As general internists practicing in the inpatient setting, hospitalists at many institutions are expected to perform invasive bedside procedures, as defined by professional standards. In reality, hospitalists are doing fewer procedures and increasingly are referring to specialists, which threatens their ability to maintain procedural skills. The discrepancy between expectations and reality, especially when hospitalists may be fully credentialed to perform procedures, poses significant risks to patients because of morbidity and mortality associated with complications, some of which derive from practitioner inexperience.
 
  We performed a structured search of the peer-reviewed literature to identify articles focused on hospitalists performing procedures.
 
  Our synthesis of the literature characterizes contributors to hospitalists' procedural competency and discusses (1) temporal trends for procedures performed by hospitalists and their associated referral patterns, (2) data comparing use and clinical outcomes of procedures performed by hospitalists compared with specialists, (3) the lack of nationwide standardization of hospitalist procedural training and credentialing, and (4) the role of medical procedure services, although limited in supportive evidence, in concentrating procedural skill and mitigating risk in the hands of a few well-trained hospitalists.
 
  We conclude with recommendations for hospital medicine groups to ensure the safety of hospitalized patients undergoing bedside procedures.
 We conclude with recommendations for hospital medicine groups to ensure the safety of hospitalized patients undergoing bedside procedures.Some hospitals have faced a surge of patients with COVID-19, while others have not. We assessed whether COVID-19 burden (number of patients with COVID-19 admitted during April 2020 divided by hospital certified bed count) was associated with mortality in a large sample of US hospitals. Our study population included 14,226 patients with COVID-19 (median age 66 years, 45.2% women) at 117 hospitals, of whom 20.9% had died at 5 weeks of follow-up. At the hospital level, the observed mortality ranged from 0% to 44.4%. After adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities, the adjusted odds ratio for in-hospital death in the highest quintile of burden was 1.46 (95% CI, 1.07-2.00) compared to all other quintiles. Still, there was large variability in outcomes, even among hospitals with a similar level of COVID-19 burden and after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities.The impact of COVID-19 public health interventions on pediatric illnesses nationwide is unknown. We performed a multicenter, cross-sectional study of encounters at 44 children's hospitals in the United States to assess changes in healthcare utilization during the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with substantial reductions in encounters for respiratory diseases; these large reductions were consistent across illness subgroups. Although encounters for nonrespiratory diseases decreased as well, reductions were more modest and varied by age. Encounters for respiratory diseases among adolescents declined to a lesser degree and returned to previous levels faster compared with those of younger children. Further study is needed to determine the contributions of decreased illness and changes in care-seeking behavior to this observed reduction.The requirements to waive in vivo bioequivalence studies for immediate release solid oral dosage forms based on the Biopharmaceutics Classifications System (BCS) are well known, and biowaivers[1] for other types of oral dosage forms based on pre-defined criteria may also be acceptable. Similarly, biowaivers for dosage forms such as injectable products may also be allowed if certain criteria are met. The current paper summarises the biowaiver requirements for oral solutions and suspensions, soft gelatin capsules and injectable products (intravenous injections, subcutaneous and intramuscular injections, emulsions for injection and micellar solutions for injection) among the participants of the Bioequivalence Working Group for Generics (BEWGG) of the International Pharmaceutical Regulators Programme (IPRP). A review of the requirements indicated that there was a trend towards convergence when the dosage form became less complex; however, the most common approach used by each of the jurisdictions was a case-by-case approach given that most jurisdictions do not have well defined guidelines to support all possible scenarios. Even in the simplest case of intravenous solutions, the acceptability of qualitative changes in excipients differ between the IPRP members.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/gs-9973.html  Notwithstanding the differences, the dissemination of the information is a first step towards regulatory convergence regarding biowaivers for certain dosage forms and should be useful for pharmaceutical companies currently developing generic medicinal products for IPRP jurisdictions.
  To analyse the protective effect of different doses of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX) prophylaxis for early severe infections in antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody-associated vasculitis (AAV), considering time-varying changes.
 
  In this retrospective observational study, we assessed the protective effect of TMP/SMX within the first 6 months of diagnosis among Japanese patients with AAV. We included 250 consecutive patients with AAV who were admitted to our hospital. The protective effect of TMP/SMX against early severe infections was verified using Cox regression analysis along with potential confounding factors. Cox regression with inverse probability treatment weights for early severe infections was also performed as a sensitivity analysis.
 
  Cox regression analysis showed that the reduced TMP/SMX exposure group had a significant protective effect against early severe infections (standard-dose group versus no TMP/SMX group hazard ratio [HR] 0.393, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.139-1.11, p=0.077; reduced-dose group versus no TMP/SMX group HR 0.418, 95%CI 0.216-0.807, p=0.009), even when considering time-dependent changes. In the sensitivity analysis, the reduced-dose group still had a significantly lower risk of early severe infections than the no TMP/SMX group (HR = 0.393, 95%CI 0.177-0.873, p=0.022). During follow-up, 18.0% of the patients discontinued TMP/SMX due to side effects.
 
  TMP/SMX is highly effective in preventing severe infections among patients with AAV despite the high incidence of side effects. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal dose of TMP/SMX for preventing severe infections, especially considering renal impairment.
 TMP/SMX is highly effective in preventing severe infections among patients with AAV despite the high incidence of side effects. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal dose of TMP/SMX for preventing severe infections, especially considering renal impairment.