An Assessment of Management Strategies for Adult Patients with Foreign-Body Sensation in the Neck.

OBJECTIVES: Patients come to the emergency department (ED) for the evaluation of foreign-body sensation in the neck. Given the dearth of clinical studies for this complaint, these patients are treated subjectively by different providers. We aim to propose a treatment approach that results in the timely diagnosis and removal of foreign bodies by comparing the common radiologic studies used in the ED for this complaint, determining the utility of consults, and providing an approach that minimizes length of stay. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults between January 2014 and December 2015 presenting to LIJ and NSUH EDs with a chief complaint of foreign-body sensation in the pharynx, larynx, or esophagus. Fifty unique cases were studied. Consultations with ear, nose, and throat (ENT) and/or gastrointestinal, any imaging studies used, and time until discharge from the hospital were the primary exposures studied. The time for each diagnostic path for successful removal of a foreign body was compared for each case. RESULTS: Three common diagnostic approaches were identified. The most common pathway (six cases) had an ENT consult for removal of the foreign body, with an average time to discharge of 188 min. Another common pathway (four cases) began with a neck X-ray followed by an ENT consult, with an average time of 327 min. The third common approach (6 cases) involved no imaging studies or consults, with an average time of 166 min. Neck X-ray (20 cases) was found to have a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 83%. The sensitivity of neck computed tomography (CT) (15 cases) had a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 50%. Chest X-ray (15 cases) was found to have a sensitivity of just 17%. Chest CT (3 cases) had a sensitivity of 67%. CONCLUSION: Based on our data, we recommend that an attempt to localize the foreign body be completed by the emergency physician. If an initial attempt does not resolve the sensation, an ENT consult to remove the possible object should be initiated. Only after failure by ENT should radiological imaging be considered.

Current Status of Gender and Racial/Ethnic Disparities Among Academic Emergency Medicine Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: A 2010 survey identified disparities in salaries by gender and underrepresented minorities (URM). With an increase in the emergency medicine (EM) workforce since, we aimed to 1) describe the current status of academic EM workforce by gender, race, and rank and 2) evaluate if disparities still exist in salary or rank by gender. METHODS: Information on demographics, rank, clinical commitment, and base and total annual salary for full-time faculty members in U.S. academic emergency departments were collected in 2015 via the Academy of Administrators in Academic Emergency Medicine (AAAEM) Salary Survey. Multiple linear regression was used to compare salary by gender while controlling for confounders. RESULTS: Response rate was 47% (47/101), yielding data on 1,371 full-time faculty: 33% women, 78% white, 4% black, 5% Asian, 3% Asian Indian, 4% other, and 7% unknown race. Comparing white race to nonwhite, 62% versus 69% were instructor/assistant, 23% versus 20% were associate, and 15% versus 10% were full professors. Comparing women to men, 74% versus 59% were instructor/assistant, 19% versus 24% were associate, and 7% versus 17% were full professors. Of 113 chair/vice-chair positions, only 15% were women, and 18% were nonwhite. Women were more often fellowship trained (37% vs. 31%), less often core faculty (59% vs. 64%), with fewer administrative roles (47% vs. 57%; all p < 0.05) but worked similar clinical hours (mean ± SD = 1,069 ± 371 hours vs. 1,051 ± 393 hours). Mean overall salary was $278,631 (SD ± $68,003). The mean (±SD) salary of women was $19,418 (±$3,736) less than men (p < 0.001), even after adjusting for race, region, rank, years of experience, clinical hours, core faculty status, administrative roles, board certification, and fellowship training. CONCLUSIONS: In 2015, disparities in salary and rank persist among full-time U.S. academic EM faculty. There were gender and URM disparities in rank and leadership positions. Women earned less than men regardless of rank, clinical hours, or training. Future efforts should focus on evaluating salary data by race and developing systemwide practices to eliminate disparities.

Co-processed excipients: a patent review.

The introduction of high speed tableting machines and the preference of direct compression as a method of tableting have increased the demands on the functionality of excipients mainly in terms of flowability and compressibility. Co-processed excipients, where in, excipients are combined by virtue of sub-particle level interaction have provided an attractive tool for developing high functionality excipients. The multifold advantages offered by co-processed excipients such as production of synergism in functionality of individual components, reduction of company's regulatory concern because of absence of chemical change during co-processing and improvement in physico-chemical properties have expanded their use in the pharmaceutical industry. In the recent years, there has been a spurt in the number of patents filed on co-processed excipients. Hence, the present review focuses on co-processed excipients and their application in pharmaceutical industry. The worldwide databases of European patent office (http://ep.espacenet.com) and United States patent office (www.uspto.gov) were employed to collect the patents and patent applications. The advantages, limitations, basis for the selection of excipients to be co-processed, methods of co-processing and regulatory perspective of co-processed excipients are also briefly discussed.