I am not a huge baseball fan to begin with, and when I am, I route for the Nationals. Thus, I pay little attention to the New York Yankees, and was not aware that Yankee player Mark Teixeira had been suffering with a cough for the past month until it the story from the New York Times came through one of my Twitter feeds. According to the story:
"Mark Teixeira had a battery of tests performed Wednesday to determine the nature of his violent and persistent cough, and he received good news. Teixeira, who has been wracked by the cough for about a month, said he was found to have nothing more serious than severe congestion in his bronchial passageways."
Mr. Teixeira was prescribed prednisone (not something I would recommend for this) and is expected to recover soon. In addition, the doctors at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia hospital in Manhattan performed a CT scan, a lung function tests, blood tests and cultures during their work up (though I am sure the Yankees can afford this). The Times does not mention the diagnosis other than to say that the baseball player had "severe inflammation in my bronchial passageways."
I blog about this because this is one of the most common things I see in the primary care setting, it is often misunderstood and therefore misdiagnosed, it is very easily treated and there is virtually no research on this disease.
Mr. Teixeira likely has what is known as postinfectious cough. Here's the typical patient presentation:
Young healthy patient gets a typical upper respiratory tract infection (URI): cough and congestion, headache, feels ill and low grade fever. URI resolves in a matter of days, but there is a persistent cough that is getting worse, and won't go away. Cough is usually worse at night, and the patient can't exercise because it makes them cough. On occasion the cough is so bad that the patient is winded easily and sometimes the patient thinks they may be wheezing, though they have no history of asthma.
According to the American College of Chest Physician which published evidence-based clinical practice guidelines back in 2008, the diagnosis of post infectious cough should be considered when a patient complains of cough that has been present following symptoms of an acute respiratory infection for at least 3 weeks,but not more than 8 weeks. And while the cause of the postinfectious cough is not known, it has been thought to be due to the extensive damage of cells lining the lung and widespread airway iinflammation of the upper and/or lower airways. The good news is that this usually goes away by itself, the bad news is that it can take weeks or even months, and can be quite disruptive to patients lives; desk jockeys and baseball players alike.
To me one of the most incredible things about this illness is the lack of data on effective treatments. The ACCP review cited above did an extensive review of the literature and found very few studies that looked which treatments worked best. Given the lack of data, here is my take on the appropriate diagnosis and treatment:
Diagnosis can be made without an extensive workup when the clinical presentation is consistent with that described above and there are no other complicating factors that would indicate other possibilities. A chest X-ray may be all that is necessary to rule out any underlying severe disease and is reasonable in a patient who has been coughing for more than two weeks.
Since symptoms are caused primarily by inflammation and hyperresponsiveness/bronchoconstriction in the lungs (which is what we see in asthma), then treatment is likely best with something that treats both inflammation and bronchoconstriction in the lungs, such as an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist like Advair (which is commonly used in asthma). Of note, Advair (or other ICS/LABA combinations) have not been approved by the FDA for the treatment postinfectious cough and there is no data on the use of ICS/LABA's for the treatment of postinfectious cough. However, this is a common sense approach to the problem based on what we know about the cause, and from clinical experience I can tell you this approach works remarkably well. Use of Advair for postinfectious cough may be the single most common off-label use of any prescription product.
There are two additional important points. First, since inflammation can persist for weeks, it is important that Advair be used for at least 4 weeks. If stopped too soon, before inflammation has completely resolved, symptoms may return. This is very important, because primary care physicians who decide to use ICS/LABA inhalers for postinfectious cough may give patients a medication sample rather than a prescription. Though the drug companies that make these products used to make samples with a month's supply of medication, most inhaler samples today have only 1-2 weeks of therapy. Secondly, if symptoms have resolved and the patient has taken the inhaler for 4-6 weeks, the patient can safely stop the inhaler. If symptoms return, the patient should be brought back for pulmonary function testing as this may be a new presentation of asthma.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Postinfectious Cough
Labels:
ACCP,
advair,
asthma,
cough,
FDA,
inhaler,
inhalers,
laba,
New York Times,
New York Yankees,
off-label,
postinfectious cough,
Teixeira
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Prior Authorizations Suck
"Suck" is a word I seldom use. It's a word I ask my children not to use. However, in this case the word is appropriate. If as a patient, you have ever had a delay in getting a medication or a test your doctor ordered, it was probably due to a prior authorization. A prior authorization is a bureaucratic hurdle (sometimes a phone call, sometimes a fax, sometimes a letter) that is required by your physician to get you the test or treatment he or she believes is right for you. A prior authorization is essentially a mechanism that insurance companies put in place to make ordering more expensive tests or medications more difficult for you to get. The decision maker on the insurance company's end who decides whether your doctor (regardless of specialty or years in practice) is justified in requesting the medication or test that your insurance company is obligated to provide for you is often a 20-something college grad with no clinical experience. Prior authorizations are probably one of the most frustrating things about being a primary care physician.
I am far from alone in this opinion. My medical society, The Medical Society of the District of Columbia or MSDC actually did a survey of their members examining the impact of health insurance prior authorization protocols on patient care in Washington, D.C. The study reveals widespread concern among area physicians, with over 93% of respondents saying that insurance company requirements are having a negative impact on their ability to treat patients.
In their press release,
Dr. James Cobey, President of MSDC stated that “Doctors, not insurance companies, know best how to care for their patients, yet prior authorization and other insurer protocols are dictating how physicians provide treatment. Prior authorization requirements put D.C. patients at risk by causing unnecessary and potentially dangerous delays for medications and care while preventing doctors from providing the most appropriate forms of treatment.”
Specific findings of the MSDC survey include:
I am far from alone in this opinion. My medical society, The Medical Society of the District of Columbia or MSDC actually did a survey of their members examining the impact of health insurance prior authorization protocols on patient care in Washington, D.C. The study reveals widespread concern among area physicians, with over 93% of respondents saying that insurance company requirements are having a negative impact on their ability to treat patients.
Specific findings of the MSDC survey include:
- 93.1% of D.C. physicians surveyed said that insurance company requirements such as prior authorization, pre-certification, therapeutic switching, and step therapy are having a negative impact on their ability to treat patients;
- Nearly 90% of those surveyed said that they have been forced to change the way they treated a patient, including changing prescription medications, due to restrictions imposed by an insurance company;
- Over 76% of physicians also reported that they have switched treatments in order to avoid dealing with prior authorization requirements;
- 94.8% of physicians surveyed said that insurance companies have delayed or denied treatments for their patients, such as prescription medications, diagnostic testing, or other services;
- 84.6% of physicians said that is it difficult to determine which prescription drugs or medical procedures require prior authorization;
- About half (47.2%) of MSDC members surveyed said that on average, prior authorization requests take several days or more to be resolved;
- 89.7% of respondents confirmed that completing and clarifying insurance requirements imposes “hidden” costs—such as extra staff time for the additional paperwork and phone calls—that have a negative impact on their medical practice.
Folks at the MSDC are trying to get laws passed to implement a standardized system across the District, with uniform requirements for filing and processing prior authorization requests which would expedite this onerous process and allow doctors to finally focus on what really matters—treating patients. Every medical society should follow their lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)