered, and cost-effective.

Care for Incarcerated Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped health care delivery for all patients but has distinctly affected the most marginalized people in society. Incarcerated patients are both more likely to be infected and more likely to die from COVID-19. There is a paucity of guidance for the care of incarcerated patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This article will discuss how patient privacy, adequate communication, and advance care planning are rights that incarcerated patients may not experience during this pandemic. We highlight the role of compassionate release and note how COVID-19 may affect this prospect. A number of pragmatic recommendations are made to attenuate the discrepancy in hospital care experienced by those admitted from prisons and jails. Physicians must be familiar with the relevant hospital policies, be prepared to adapt their practices in order to overcome barriers to care, such as continuous shackling, and advocate to change these policies when they conflict with patient care. Stigma, isolation, and concerns over staff safety are shared experiences for COVID-19 and incarcerated patients, but incarcerated patients have been experiencing this treatment long before the current pandemic. It is crucial that the internist demand the equitable care that we seek for all our patients.

Long COVID and Health Inequities: The Role of Primary Care.

Policy Points An estimated 700,000 people in the United States have "long COVID," that is, symptoms of COVID-19 persisting beyond three weeks. COVID-19 and its long-term sequelae are strongly influenced by social determinants such as poverty and by structural inequalities such as racism and discrimination. Primary care providers are in a unique position to provide and coordinate care for vulnerable patients with long COVID. Policy measures should include strengthening primary care, optimizing data quality, and addressing the multiple nested domains of inequity.

The Treatment of Disability under Crisis Standards of Care: An Empirical and Normative Analysis of Change over Time during COVID-19.

CONTEXT: COVID-19 has prompted debates between bioethicists and disability activists about Crisis Standards of Care plans (CSCs), triage protocols determining the allocation of scarce lifesaving care. METHODS: We examine CSCs in 35 states and code how they approach disability, comparing states that have revised their plans over time to those that have not. We offer ethical and legal analyses evaluating to what extent changes to state policy aligned with disability rights law and ethics during the early pandemic and subsequently as stakeholder engagement grew. FINDINGS: While disability rights views were not well represented in CSCs that were not updated or updated early in the pandemic, states that revised their plans later in the pandemic were more aligned with advocate priorities. However, many CSCs continue to include concerning provisions, especially the reliance on long-term survival, which implicates considerations of both disability rights and racial justice. CONCLUSIONS: The disability rights movement's successes in influencing state triage policy should inform future CSCs and set the stage for further work on how stakeholders influence bioethics policy debates. We offer thoughts for examining bioethics policy making reflecting the processes by which activists seek policy change and the tension policy makers face between expert delegation and mediating values conflicts.

The need for empathetic healthcare systems.

Medicine is not merely a job that requires technical expertise, but a profession concerned with making the best decisions and recommendations with reference to, and in consultation with, the patient. This means that the skill set required for healthcare professionals in order to provide good care is a combination of scientific knowledge, technical aptitude, and affective qualities or virtues such as compassion and empathy.

Influences on Primary Care Provider Imaging for a Hypothetical Patient with Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: How outside factors affect physician decision making remains an open question of vital importance. We sought to investigate the importance of various influences on physician decision making when clinical guidelines differ from patient preference. METHODS: An online survey asking 469 primary care providers (PCPs) across four practice sites whether they would order magnetic resonance imaging for a patient with uncomplicated back pain. Participants were randomized to one of four scenarios: a patient's preference for imaging (control), a patient's preference plus a colleague's opinion against imaging (colleague), a patient's preference plus a professional society's recommendation against imaging (profession), or a patient's preference plus an accountable care organization's quality metric that measures physician use of imaging (ACO). Demographic information and the reasoning behind participants' decisions also were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 168 PCPs completed the survey, yielding a 36% completion rate. A majority chose not to pursue imaging: control 68%, colleague 85%, profession 87%, and ACO 78%. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that participants were more likely not to order advanced imaging only when reminded of a professional society recommendation (P = 0.017). Regression also suggested that practice site exerted an effect on the primary outcome. Evidence-based medicine and clinical judgment were the most cited reasons for the decision. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reinforce the potential to leverage professional societies to advance evidence-based medicine and reduce unnecessary testing. At the same time, practice site appeared to exert influence, suggesting that these recommendations must be part of local institutional culture to be effective.

