Citations

Abstract Rationale Accurate, early identification of patients at risk for developing acute lung injury (ALI) provides the opportunity to test and implement secondary prevention strategies. Objectives To determine the frequency and outcome of ALI development in patients at risk and validate a lung injury prediction score (LIPS). Methods In this prospective multicenter observational cohort study, predisposing conditions and risk modifiers predictive of ALI development were identified from routine clinical data available during initial evaluation. The discrimination of the model was assessed with area under receiver operating curve (AUC). The risk of death from ALI was determined after adjustment for severity of illness and predisposing conditions. Measurements and Main Results Twenty-two hospitals enrolled 5,584 patients at risk. ALI developed a median of 2 (interquartile range 1–4) days after initial evaluation in 377 (6.8%; 148 ALI-only, 229 adult respiratory distress syndrome) patients. The frequency of ALI varied according to predisposing conditions (from 3% in pancreatitis to 26% after smoke inhalation). LIPS discriminated patients who developed ALI from those who did not with an AUC of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.78–0.82). When adjusted for severity of illness and predisposing conditions, development of ALI increased the risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.9–5.7). Conclusions ALI occurrence varies according to predisposing conditions and carries an independently poor prognosis. Using routinely available clinical data, LIPS identifies patients at high risk for ALI early in the course of their illness. This model will alert clinicians about the risk of ALI and facilitate testing and implementation of ALI prevention strategies. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00889772).

The Par-1 protein kinases are conserved from yeast to humans, where they function as key polarity determinants. The mammalian Par-1 family is comprised of 4 members (Par-1a, -b, -c, and -d). Previously, we demonstrated that atypical protein kinase C (aPKC) phosphorylates the Par-1 kinases on a conserved threonine residue (T595) to regulate localization and kinase activity. Here, we demonstrate that Par-1b is also regulated by another arm of the PKC pathway, one that involves novel PKCs (nPKC) and protein kinase D. Treatment of cells with the PKC activator phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate (PMA) potently stimulated phosphorylation of Par-1b on serine 400 (S400), a residue that is conserved in all 4 mammalian Par-1 kinases as well as the fly ortholog. We demonstrate that PMA stimulates nPKC to activate PKD, which in turn directly phosphorylates Par-1b on S400 to positively regulate 14-3-3 binding and to negatively regulate membrane association. Thus, 2 arms of the PKC pathway regulate interactions between Par-1b and 14-3-3 proteins: one involving aPKC and the other nPKC/PKD.

OBJECTIVE—Management of diabetes is frequently suboptimal in primary care settings, where providers often fail to intensify therapy when glucose levels are high, a problem known as clinical inertia. We asked whether interventions targeting clinical inertia can improve outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A controlled trial over a 3-year period was conducted in a municipal hospital primary care clinic in a large academic medical center. We studied all patients (4,138) with type 2 diabetes who were seen in continuity clinics by 345 internal medicine residents and were randomized to be control subjects or to receive one of three interventions. Instead of consultative advice, the interventions were hard copy computerized reminders that provided patient-specific recommendations for management at the time of each patient’s visit, individual face-to-face feedback on performance for 5 min every 2 weeks, or both. RESULTS—Over an average patient follow-up of 15 months within the intervention site, improvements in and final HbA1c (A1C) with feedback + reminders (ΔA1C 0.6%, final A1C 7.46%) were significantly better than control (ΔA1C 0.2%, final A1C 7.84%, P < 0.02); changes were smaller with feedback only and reminders only (P = NS vs. control). Trends were similar but not significant with systolic blood pressure (sBP) and LDL cholesterol. Multivariable analysis showed that the feedback intervention independently facilitated attainment of American Diabetes Association goals for both A1C and sBP. Over a 2-year period, overall glycemic control improved in the intervention site but did not change in other primary care sites (final A1C 7.5 vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS—Feedback on performance aimed at overcoming clinical inertia and given to internal medicine resident primary care providers improves glycemic control. Partnering generalists with diabetes specialists may be important to enhance diabetes management in other primary care settings.

The purpose of this article is to examine the potential of brief intervention (BI) as a modality for translating health behavior intervention research into practice. We discuss common definitions of BI, applications within common models of translation research, effects of BI on a range of health behaviors and across various populations, current and potential mechanisms, and uses for dissemination to practice. A number of advantages of BI suggest they are well suited for translating behavioral research. In addition, findings from 13 systematic reviews of BI effects show their potential versatility. Basic research on motivation, decision making, and persuasion may be applied to the design of BIs (Type 1 translation). Suggestions for translating BI research into practice are discussed (Type 2 translation). The article concludes that efforts to use BIs to translate research into practice are currently underdeveloped. Recommendations are provided for using BI in translating research into practice.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine whether “clinical inertia”—inadequate intensification of therapy by the provider—could contribute to high A1C levels in patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care site. Methods In a prospective observational study, management was compared in the Medical Clinic, a primary care site supervised by general internal medicine faculty, and the Diabetes Clinic, a specialty site supervised by endocrinologists. These municipal hospital clinics serve a common population that is largely African American, poor, and uninsured. Results Four hundred thirty-eight African American patients in the Medical Clinic and 2157 in the Diabetes Clinic were similar in average age, diabetes duration, body mass index, and gender, but A1C averaged 8.6% in the Medical Clinic versus 7.7% in the Diabetes Clinic (P < .0001). Use of pharmacotherapy was less intensive in the Medical Clinic (less use of insulin), and when patients had elevated glucose levels during clinic visits, therapy was less than half as likely to be advanced in the Medical Clinic compared to the Diabetes Clinic (P < .0001). Intensification rates were lower in the Medical Clinic regardless of type of therapy (P < .0001), and intensification of therapy was independently associated with improvement in A1C (P < .001). Conclusions Medical Clinic patients had worse glycemic control, were less likely to be treated with insulin, and were less likely to have their therapy intensified if glucose levels were elevated. To improve diabetes management and glycemic control nationwide, physicians in training and generalists must learn to overcome clinical inertia, to intensify therapy when appropriate, and to use insulin when clinically indicated.