INDIAN WELLS, CALIF. – Surgeons with fellowship training in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery were significantly more likely to perform proposed quality measures at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse, compared with those who lack such training, a single-center study showed.

“The Physician Quality Reporting System was instituted as part of recent health care reform, with the aim of improving the reporting of quality measures, with the overall goal of improving the quality of care provided to patients throughout all areas of medicine,” Dr. Emily Adams-Piper said at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. “While there are many types of quality measures, including outcome measures and patient satisfaction measures, process measures may be the most directly applicable for the practicing clinician, because they provide recommended actions during specific patient encounters that can guide practice.”

©monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

Dr. Adams-Piper, a resident physician in the division of urogynecology at the University of California, Irvine, and her associates set out to investigate the use of proposed quality measures at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) among women receiving care from Southern California Permanente Medical Group, a large HMO.

They wanted to know if training background affected the rate of performance of four different quality measures related to hysterectomy for POP: offering conservative treatment prior to the surgical treatment of POP, quantitative assessment of POP with either a Baden-Walker or a POP-Q exam, apical support procedure performed at the time of hysterectomy for prolapse, and performance of intraoperative cystoscopy.

Patients who underwent hysterectomy for POP in 2008 were eligible for the study. The researchers reviewed electronic medical records for clinical and demographic data and categorized surgeons by their level of training.

“They were considered fellowship trained if they had pursued additional formal subspecialty training in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery,” Dr. Adams-Piper explained. “Surgeons were considered grandfathered if they subsequently took the FPMRS [Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery] boards when they became available in 2013. Surgeons were considered generalist if they fit into neither of these two categories and completed a residency in ob.gyn.”

Chi-squared tests were used to compare demographics and performance of the proposed quality measures. Of the 662 hysterectomies performed in 2008, 328 were included in the final analysis. The mean patient age was 60 years, the mean parity was 2.9, and the mean body mass index was 27.9 kg/m^2.

Overall performance of the four proposed quality measures was high, ranging from 82%-87%. More than half of quality assessments (58%) were performed with the POP-Q exam, while the majority of apical support procedures were uterosacral ligament vault suspensions (67%), followed by sacrocolpopexy (18%), McCall culdoplasty (12%), and sacrospinous ligament fixation (3%).

When categorized by training, fellowship-trained surgeons performed 133 hysterectomies, “grandfathered” surgeons performed 55, and generalist gynecologic surgeons performed 140. Fellowship-trained surgeons performed each of the four proposed quality measures more often than did grandfathered surgeons, who performed them more often than generalist gynecologic surgeons did.

Specifically, conservative treatment was offered by 94% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 87% of grandfathered surgeons, and 76% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (P = .0002). Qualitative preoperative assessment of POP was performed by 99% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 93% of grandfathered surgeons, and 73% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (three-way comparison reached statistical significance, with a P less than .0001).

Apical repair was performed by 96% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 82% of grandfathered surgeons, and 69% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (P less than .0001). Finally, cystoscopy was performed by 98% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 91% of grandfathered surgeons, and 72% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (P less than .0001).

When the researchers evaluated the cumulative performance of all measures in the same patient, fellowship-trained surgeons had the highest rates (89%, compared with 62% of grandfathered surgeons, and 39% of generalist gynecologic surgeons; P less than .0001).

“When we looked at the patient characteristics and their distribution across the surgeon training backgrounds, we found no significant differences in the age, BMI, gravidity, or parity of the subjects that underwent surgeries with the three groups,” Dr. Adams-Piper said.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it reflects clinical practice in a single health care delivery system, it relied on prior documentation, and it evaluated data from 2008.

“From this study we can conclude that perioperative practice patterns differ by surgeon training background,” she said. “However, in order for the proposed quality measures to be clinically meaningful, they must be correlated with patient-centered outcomes.”

Dr. Adams-Piper reported having no financial disclosures. The meeting was jointly sponsored by the American College of Surgeons.

[email protected]

INDIAN WELLS, CALIF. – Surgeons with fellowship training in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery were significantly more likely to perform proposed quality measures at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse, compared with those who lack such training, a single-center study showed.

“The Physician Quality Reporting System was instituted as part of recent health care reform, with the aim of improving the reporting of quality measures, with the overall goal of improving the quality of care provided to patients throughout all areas of medicine,” Dr. Emily Adams-Piper said at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. “While there are many types of quality measures, including outcome measures and patient satisfaction measures, process measures may be the most directly applicable for the practicing clinician, because they provide recommended actions during specific patient encounters that can guide practice.”

©monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

Dr. Adams-Piper, a resident physician in the division of urogynecology at the University of California, Irvine, and her associates set out to investigate the use of proposed quality measures at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) among women receiving care from Southern California Permanente Medical Group, a large HMO.

They wanted to know if training background affected the rate of performance of four different quality measures related to hysterectomy for POP: offering conservative treatment prior to the surgical treatment of POP, quantitative assessment of POP with either a Baden-Walker or a POP-Q exam, apical support procedure performed at the time of hysterectomy for prolapse, and performance of intraoperative cystoscopy.

Patients who underwent hysterectomy for POP in 2008 were eligible for the study. The researchers reviewed electronic medical records for clinical and demographic data and categorized surgeons by their level of training.

