Introduction1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), the hormonally active form of vitamin D3, is a lipid-soluble compound that plays a significant role in clinical medicine due to its potent effects on calcium homeostasis and bone metabolism. Since foods containing natural vitamin D are rare, the primary source of the compound remains its nonenzymatic dermal synthesis through exposure to ultraviolet rays in sunlight. Although uncommon in most developed countries, recent literature has demonstrated that subclinical vitamin D deficiency can exist in certain populations and plays a role in downstream clinical consequences, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and fractures. This study aims to identify the prevalence and change in the pattern of vitamin D deficiency in subpopulations throughout the United States to provide a foundation for further clinical studies correlating the clinical outcomes to vitamin deficiency.MethodsData analyzed in this study were collected through National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), specifically from a population of 4962 participants, age ≥20 years, who were hospitalized between 2011 and 2012. This cohort was stratified to divide the population into patients that were vitamin D sufficient (>50 nmol/L) versus patients who were vitamin D deficient (50 nmol/L). The risk factors were compared between the subpopulations in 2005-2006 and 2011-2012.ConclusionsThe prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is greater in certain clinical subpopulations, and the presence of associated characteristics should raise the index of suspicion for the practicing clinician with regard to conditions associated with vitamin D deficiency, such as osteoporosis and osteomalacia. Further research investigating the pathophysiology of hypovitaminosis D and its clinical consequences can help better understand and prevent the development of associated comorbidities.

BackgroundThe polymicrobial nature of diabetic foot infection (DFI) and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance have complicated DFI treatment. Current treatment guidelines for deep DFI recommend coverage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and susceptible Enterobacteriaceae. This study aimed to describe the epidemiology of DFI and to identify predictors for DFI associated with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and pathogens resistant to recommended treatment (PRRT).MethodsAdult patients admitted to Detroit Medical Center from January 2012 to December 2015 with DFI and positive cultures were included. Demographics, comorbidities, microbiological history, sepsis severity, and antimicrobial use within 3 months before DFI were obtained retrospectively. DFI-PRRT was defined as a DFI associated with a pathogen resistant to both vancomycin and ceftriaxone. DFI-MDRO pathogens included MRSA in addition to PRRT.ResultsSix-hundred forty-eight unique patients were included, with a mean age of 58.4 ± 13.7 years. DFI-MDRO accounted for 364 (56%) of the cohort, and 194 (30%) patients had DFI-PRRT. Independent predictors for DFI-PRRT included history of PRRT in a diabetic foot ulcer, antimicrobial exposure in the prior 90 days, peripheral vascular disease, and chronic kidney disease. Long-term care facility residence was independently associated with DFI due to ceftriaxone-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and recent hospitalization was an independent predictor of DFI due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.ConclusionsAn unexpectedly high prevalence of DFI-PRRT pathogens was identified. History of the same pathogen in a prior diabetic foot ulcer and recent antimicrobial exposure were independent predictors of DFI-PRRT and should be considered when selecting empiric DFI therapy.

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second most common cause of death in cancer patients next to disease progression. The patients with cancer are not only at increased risk to develop VTE but are also at increased risk of recurrence and bleeding complications from treatment. Hence, anticoagulation is of utmost importance in this population. The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) and American Society of clinical oncology (ASCO) propose guidelines for treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in cancer patients frequently. We aimed to assess the choice and ease among internal medicine residents at different levels of postgraduate training in a teaching community hospital regarding the use of anticoagulation for the prevention and treatment of VTE in medical cancer patients. This study also determines the awareness of the 2019 guidelines of ISTH and ASCO among these residents. Methods: A Cross-sectional study including a web-based survey of five clinical scenarios was designed to determine the anticoagulation of choice as per the 2019 ASCO and ISTH guidelines. The scenarios consisted of non-gastrointestinal cancer patients with a diagnosis of VTE with and without normal kidney function, upper gastrointestinal cancer patents with recent VTE, and VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized and ambulatory cancer patients. Also, four questions were included to determine the ease of residents to start anticoagulation in cancer patients and to assess the difference in choices based on their postgraduate year (PGY) level making a total of nine questions. Results: 58 (77%) of the total residents (75) responded to the questionnaire who included, 18 PGY-1, 18 PGY-2, and 22 PGY-3. The average correct answers were 1.9 (Mean 39%; SD 21%) out of the five questions that were scored i.e the clinical scenario questions based on guidelines. In the scenario of VTE in non-gastrointestinal cancer, the majority of residents chose Lower Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) (60.34%), followed by rivaroxaban (24.14%). For a patient with impaired renal function, although a majority of residents preferred warfarin (41.38%), quite a few picked LMWH (29.31%). For upper gastrointestinal cancer, LMWH was the favored option (41.38%) and apixaban was second (31.03%). For VTE prophylaxis, LMWH had 63.16% of preference vs 35.09% of other options. In an ambulatory, fully functional patient with cancer, only 26% of residents believed anticoagulation is not required. 87.72% of the residents said they were unaware of the current guidelines and a total of 65.38% PGY-3 residents did not feel very comfortable starting anticoagulants on their patients without guidance. For the individual answers based on the PGY level see Figure 1. Conclusion: Most of the internal medicine residents preferred LMWH for cancer patients over direct oral anticoagulants. However, they picked the wrong choices in other common scenarios; such as one third preferred to start apixaban in a gastrointestinal cancer patient, or the majority would give prophylactic anticoagulation to ambulatory patients, which is not required per guidelines. These mistakes were supported by the majority of them saying that they were unaware of the treatment recommendations for VTE in cancer patients. Also more than half of the PGY-3 residents are not very comfortable initiating anticoagulants on their own. Based on the above study, we concluded that all residents should be educated on current VTE guidelines on cancer patients, and emphasis should be on including them in the Internal Medicine curriculum. This action will help the residents be more confident and highlight the importance of keeping up with new guidelines. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

No abstract