Diabetes Medications as Monotherapy or Metformin-Based Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and patients need updated evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of diabetes medications to make informed treatment choices. PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of monotherapy (thiazolidinediones, metformin, sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT-2] inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1] receptor agonists) and selected metformin-based combinations in adults with type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, indexed from inception through March 2015 (MEDLINE search updated through December 2015). STUDY SELECTION: Paired reviewers independently identified 179 trials and 25 observational studies of head-to-head monotherapy or metformin-based combinations. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and serially extracted data and graded the strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Cardiovascular mortality was lower for metformin versus sulfonylureas; the evidence on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and microvascular complications was insufficient or of low strength. Reductions in hemoglobin A1c values were similar across monotherapies and metformin-based combinations, except that DPP-4 inhibitors had smaller effects. Body weight was reduced or maintained with metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT-2 inhibitors and increased with sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, and insulin (between-group differences up to 5 kg). Hypoglycemia was more frequent with sulfonylureas. Gastrointestinal adverse events were highest with metformin and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Genital mycotic infections were increased with SGLT-2 inhibitors. LIMITATION: Most studies were short, with limited ability to assess rare safety and long-term clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: The evidence supports metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, given its relative safety and beneficial effects on hemoglobin A1c, weight, and cardiovascular mortality (compared with sulfonylureas). On the basis of less evidence, results for add-on therapies to metformin were similar to those for monotherapies. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Patient Autonomy in Talmudic Context: The Patient's "I Must Eat" on Yom Kippur in the Light of Contemporary Bioethics.

In contemporary bioethics, the autonomy of the patient has assumed considerable importance. Progressing from a more limited notion of informed consent, shared decision making calls upon patients to voice the desires and preferences of their authentic self, engaging in choice among alternatives as a way to exercise deeply held values. One influential opinion in Jewish bioethics holds that Jewish law, in contradistinction to secular bioethics, limits the patient's exercise of autonomy only in those instances in which treatment choices are sensitive to preferences. Here, we analyze a discussion in the Mishna, a foundational text of rabbinic Judaism, regarding patient autonomy in the setting of religiously mandated fasting, and commentaries in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds, finding both a more expansive notion of such autonomy and a potential metaphysical grounding for it in the importance of patient self-knowledge.

Navigating the unknown: shared decision-making in the face of uncertainty.

In shared decision-making (SDM), patient and physician deliberate together on the basis of shared evidence, supporting the patient's choice among multiple options, informed by her values and preferences. One factor complicating the implementation of SDM is uncertainty, which has long been recognized in medicine but perhaps not sufficiently addressed in the context of SDM. In order to ensure that SDM can be realistically applied to real-world clinical encounters, the issue of uncertainty should be recognized and explicitly incorporated into SDM strategies. Here we propose practical approaches, based in doctor-patient communication science and bioethics, that may be of help for incorporating the uncertainty factor into SDM in the context of the doctor-patient encounter. We also discuss how decision aids might be more widely applicable through routinely acknowledging the preference sensitivity of decisions and supplementing these tools with a discussion of uncertainty.

Prognostic value of cardiac troponin in patients with chronic kidney disease without suspected acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians face uncertainty about the prognostic value of troponin testing in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) without suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature on troponin testing in patients with CKD without ACS. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Studies examining elevated versus normal troponin levels in patients with CKD without ACS. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired reviewers selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and graded strength of evidence (SOE). Meta-analyses were conducted when studies had sufficient homogeneity of key variables. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ninety-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Elevated troponin levels were associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among patients receiving dialysis (moderate SOE). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality from studies that adjusted for age and coronary artery disease or a risk equivalent were 3.0 (95% CI, 2.4 to 4.3) for troponin T and 2.7 (CI, 1.9 to 4.6) for troponin I. The pooled adjusted HRs for cardiovascular mortality were 3.3 (CI, 1.8 to 5.4) for troponin T and 4.2 (CI, 2.0 to 9.2) for troponin I. Findings were similar for patients with CKD who were not receiving dialysis, but there were fewer studies. No study tested treatment strategies by troponin cut points. LIMITATION: Studies were heterogeneous regarding assays, troponin cut points, covariate adjustment, and follow-up. CONCLUSION: In patients with CKD without suspected ACS, elevated troponin levels were associated with worse prognosis. Future studies should focus on whether this biomarker is more appropriate than clinical models for reclassifying risk of patients with CKD and whether such classification can help guide treatment in those at highest risk for death. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Role of troponin in patients with chronic kidney disease and suspected acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have high prevalence of elevated serum troponin levels, which makes diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) challenging. PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of troponin in ACS diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis among patients with CKD. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Studies examining elevated versus normal troponin levels in terms of their diagnostic performance in detection of ACS, effect on ACS management strategies, and prognostic value for mortality or cardiovascular events after ACS among patients with CKD. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired reviewers selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and graded strength of evidence (SOE). DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria. The sensitivity of troponin T for ACS diagnosis ranged from 71% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 31% to 86% (6 studies; low SOE). The sensitivity and specificity of troponin I ranged from 43% to 94% and from 48% to 100%, respectively (8 studies; low SOE). No studies examined how troponin levels affect management strategies. Twelve studies analyzed prognostic value. Elevated levels of troponin I or troponin T were associated with higher risk for short-term death and cardiac events (low SOE). A similar trend was observed for long-term mortality with troponin I (low SOE), but less evidence was found for long-term cardiac events for troponin I and long-term outcomes for troponin T (insufficient SOE). Patients with advanced CKD tended to have worse prognoses with elevated troponin I levels than those without them (moderate SOE). LIMITATION: Studies were heterogeneous in design and in ACS definitions and adjudication methods. CONCLUSION: In patients with CKD and suspected ACS, troponin levels can aid in identifying those with a poor prognosis, but the diagnostic utility is limited by varying estimates of sensitivity and specificity. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Ethical challenges for accountable care organizations: a structured review.

BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are proliferating as a solution to the cost crisis in American health care, and already involve as many as 31 million patients. ACOs hold clinicians, group practices, and in many circumstances hospitals financially accountable for reducing expenditures and improving their patients' health outcomes. The structure of health care affects the ethical issues arising in the practice of medicine; therefore, like all health care organizational structures, ACOs will experience ethical challenges. No framework exists to assist key ACO stakeholders in identifying or managing these challenges. METHODS: We conducted a structured review of the medical ACO literature using qualitative content analysis to inform identification of ethical challenges for ACOs. RESULTS: Our analysis found infrequent discussion of ethics as an explicit concern for ACOs. Nonetheless, we identified nine critical ethical challenges, often described in other terms, for ACO stakeholders. Leaders could face challenges regarding fair resource allocation (e.g., about fairly using ACOs' shared savings), protection of professionals' ethical obligations (especially related to the design of financial incentives), and development of fair decision processes (e.g., ensuring that beneficiary representatives on the ACO board truly represent the ACO's patients). Clinicians could perceive threats to their professional autonomy (e.g., through cost control measures), a sense of dual or conflicted responsibility to their patients and the ACO, or competition with other clinicians. For patients, critical ethical challenges will include protecting their autonomy, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, and effectively engaging them with the ACO. DISCUSSION: ACOs are not inherently more or less "ethical" than other health care payment models, such as fee-for-service or pure capitation. ACOs' nascent development and flexibility in design, however, present a time-sensitive opportunity to ensure their ethical operation, promote their success, and refine their design and implementation by identifying, managing, and conducting research into the ethical issues they might face.

What are health-related users tweeting? A qualitative content analysis of health-related users and their messages on twitter.

BACKGROUND: Twitter is home to many health professionals who send messages about a variety of health-related topics. Amid concerns about physicians posting inappropriate content online, more in-depth knowledge about these messages is needed to understand health professionals' behavior on Twitter. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to characterize the content of Twitter messages, specifically focusing on health professionals and their tweets relating to health. METHODS: We performed an in-depth content analysis of 700 tweets. Qualitative content analysis was conducted on tweets by health users on Twitter. The primary objective was to describe the general type of content (ie, health-related versus non-health related) on Twitter authored by health professionals and further to describe health-related tweets on the basis of the type of statement made. Specific attention was given to whether a tweet was personal (as opposed to professional) or made a claim that users would expect to be supported by some level of medical evidence (ie, a "testable" claim). A secondary objective was to compare content types among different users, including patients, physicians, nurses, health care organizations, and others. RESULTS: Health-related users are posting a wide range of content on Twitter. Among health-related tweets, 53.2% (184/346) contained a testable claim. Of health-related tweets by providers, 17.6% (61/346) were personal in nature; 61% (59/96) made testable statements. While organizations and businesses use Twitter to promote their services and products, patient advocates are using this tool to share their personal experiences with health. CONCLUSIONS: Twitter users in health-related fields tweet about both testable claims and personal experiences. Future work should assess the relationship between testable tweets and the actual level of evidence supporting them, including how Twitter users-especially patients-interpret the content of tweets posted by health providers.

End-of-life care for the devout Jewish patient.

RATIONALE: The Joint Commission emphasizes the importance of cultural competence and effective communication in quality medical care, particularly during end-of-life (EOL), when decisions are influenced by diverse cultural and religious backgrounds. For Orthodox Jewish patients, the philosophical framework used for EOL decision-making may conflict with that used in traditional Western medical ethics. In this paper, we explore the complexities of EOL decision-making for devout Jewish patients and highlight how approaches may differ from a Western ethical framework. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to familiarize clinicians with EOL preferences of Orthodox Jewish patients, organized into an ethical framework called 'casuistic deontology'. Leading with an open-minded approach emphasizing cultural humility, we explore ways in which integrating this perspective can allow for culturally appropriate and compassionate EOL care. METHOD: Using a case study methodology, we focus on a 79-year-old Orthodox Jewish male hospitalized with severe injuries. The patient's medical course is analyzed, highlighting how the decisions made by his family in consultation with their Rabbi may differ from the decisions made with a philosophy of a Western ethical framework. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the ethical tensions that may arise when Western medical practices intersect with Orthodox Jewish beliefs, particularly regarding brain death, resuscitation, and artificial nutrition. We underscore the need for cultural sensitivity when approaching EOL decision-making, allowing for compassionate and comprehensive care that respects religious perspectives. This paper helps provide a structure for clinicians to navigate the complex EOL care needs for the devout Jewish patient in a manner consistent with their cultural and religious identity.