“They were considered fellowship trained if they had pursued additional formal subspecialty training in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery,” Dr. Adams-Piper explained. “Surgeons were considered grandfathered if they subsequently took the FPMRS [Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery] boards when they became available in 2013. Surgeons were considered generalist if they fit into neither of these two categories and completed a residency in ob.gyn.”

Chi-squared tests were used to compare demographics and performance of the proposed quality measures. Of the 662 hysterectomies performed in 2008, 328 were included in the final analysis. The mean patient age was 60 years, the mean parity was 2.9, and the mean body mass index was 27.9 kg/m^2.

Overall performance of the four proposed quality measures was high, ranging from 82%-87%. More than half of quality assessments (58%) were performed with the POP-Q exam, while the majority of apical support procedures were uterosacral ligament vault suspensions (67%), followed by sacrocolpopexy (18%), McCall culdoplasty (12%), and sacrospinous ligament fixation (3%).

When categorized by training, fellowship-trained surgeons performed 133 hysterectomies, “grandfathered” surgeons performed 55, and generalist gynecologic surgeons performed 140. Fellowship-trained surgeons performed each of the four proposed quality measures more often than did grandfathered surgeons, who performed them more often than generalist gynecologic surgeons did.

Specifically, conservative treatment was offered by 94% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 87% of grandfathered surgeons, and 76% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (P = .0002). Qualitative preoperative assessment of POP was performed by 99% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 93% of grandfathered surgeons, and 73% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (three-way comparison reached statistical significance, with a P less than .0001).

Apical repair was performed by 96% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 82% of grandfathered surgeons, and 69% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (P less than .0001). Finally, cystoscopy was performed by 98% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 91% of grandfathered surgeons, and 72% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (P less than .0001).

When the researchers evaluated the cumulative performance of all measures in the same patient, fellowship-trained surgeons had the highest rates (89%, compared with 62% of grandfathered surgeons, and 39% of generalist gynecologic surgeons; P less than .0001).

“When we looked at the patient characteristics and their distribution across the surgeon training backgrounds, we found no significant differences in the age, BMI, gravidity, or parity of the subjects that underwent surgeries with the three groups,” Dr. Adams-Piper said.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it reflects clinical practice in a single health care delivery system, it relied on prior documentation, and it evaluated data from 2008.

“From this study we can conclude that perioperative practice patterns differ by surgeon training background,” she said. “However, in order for the proposed quality measures to be clinically meaningful, they must be correlated with patient-centered outcomes.”

Dr. Adams-Piper reported having no financial disclosures. The meeting was jointly sponsored by the American College of Surgeons.

[email protected]

INDIAN WELLS, CALIF. – Surgeons with fellowship training in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery were significantly more likely to perform proposed quality measures at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse, compared with those who lack such training, a single-center study showed.

“The Physician Quality Reporting System was instituted as part of recent health care reform, with the aim of improving the reporting of quality measures, with the overall goal of improving the quality of care provided to patients throughout all areas of medicine,” Dr. Emily Adams-Piper said at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. “While there are many types of quality measures, including outcome measures and patient satisfaction measures, process measures may be the most directly applicable for the practicing clinician, because they provide recommended actions during specific patient encounters that can guide practice.”

©monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

Dr. Adams-Piper, a resident physician in the division of urogynecology at the University of California, Irvine, and her associates set out to investigate the use of proposed quality measures at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) among women receiving care from Southern California Permanente Medical Group, a large HMO.

They wanted to know if training background affected the rate of performance of four different quality measures related to hysterectomy for POP: offering conservative treatment prior to the surgical treatment of POP, quantitative assessment of POP with either a Baden-Walker or a POP-Q exam, apical support procedure performed at the time of hysterectomy for prolapse, and performance of intraoperative cystoscopy.

Patients who underwent hysterectomy for POP in 2008 were eligible for the study. The researchers reviewed electronic medical records for clinical and demographic data and categorized surgeons by their level of training.

“They were considered fellowship trained if they had pursued additional formal subspecialty training in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery,” Dr. Adams-Piper explained. “Surgeons were considered grandfathered if they subsequently took the FPMRS [Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery] boards when they became available in 2013. Surgeons were considered generalist if they fit into neither of these two categories and completed a residency in ob.gyn.”

Chi-squared tests were used to compare demographics and performance of the proposed quality measures. Of the 662 hysterectomies performed in 2008, 328 were included in the final analysis. The mean patient age was 60 years, the mean parity was 2.9, and the mean body mass index was 27.9 kg/m^2.

Overall performance of the four proposed quality measures was high, ranging from 82%-87%. More than half of quality assessments (58%) were performed with the POP-Q exam, while the majority of apical support procedures were uterosacral ligament vault suspensions (67%), followed by sacrocolpopexy (18%), McCall culdoplasty (12%), and sacrospinous ligament fixation (3%).

When categorized by training, fellowship-trained surgeons performed 133 hysterectomies, “grandfathered” surgeons performed 55, and generalist gynecologic surgeons performed 140. Fellowship-trained surgeons performed each of the four proposed quality measures more often than did grandfathered surgeons, who performed them more often than generalist gynecologic surgeons did.

