Rosas, Steven L

The following describes a case of isolated visceral angioedema related to an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) medication. Additionally, we discuss the pathophysiology of drug-induced angioedema, various presentations that can be encountered, and the leading theorized mechanisms of how renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blocking medications lead to angioedema. The goal of sharing this case is to help increase awareness of the possibility of ARB-induced angioedema and to recommend keeping visceral angioedema as part of the differential diagnosis when presented with a patient who is taking an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or ARB medication that is experiencing gastrointestinal symptoms of unclear etiology.

Introduction: Primary care clinicians are presented with hundreds of new clinical recommendations and guidelines. To consider practice change clinicians must identify relevant information and develop a contextual framework. Too much attention to information irrelevant to one’s practice results in wasted resources. Too little results in care gaps. A small group of primary care clinicians in a large health system sought to address the problem of vetting new information and providing peer reviewed context. This was done by engaging colleagues across the system though a primary care learning collaborative. Methods: The collaborative was a grass roots initiative between community and academic-based clinicians. They invited all the system’s primary care clinicians to participate. They selected new recommendations or guidelines and used surveys as the principal communication instrument. Surveys shared practice experience and also invited members to give narrative feedback regarding their acceptance of variation in care relate to the topic. A description of the collaborative along with its development, processes, and evolution are discussed. Process changes to address needs during the COVID-19 pandemic including expanded information sharing was necessary. Results: Collaborative membership reached across 5 states and included family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. Members found involvement with the collaborative useful. Less variation in care was thought important for public health crises: the COVID pandemic and opioid epidemic. Greater practice variation was thought acceptable for adherence to multispecialty guidelines, such as diabetes, lipid management, and adult ADHD care. Process changes during the pandemic resulted in more communications between members to avoid practice gaps. Conclusion: An internet-based learning collaborative in a health system had good engagement from its members. Using novel methods, it was able to provide members with feedback related to the importance of new practice recommendations as perceived by their peers. Greater standardization was thought necessary when adopting measures to address public health crisis, and less necessary when addressing multispecialty guidelines. By employing a learning collaborative, this group was able to keep members interested and engaged. During the first year of the COVID pandemic the collaborative also served as a vehicle to share timely information.

In 2019, there were multiple outbreaks of measles in the United States. In the context of the public awareness of these outbreaks, we performed an intervention with the intent to improve the rate of measles immunization in our pediatric population. Pediatric patients that were lacking adequate measles immunization were identified by electronic medical record (EMR) survey. Charts were reviewed and updated if records were found to be incomplete. Parents of the remaining children were sent a letter, personally signed by the child’s primary care provider, encouraging measles immunization. A measles fact sheet, produced by the United States Center for Disease Control, was also included with the letter. There were 44 patients in the study group whose parents received a letter and measles fact sheet. As a result, 5 of these children were brought in for a measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) immunization. The 44 patients whose parents received a letter included 20 patients whose parents had previously expressed intent to not vaccinate their children as documented in the EMR. None of these children received an MMR immunization. Although small in scope, this project provides a glimpse into the importance of personal provider guidance to parents who are inclined to immunize their children. Unfortunately, it also demonstrated that provider advice did not change the opinions of parents who had already taken a stance against vaccination, even in the context of an urgent public health situation that had garnered widespread coverage in the lay press and social media.

The objective was to determine if a greater proportion of physician full-time equivalent (FTE%) relative to nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NPs/PAs) on care teams was associated with improved individual clinician diabetes quality outcomes. The authors conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 420 family medicine clinicians in 110 care teams in a Midwest health system, using administrative data from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Poisson regression was used to examine the relationship between physician FTE% and the number of patients meeting 5 criteria included in a composite metric for diabetes management (D5). Covariates included panel size, clinician type, sex, years in practice, region, patient satisfaction, care team size, rural location, and panel complexity. Of the 420 clinicians, 167 (40%) were NP/PA staff and 253 (60%) were physicians. D5 criteria were achieved in 37.9% of NP/PA panels compared with 44.5% of physician panels ( P < .001). In adjusted analysis, rate of patients achieving D5 was unrelated to physician FTE% on the care team ( P = .78). Physicians had a 1.082 (95% confidence interval 1.007–1.164) times greater rate of patients with diabetes achieving D5 than NPs/PAs. Clinicians at rural locations had a .904 (.852-.959) times lower rate of achieving D5 than those at urban locations. Physicians had a greater rate of patients achieving D5 compared with NPs/PAs, but physician FTE% on the care team was unrelated to D5 outcomes. This suggests that clinician team composition matters less than team roles and the dynamics of collaborative care between members.

Gynecomastia is benign enlargement of glandular tissue in the male breast. It occurs due to an imbalance of estrogen and testosterone. It may be unilateral or bilateral. Physiologic gynecomastia commonly occurs in infants and during puberty and is self-limited. Gynecomastia may affect up to 50% of adult men over age 50 years old and can be related to underlying medical illness or caused by certain medications. Known causative agents include anti-androgenic and estrogenic drugs. Probable agents include alcohol and anti-ulcer, psychoactive, and antiretroviral medications. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are not commonly associated with the development of gynecomastia. This case presents an instance in which the NSAID, meloxicam, was the only identified variable in a patient who developed unilateral gynecomastia. His breast tenderness and abnormal exam resolved spontaneously within 4 weeks of cessation of meloxicam therapy.