Pancreatitis in a 57-Year-Old Female Two Weeks After Initiation of Empagliflozin.

Background/Objective: Pancreatitis is a common diagnosis requiring hospital admission, associated with significant costs. Although pancreatitis is an established side-effect with other diabetes medications, such as Glucagon like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 inhibitors, the association with SGLT2 inhibitors is not established. We present a patient with empagliflozin associated drug-induced acute pancreatitis (DIAP) and a review of published case reports. Case Report: A 57-year-old woman with T2DM presented to the hospital with severe abdominal pain. Her vital signs on presentation were temperature 98.3 F, blood pressure 139/79 mm Hg, pulse 62/min, and respiratory rate 15/min, saturating 99% on room air. Labs were notable for white blood cell count 12.8 (4.5-10.8 10∗3 µl), lipase- 36 (7-60 U/L), calcium- 9.4 (8.5-10.5 mg/dL), and triglycerides- 150 (35-150 mg/dL). Computed tomography abdomen showed induration of the peripancreatic fat, suggesting pancreatitis. No alcohol use was reported. DIAP and idiopathic pancreatitis were considered possible etiologies. Medication history revealed that the patient was started on empagliflozin 2 weeks before this admission. Empagliflozin was discontinued and she was discharged on metformin and glipizide. Discussion: Sodium Glucose Transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors are increasingly used for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure. The association of these medications with pancreatitis, its timeline, and the underlying mechanisms are yet to be understood. This case is intended to add to the existing limited literature on this side effect. Conclusions: With the increasing use of SGLT2 inhibitors, more cases of DIAP are being reported. Physicians need to consider SGLT2 inhibitors as a possible cause of pancreatitis after excluding other etiologies.

Implementing Perioperative Cardiac Risk Assessment in an Internal Medicine Residency Program: Experience from a Community Hospital.

Background: ACGME requires all Internal Medicine training programs to structure the curriculum to optimize resident educational experiences, including perioperative medicine. Teaching residents about perioperative risk management is challenging in a community hospital with limited resources and low surgical volume. Objective: Our goal was to introduce an interactive educational module on perioperative cardiac risk assessment and management in a community residency training program. Methods: The study was a single-center online education-based intervention from September 2020 to January 2021. 24 categorical internal medicine residents at MetroWest Medical center were included. A self-paced online education program followed by two sessions of a 30-minute, group modulated review and discussion were provided monthly. The pre- and post-evaluation with 20 questions were conducted to assess perioperative cardiac risk assessment and peri-operative cardiac risk management before and after education. Results: 20 out of 24 residents (83%) were included in the analysis. Medicine residents performed significantly better after involvement with the educational module by comparing the pre- and post-evaluation score (10.7 ± 2.7 vs. 13.8 ± 1.8, p < 0.001, respectively). The most significant improvement was noticed in postgraduate year PGY-1 residents (5.1 ± 2.5, p < 0.001), followed by PGY-2 (2.7 ± 1.6, p = 0.004), but not significant in PGY-3 residents (1.6 ± 2.3, p > 0.05). Conclusion: Implementing an interactive multi-modular curriculum in a community hospital increased residents' awareness and knowledge of perioperative cardiac risk assessment and management. We are confident that this will result in improved performance on the consult services.

Increased family history documentation in internal medicine resident continuity clinic at a community hospital through resident-led structured genetic education program.

We aim to assess residents' perspectives and clinical utility of obtaining family history (FH) as well as to improve the rate of FH documentation in electronic medical record (EMR) at an internal medicine resident continuity clinic at a community hospital. The residents' perspectives were assessed with questionnaires. The study period was divided into the first 10-week Phase 1 in which genetic education interventions were delivered by residents, and the second 10-week Phase 2 with minimal intervention. FH documentation in EMR was reviewed and compared to a 4-week baseline (Phase 0). We found that time constraint was the most reported barrier. We reviewed 1197 patient visits; FH was recorded in 34% (67/200), 52% (272/522), and 50% (239/475) during Phase 0, Phase1, and Phase 2, respectively. Genetic education significantly increased the rate of FH documentation in Phase 1 from baseline, which was maintained in Phase 2 despite removal of interventions. The mean age of patients with documented FH was younger than those without documentation (48 years vs 51 years; p < 0.001). Documented FH of cancers and coronary artery disease lacked important details, such as age at diagnosis, in 62% (86/138) and 51% (41/81) of them, respectively. Out of 511 patients that had documented FH, we identified 66 patients (13%) where positive family history could alter medical management. In conclusion, resident-led structured genetic education effectively increased family history documentation in EMR in internal medicine resident continuity clinic and showed clinical utility.

A Tale of Two Surges: Differences in Outcomes in the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Community Teaching Hospital in Massachusetts.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged the scientific community in the prompt implementation of therapies. We report and contrast characteristics and outcomes from two COVID-19 surges in March 2020 and December 2020 in patients at MetroWest Medical Center in Framingham. Methods The study was conducted at MetroWest Medical Center. We extracted the data of 315 patients from March 17, 2020, to June 30, 2020, and 104 patients from November 19, 2020, to December 30, 2020. All patients were inpatients and had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We extracted the patient's demographic information, clinical data, and given treatments. We also examined comorbidities and categorized them by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The primary endpoints were intensive care unit (ICU) level of care, mechanical ventilation, or death. Results A total of 419 patients were studied. The median age was 76. During the first surge (S1), 150 (47%) were from nursing homes and 133 (42%) were from independent living. More than half (72) of the independent living patients had a primary language other than English. During the second surge (S2), 12% (13) were from nursing homes. The most common comorbidities were similar for both groups and included obesity, diabetes, and chronic lung disease. However, during the first surge, 33% (104) of the patients had dementia. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was worse in the first surge; the predicted 10-year survival was 21% versus 53%. The treatments given included remdesivir in 5% (16) in the first surge versus 60% (62) in the second surge. Dexamethasone was given only in the second surge in 69% (72) of the patients. Outcomes The reported outcomes are contrasted by the first versus the second surge. Admission to the intensive care unit was required in 83 (27%) of the patients during the first surge versus 15 (14%) of the patients during the second surge. Mechanical ventilation was required in 33 (11%) of the patients during the first surge versus 5 (11%) of the patients during the second surge. The overall mortality was 25% during the first surge (79) versus 9% (9) during the second surge. Conclusion Among patients with COVID-19 infection admitted to a community teaching hospital during the second Massachusetts surge, there was a significant improvement in clinical outcomes, particularly mortality, compared with patients admitted during the early pandemic. It is tempting to attribute the improved outcomes to the implementation of treatment with corticosteroids and more use of antiviral therapy. However, the patients admitted during the larger first surge were more likely to have a do not resuscitate (DNR) status on admission, be from a nursing home, have dementia, and have poorer predicted survival.