Specifically, conservative treatment was offered by 94% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 87% of grandfathered surgeons, and 76% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (P = .0002). Qualitative preoperative assessment of POP was performed by 99% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 93% of grandfathered surgeons, and 73% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (three-way comparison reached statistical significance, with a P less than .0001).

Apical repair was performed by 96% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 82% of grandfathered surgeons, and 69% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (P less than .0001). Finally, cystoscopy was performed by 98% of fellowship-trained surgeons, 91% of grandfathered surgeons, and 72% of generalist gynecologic surgeons (P less than .0001).

When the researchers evaluated the cumulative performance of all measures in the same patient, fellowship-trained surgeons had the highest rates (89%, compared with 62% of grandfathered surgeons, and 39% of generalist gynecologic surgeons; P less than .0001).

“When we looked at the patient characteristics and their distribution across the surgeon training backgrounds, we found no significant differences in the age, BMI, gravidity, or parity of the subjects that underwent surgeries with the three groups,” Dr. Adams-Piper said.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it reflects clinical practice in a single health care delivery system, it relied on prior documentation, and it evaluated data from 2008.

“From this study we can conclude that perioperative practice patterns differ by surgeon training background,” she said. “However, in order for the proposed quality measures to be clinically meaningful, they must be correlated with patient-centered outcomes.”

Dr. Adams-Piper reported having no financial disclosures. The meeting was jointly sponsored by the American College of Surgeons.

[email protected]

VANCOUVER – Many retired National Football League (NFL) players seeking care for neurocognitive symptoms have MRI evidence of traumatic brain injury, according to the largest study of this issue among living players.

Data reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology show that 43% of a cohort of 40 symptomatic NFL retirees had abnormal results on diffusion tensor MRI and 30% had evidence of traumatic axonal injury on conventional MRI.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

The likelihood of abnormal diffusion tensor MRI results was correlated, albeit weakly, with the length of the player’s NFL career, but not with the number of concussions sustained.

“It appears that subconcussive hits – that is, the cumulative effects and longer playing careers – place retired alumni at risk for abnormal diffusion tensor MRI,” commented lead author Dr. Francis X. Conidi, director of the Florida Center for Headache & Sports Neurology in Palm Beach and team neurologist for the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League.

“This could be a possible link to chronic traumatic encephalopathy, as consensus is you need to have repetitive head trauma,” he proposed. “Or this could be a separate entity whereby, in NFL players, the symptoms we are seeing are actually related to the traumatic brain injury itself and [in a subset] with some genetic predisposition, they will go on to have progressive neurological decline.”

Although the cohort was quite young, only 39 years old on average, some had likely played football since youth, and that has implications for prevention, Dr. Conidi added in an interview. “One thing we need to consider is limiting the amount of contact that these people receive on a cumulative basis, starting when they are young and starting in practice, because that’s where most of the contact occurs,” he recommended.

“It is important to note that diffusion tensor imaging is not a routine part of a brain MRI study,” session moderator Dr. José E. Cavazos, professor of neurology and assistant dean at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, said in comments provided by email. “The significant correlation between duration of years played and abnormalities in diffusion tensor imaging is of concern given the popularity of the sport.”

“The next step is to replicate the findings, but more importantly, it is to find surrogate markers for early detection for these abnormalities, aiming to intervene (sideline) those players at greater risk for developing cognitive deficits or other impairments,” he added.

In the study, the retired players had a battery of neuropsychological and imaging examinations and tests over a period of 2 days. They were classified as having abnormal diffusion tensor MRI results if they had fractional anisotropy (FA) values at least 2.5 standard deviations below those of age-matched peers in a normative database for specific regions of interest in the brain.

The players ranged in age from 27 to 56 years. On average, they had played 7 years in the NFL and sustained eight concussions during that time. Most had retired in the past 5 years.

Results showed that, overall, 43% had abnormal diffusion tensor MRI results, Dr. Conidi reported. Prevalence, however, varied according to player position: It was highest for defensive linemen (64%) and wide receivers (60%); intermediate for running backs (43%), defensive backs (33%), and offensive linemen (29%); and lowest for quarterbacks (0%) and linebackers (0%).

The number of years played was significantly correlated with abnormal results (P = .049), but the number of concussions was not.

In other findings, sizable proportions of the players had significant abnormalities in attention and concentration (43%), executive function (54%), learning and memory (46%), spatial and perceptual function (24%), and language (5%).

“These guys have played these positions probably since they were young. This isn’t just NFL. We don’t make any claims that professional football caused this,” Dr. Conidi emphasized.

As for future research, the investigators plan to undertake PET scanning to assess clinical and laboratory evidence of Alzheimer’s disease, study sleep pathology, and look for tau protein (a marker for chronic traumatic encephalopathy) in cerebrospinal fluid. Additionally, they will assess treatment outcomes.

The study is not without limitations, Dr. Conidi acknowledged. “With every study that has ever been done on these guys, it is a skewed population: They are coming to us and they are looking to be evaluated,” he elaborated. “The other issue is we don’t have a normative comparison database for the neuropsychological testing.”

Dr. Conidi disclosed that he is a consultant for the NFL, NHL, USTA, PGA, and NCAA and that he receives research support from the Seeing Stars Foundation.

VANCOUVER – Many retired National Football League (NFL) players seeking care for neurocognitive symptoms have MRI evidence of traumatic brain injury, according to the largest study of this issue among living players.

Data reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology show that 43% of a cohort of 40 symptomatic NFL retirees had abnormal results on diffusion tensor MRI and 30% had evidence of traumatic axonal injury on conventional MRI.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

The likelihood of abnormal diffusion tensor MRI results was correlated, albeit weakly, with the length of the player’s NFL career, but not with the number of concussions sustained.

“It appears that subconcussive hits – that is, the cumulative effects and longer playing careers – place retired alumni at risk for abnormal diffusion tensor MRI,” commented lead author Dr. Francis X. Conidi, director of the Florida Center for Headache & Sports Neurology in Palm Beach and team neurologist for the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League.

“This could be a possible link to chronic traumatic encephalopathy, as consensus is you need to have repetitive head trauma,” he proposed. “Or this could be a separate entity whereby, in NFL players, the symptoms we are seeing are actually related to the traumatic brain injury itself and [in a subset] with some genetic predisposition, they will go on to have progressive neurological decline.”

Although the cohort was quite young, only 39 years old on average, some had likely played football since youth, and that has implications for prevention, Dr. Conidi added in an interview. “One thing we need to consider is limiting the amount of contact that these people receive on a cumulative basis, starting when they are young and starting in practice, because that’s where most of the contact occurs,” he recommended.

“It is important to note that diffusion tensor imaging is not a routine part of a brain MRI study,” session moderator Dr. José E. Cavazos, professor of neurology and assistant dean at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, said in comments provided by email. “The significant correlation between duration of years played and abnormalities in diffusion tensor imaging is of concern given the popularity of the sport.”

“The next step is to replicate the findings, but more importantly, it is to find surrogate markers for early detection for these abnormalities, aiming to intervene (sideline) those players at greater risk for developing cognitive deficits or other impairments,” he added.

In the study, the retired players had a battery of neuropsychological and imaging examinations and tests over a period of 2 days. They were classified as having abnormal diffusion tensor MRI results if they had fractional anisotropy (FA) values at least 2.5 standard deviations below those of age-matched peers in a normative database for specific regions of interest in the brain.

The players ranged in age from 27 to 56 years. On average, they had played 7 years in the NFL and sustained eight concussions during that time. Most had retired in the past 5 years.

Results showed that, overall, 43% had abnormal diffusion tensor MRI results, Dr. Conidi reported. Prevalence, however, varied according to player position: It was highest for defensive linemen (64%) and wide receivers (60%); intermediate for running backs (43%), defensive backs (33%), and offensive linemen (29%); and lowest for quarterbacks (0%) and linebackers (0%).

The number of years played was significantly correlated with abnormal results (P = .049), but the number of concussions was not.

In other findings, sizable proportions of the players had significant abnormalities in attention and concentration (43%), executive function (54%), learning and memory (46%), spatial and perceptual function (24%), and language (5%).

“These guys have played these positions probably since they were young. This isn’t just NFL. We don’t make any claims that professional football caused this,” Dr. Conidi emphasized.

As for future research, the investigators plan to undertake PET scanning to assess clinical and laboratory evidence of Alzheimer’s disease, study sleep pathology, and look for tau protein (a marker for chronic traumatic encephalopathy) in cerebrospinal fluid. Additionally, they will assess treatment outcomes.

The study is not without limitations, Dr. Conidi acknowledged. “With every study that has ever been done on these guys, it is a skewed population: They are coming to us and they are looking to be evaluated,” he elaborated. “The other issue is we don’t have a normative comparison database for the neuropsychological testing.”

Dr. Conidi disclosed that he is a consultant for the NFL, NHL, USTA, PGA, and NCAA and that he receives research support from the Seeing Stars Foundation.

VANCOUVER – Many retired National Football League (NFL) players seeking care for neurocognitive symptoms have MRI evidence of traumatic brain injury, according to the largest study of this issue among living players.

Data reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology show that 43% of a cohort of 40 symptomatic NFL retirees had abnormal results on diffusion tensor MRI and 30% had evidence of traumatic axonal injury on conventional MRI.

Susan London/Frontline Medical News

The likelihood of abnormal diffusion tensor MRI results was correlated, albeit weakly, with the length of the player’s NFL career, but not with the number of concussions sustained.

“It appears that subconcussive hits – that is, the cumulative effects and longer playing careers – place retired alumni at risk for abnormal diffusion tensor MRI,” commented lead author Dr. Francis X. Conidi, director of the Florida Center for Headache & Sports Neurology in Palm Beach and team neurologist for the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League.

“This could be a possible link to chronic traumatic encephalopathy, as consensus is you need to have repetitive head trauma,” he proposed. “Or this could be a separate entity whereby, in NFL players, the symptoms we are seeing are actually related to the traumatic brain injury itself and [in a subset] with some genetic predisposition, they will go on to have progressive neurological decline.”

Although the cohort was quite young, only 39 years old on average, some had likely played football since youth, and that has implications for prevention, Dr. Conidi added in an interview. “One thing we need to consider is limiting the amount of contact that these people receive on a cumulative basis, starting when they are young and starting in practice, because that’s where most of the contact occurs,” he recommended.

“It is important to note that diffusion tensor imaging is not a routine part of a brain MRI study,” session moderator Dr. José E. Cavazos, professor of neurology and assistant dean at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, said in comments provided by email. “The significant correlation between duration of years played and abnormalities in diffusion tensor imaging is of concern given the popularity of the sport.”

“The next step is to replicate the findings, but more importantly, it is to find surrogate markers for early detection for these abnormalities, aiming to intervene (sideline) those players at greater risk for developing cognitive deficits or other impairments,” he added.

In the study, the retired players had a battery of neuropsychological and imaging examinations and tests over a period of 2 days. They were classified as having abnormal diffusion tensor MRI results if they had fractional anisotropy (FA) values at least 2.5 standard deviations below those of age-matched peers in a normative database for specific regions of interest in the brain.

The players ranged in age from 27 to 56 years. On average, they had played 7 years in the NFL and sustained eight concussions during that time. Most had retired in the past 5 years.

Results showed that, overall, 43% had abnormal diffusion tensor MRI results, Dr. Conidi reported. Prevalence, however, varied according to player position: It was highest for defensive linemen (64%) and wide receivers (60%); intermediate for running backs (43%), defensive backs (33%), and offensive linemen (29%); and lowest for quarterbacks (0%) and linebackers (0%).

The number of years played was significantly correlated with abnormal results (P = .049), but the number of concussions was not.

In other findings, sizable proportions of the players had significant abnormalities in attention and concentration (43%), executive function (54%), learning and memory (46%), spatial and perceptual function (24%), and language (5%).

“These guys have played these positions probably since they were young. This isn’t just NFL. We don’t make any claims that professional football caused this,” Dr. Conidi emphasized.

As for future research, the investigators plan to undertake PET scanning to assess clinical and laboratory evidence of Alzheimer’s disease, study sleep pathology, and look for tau protein (a marker for chronic traumatic encephalopathy) in cerebrospinal fluid. Additionally, they will assess treatment outcomes.

The study is not without limitations, Dr. Conidi acknowledged. “With every study that has ever been done on these guys, it is a skewed population: They are coming to us and they are looking to be evaluated,” he elaborated. “The other issue is we don’t have a normative comparison database for the neuropsychological testing.”

Dr. Conidi disclosed that he is a consultant for the NFL, NHL, USTA, PGA, and NCAA and that he receives research support from the Seeing Stars Foundation.

The percentage of dermatology residents pursuing fellowship training is steadily increasing. A report from the American Board of Dermatology described an increase in the percentage of residents entering fellowships approved by the American Board of Dermatology and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education from 10% in 2006 to 24% in 2010.¹ The American Medical Association Residency & Fellowship Database FREIDA Online showed that 30% of dermatology residents or fellows pursued further fellowship training in 2013.² The number of dermatology fellowship positions offered also is steadily increasing. Data from SF Match showed that the number of participating applicants in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) fellowships increased from 64 in 2002 to 86 in 2014, and the number of programs increased from 48 to 56, respectively.³ Similarly, in pediatric dermatology the SF Match reported an increase from 14 to 22 in participating applicants and an increase in available programs from 14 to 20 in 2009 and 2012, respectively.4 Reports on dermatopathology programs also have suggested either a stable or increased percentage of residents pursuing fellowships in this specialty.^5,6

There are several reported factors that influence the pursuit of dermatology fellowships. Fellows often hope to gain further exposure to a dermatology subspecialty,⁷ which is especially applicable to procedural dermatology, as the prevailing opinion among dermatologists is that residency training should emphasize medical dermatology much more than surgery.^8,9 Increased financial compensation, responsibility to provide for a family, and increased levels of educational debt do not notably influence the desire to pursue a fellowship, though these factors often play a role in the decision to pursue a career in academia.^6,10-12 Additionally, it has been reported that fellowship-trained dermatologists are more likely to teach students, residents, and fellows and are up to 8 times more likely to participate in research than non–fellowship-trained dermatologists.^6,8,11 Research activity also correlates with the decision to pursue an academic career. As such, fellowship training may present physicians with opportunities to improve clinical care, garner more research opportunities, and advance in academic rank.¹³

Scholarly productivity, measured by contribution to research, is a heavily weighted factor when hiring and promoting within academic medicine.^14-17 Despite the importance of scholarly productivity, it is difficult to accurately quantify the measure. Commonly used metrics include number of publications, number of citations, amount of National Institutes of Health funding, number of research presentations, and number of lectures.^18,19 However, taken individually, none of these measures entirely represents an individual’s research contribution. For example, a physician may have a large number of relatively low-quality publications. Additionally, if considering the number of citations, one of an author’s publications may have many citations, while the remaining publications do not.

The h-index, introduced in 2005 by Hirsch,^20,21 is a measure of academic productivity that takes into account both the quantity and impact of research measured by recording the number of published articles and the number of citations in peer-reviewed journals. A high h-index indicates a high number of significant publications. For example, if a physician has 10 published articles cited 10 times each, his/her h-index is 10. Another physician with an h-index of 10 may have published 50 articles, which indicates that the remaining 40 articles were cited fewer than 10 times. Prior studies on the use of the h-index in fields as diverse as otolaryngology, radiology, anesthesiology, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, and urology indicate a strong association between the h-index and academic rank.^22-28 Other studies indicate that fellowship-trained individuals tend to have a higher h-index than their non–fellowship-trained counterparts.^29,30 One study demonstrated that fellowship-trained dermatologic surgeons had significantly increased academic productivity (P=.001), as measured by the number of publications in PubMed, compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologic surgeons.¹¹

The goal of this study was to determine whether dermatology fellowship training impacts scholarly productivity and academic promotion. Additionally, the scholarly productivity of procedural dermatology/MMS, dermatopathology, and pediatric dermatology fellows is compared to determine if type of subspecialty affects research productivity.

Methods

A list of academic dermatology departments was accessed using FREIDA Online. Individual departmental websites were visited to compile a list of academic faculty members. Additional recorded data included academic rank, gender, and fellowship training. Academic rank was classified as assistant professor, associate professor, professor, and chair. Physicians listed as chairs were not listed as professors to avoid duplication of these individuals. Voluntary, nonclinical, and nonacademic faculty members were excluded from the analysis. Departments that did not list the academic rank of faculty members also were excluded. Faculty members were organized by fellowship type: procedural dermatology/MMS, dermatopathology, pediatric dermatology, other fellowship, and no fellowship. Individuals with multiple fellowships were counted in multiple categories.

Faculty members were subsequently searched on the Scopus database to determine the h-index and publication range in years. Correct author identity was ensured by confirming correct departmental affiliations and publications related to dermatology. (Results collected from the Scopus database have been shown to correlate well with those ofISI Web of Knowledge.²³)

Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare continuous variables, and the Pearson χ² test was used to compare categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at P<.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software. This study qualified as nonhuman subject research per the institutional review board of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (Newark, New Jersey).

Results

The analysis included 1043 faculty members from 103 academic departments. There were 144 dermatologists (13.8%) with procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships, 162 (15.5%) with dermatopathology fellowships, 71 (6.8%) with pediatric dermatology fellowships, 124 (11.9%) with other fellowships, and 542 (52.0%) with no fellowships (Figure 1). Fellowships classified as other included immunodermatology, dermatology-rheumatology, clinical education, dermatoepidemiology, cutaneous oncology, dermatopharmacology, and photobiology. Fellowship-trained dermatologists had a higher mean h-index than dermatologists without fellowships (13.2 vs 11.7; P<.001)(Figure 2).

There were significant statistical differences among the fellowships examined (Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, P<.05). Academic dermatologists who completed dermatopathology or other fellowships had higher scholarly productivity than those who completed pediatric dermatology and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships (P<.05)(Figure 3). Those who did not complete a fellowship had a higher mean h-index than those who completed pediatric dermatology and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Regarding academic rank, there was a significant increase in scholarly productivity (as measured by the h-index) from assistant professor to professor (P<.05). There was no statistical difference in scholarly productivity between professors and chairs. When controlling for academic rank, there were no statistically significant differences in h-index between fellowship-trained versus non–fellowship-trained dermatologists, except at the level of associate professor. However, fellowship-trained dermatologists consistently had a higher mean h-index compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists in each rank (Figure 4). Fellowship-trained dermatologists made up 48.2% (222/461) of assistant professors, 45.2% (103/228) of associate professors, 47.3% (125/264) of professors, and 56.7% (51/90) of chairs.

When controlling for the number of active publication years, no statistically significant differences were found between scholarly productivity in fellowship-trained versus non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, fellowship-trained academic dermatologists consistently had a higher mean h-index than non–fellowship-trained dermatologists within each 10-year range, except for the 31- to 40-year range (Figure 5).

Comment

The proportion of dermatology residents who pursue fellowship training has been steadily increasing, according to data from the American Medical Association and American Board of Dermatology.^1,2 Fellowship training allows graduating residents to have greater exposure to a dermatology subspecialty and often provides a narrower focus for future clinical activities. In our study, we found that fellowship-trained dermatologists had significantly higher research productivity, as measured by the h-index, than academic dermatologists without fellowship, which is likely because fellowship training offers an opportunity to hone teaching skills and pursue more research activity.¹³ For instance, several fellowship programs allow focused research time during training.¹¹ Additionally, residents pursuing fellowships may be more likely to engage in research activities.

Greater scholarly productivity is especially important for academic physicians, as it plays an important role in hiring and promoting.^14,15,19,31 Additionally, increased research productivity has been found to be associated with improved teaching and clinical activity.¹⁹ Research productivity of faculty members also influences the reputation and prestige of the department and the institution’s subsequent ability to attract higher-quality residents and faculty members.²⁸

There were significant differences in mean h-index between dermatology subspecialties. Academic dermatologists who completed procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships had the lowest mean h-index, while those who completed dermatopathology or other fellowships had the highest mean h-index. These findings suggest that an emphasis on research productivity may be greater in dermatopathology. Additionally, dermatologists who completed other fellowships, such as immunodermatology or dermatopharmacology, may have received such fellowships prior to dermatology training. It would be interesting to determine the amount of time allocated for research within each subspecialty fellowship training.

A greater amount of clinical responsibility also may influence the difference in measures of scholarly productivity within each subspecialty. For instance, there is a known shortage of pediatric dermatologists,³² which may translate as a decreased amount of time that can be dedicated to research activity because of higher clinical volume per physician. Dermatologists with no fellowship had a higher mean h-index than those with pediatric and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships, which may reflect the smaller number of subspecialists compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists (13.8% procedural dermatology/MMS; 6.8% pediatric dermatology; 52.0% no fellowship). As such, the research of subspecialists is targeted to a narrower audience and will garner fewer citations than non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, the lower number of subspecialists is not the only factor impacting scholarly productivity, as dermato-pathologists had higher scholarly impact than non–fellowship-trained individuals despite comprising only 15.5% of the cohort.

In corroboration with prior studies of academic medicine, the h-index increased with increasing rank from assistant professor to professor and chair.^29,30,33 This increase confirms that research productivity is associated with academic rank. When stratifying the 2 cohorts of fellowship-trained and non–fellowship-trained academic dermatologists by academic rank, there was no significant difference in the h-index for both groups at each rank, except for associate professor. In addition, there was a relatively equal distribution within each rank of fellowship-trained and non–fellowship-trained individuals. This lack of statistical difference also was demonstrated when stratifying for years of active publication experience. Academic dermatologists have been shown to be more interested in pursuing research activity, and research is pivotal to pursuing a dermatology residency.¹¹ Future studies may extend the comparison of scholarly productivity to nonacademic dermatologists.

It is important to acknowledge certain limitations in the data collection process and use of the h-index. Many of the dermatology department websites do not provide information about whether individual faculty members are pursuing a tenure track or nontenure track. This distinction may have bearing on the h-index, as research is more heavily emphasized in the tenure track. Moreover, the h-index does not take into account the type of research (ie, clinical vs basic science research). Therefore, while basic science research often is more time intensive than clinical research, a publication is weighed solely by its number of citations. As such, the h-index may not capture the true amount of time dedicated to research activities. In addition, the h-index cannot account for self-citation, which may increase this measure.³⁴ However, to greatly influence the h-index, many self-citations of each work would be necessary, making it less concerning. Another limitation of this study is that it does not take into account time dedicated to the education of residents and medical students, an act that is necessary for preservation of the field. Although education portfolios that detail an individual’s contribution to teaching are starting to become more popular, there currently is no measure for educational activities.^18,35 Finally, dermatology department websites are not frequently updated; as such, data gathered from websites regarding academic rank may not always be recent.

Conclusion

Scholarly productivity, as measured by the h-index, is a major contributory factor to hiring, promoting, and developing reputations in academic medicine. Our findings demonstrate that there is greater scholarly productivity among fellowship-trained dermatologists compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, when controlling for academic rank and publication range, this difference is minimized. As such, fellowships may provide more opportunity for structured research experiences but may not be necessary for successful academic careers. In addition, individuals who wish to dedicate a substantial portion of time to research may find that fellowships in dermatopathology, immunodermatology, dermatology-rheumatology, clinical education, dermatoepidemiology, cutaneous oncology, dermatopharmacology, and photobiology are more conducive to performing research. We also recommend that other activities, including clinical and teaching activities, serve as supplemental measures to scholarly productivity when evaluating a physician’s contribution.

The percentage of dermatology residents pursuing fellowship training is steadily increasing. A report from the American Board of Dermatology described an increase in the percentage of residents entering fellowships approved by the American Board of Dermatology and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education from 10% in 2006 to 24% in 2010.¹ The American Medical Association Residency & Fellowship Database FREIDA Online showed that 30% of dermatology residents or fellows pursued further fellowship training in 2013.² The number of dermatology fellowship positions offered also is steadily increasing. Data from SF Match showed that the number of participating applicants in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) fellowships increased from 64 in 2002 to 86 in 2014, and the number of programs increased from 48 to 56, respectively.³ Similarly, in pediatric dermatology the SF Match reported an increase from 14 to 22 in participating applicants and an increase in available programs from 14 to 20 in 2009 and 2012, respectively.4 Reports on dermatopathology programs also have suggested either a stable or increased percentage of residents pursuing fellowships in this specialty.^5,6

There are several reported factors that influence the pursuit of dermatology fellowships. Fellows often hope to gain further exposure to a dermatology subspecialty,⁷ which is especially applicable to procedural dermatology, as the prevailing opinion among dermatologists is that residency training should emphasize medical dermatology much more than surgery.^8,9 Increased financial compensation, responsibility to provide for a family, and increased levels of educational debt do not notably influence the desire to pursue a fellowship, though these factors often play a role in the decision to pursue a career in academia.^6,10-12 Additionally, it has been reported that fellowship-trained dermatologists are more likely to teach students, residents, and fellows and are up to 8 times more likely to participate in research than non–fellowship-trained dermatologists.^6,8,11 Research activity also correlates with the decision to pursue an academic career. As such, fellowship training may present physicians with opportunities to improve clinical care, garner more research opportunities, and advance in academic rank.¹³

Scholarly productivity, measured by contribution to research, is a heavily weighted factor when hiring and promoting within academic medicine.^14-17 Despite the importance of scholarly productivity, it is difficult to accurately quantify the measure. Commonly used metrics include number of publications, number of citations, amount of National Institutes of Health funding, number of research presentations, and number of lectures.^18,19 However, taken individually, none of these measures entirely represents an individual’s research contribution. For example, a physician may have a large number of relatively low-quality publications. Additionally, if considering the number of citations, one of an author’s publications may have many citations, while the remaining publications do not.

The h-index, introduced in 2005 by Hirsch,^20,21 is a measure of academic productivity that takes into account both the quantity and impact of research measured by recording the number of published articles and the number of citations in peer-reviewed journals. A high h-index indicates a high number of significant publications. For example, if a physician has 10 published articles cited 10 times each, his/her h-index is 10. Another physician with an h-index of 10 may have published 50 articles, which indicates that the remaining 40 articles were cited fewer than 10 times. Prior studies on the use of the h-index in fields as diverse as otolaryngology, radiology, anesthesiology, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, and urology indicate a strong association between the h-index and academic rank.^22-28 Other studies indicate that fellowship-trained individuals tend to have a higher h-index than their non–fellowship-trained counterparts.^29,30 One study demonstrated that fellowship-trained dermatologic surgeons had significantly increased academic productivity (P=.001), as measured by the number of publications in PubMed, compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologic surgeons.¹¹

The goal of this study was to determine whether dermatology fellowship training impacts scholarly productivity and academic promotion. Additionally, the scholarly productivity of procedural dermatology/MMS, dermatopathology, and pediatric dermatology fellows is compared to determine if type of subspecialty affects research productivity.

Methods

A list of academic dermatology departments was accessed using FREIDA Online. Individual departmental websites were visited to compile a list of academic faculty members. Additional recorded data included academic rank, gender, and fellowship training. Academic rank was classified as assistant professor, associate professor, professor, and chair. Physicians listed as chairs were not listed as professors to avoid duplication of these individuals. Voluntary, nonclinical, and nonacademic faculty members were excluded from the analysis. Departments that did not list the academic rank of faculty members also were excluded. Faculty members were organized by fellowship type: procedural dermatology/MMS, dermatopathology, pediatric dermatology, other fellowship, and no fellowship. Individuals with multiple fellowships were counted in multiple categories.

Faculty members were subsequently searched on the Scopus database to determine the h-index and publication range in years. Correct author identity was ensured by confirming correct departmental affiliations and publications related to dermatology. (Results collected from the Scopus database have been shown to correlate well with those ofISI Web of Knowledge.²³)

Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare continuous variables, and the Pearson χ² test was used to compare categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at P<.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software. This study qualified as nonhuman subject research per the institutional review board of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (Newark, New Jersey).

Results

The analysis included 1043 faculty members from 103 academic departments. There were 144 dermatologists (13.8%) with procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships, 162 (15.5%) with dermatopathology fellowships, 71 (6.8%) with pediatric dermatology fellowships, 124 (11.9%) with other fellowships, and 542 (52.0%) with no fellowships (Figure 1). Fellowships classified as other included immunodermatology, dermatology-rheumatology, clinical education, dermatoepidemiology, cutaneous oncology, dermatopharmacology, and photobiology. Fellowship-trained dermatologists had a higher mean h-index than dermatologists without fellowships (13.2 vs 11.7; P<.001)(Figure 2).

There were significant statistical differences among the fellowships examined (Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, P<.05). Academic dermatologists who completed dermatopathology or other fellowships had higher scholarly productivity than those who completed pediatric dermatology and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships (P<.05)(Figure 3). Those who did not complete a fellowship had a higher mean h-index than those who completed pediatric dermatology and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Regarding academic rank, there was a significant increase in scholarly productivity (as measured by the h-index) from assistant professor to professor (P<.05). There was no statistical difference in scholarly productivity between professors and chairs. When controlling for academic rank, there were no statistically significant differences in h-index between fellowship-trained versus non–fellowship-trained dermatologists, except at the level of associate professor. However, fellowship-trained dermatologists consistently had a higher mean h-index compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists in each rank (Figure 4). Fellowship-trained dermatologists made up 48.2% (222/461) of assistant professors, 45.2% (103/228) of associate professors, 47.3% (125/264) of professors, and 56.7% (51/90) of chairs.

When controlling for the number of active publication years, no statistically significant differences were found between scholarly productivity in fellowship-trained versus non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, fellowship-trained academic dermatologists consistently had a higher mean h-index than non–fellowship-trained dermatologists within each 10-year range, except for the 31- to 40-year range (Figure 5).

Comment

The proportion of dermatology residents who pursue fellowship training has been steadily increasing, according to data from the American Medical Association and American Board of Dermatology.^1,2 Fellowship training allows graduating residents to have greater exposure to a dermatology subspecialty and often provides a narrower focus for future clinical activities. In our study, we found that fellowship-trained dermatologists had significantly higher research productivity, as measured by the h-index, than academic dermatologists without fellowship, which is likely because fellowship training offers an opportunity to hone teaching skills and pursue more research activity.¹³ For instance, several fellowship programs allow focused research time during training.¹¹ Additionally, residents pursuing fellowships may be more likely to engage in research activities.

Greater scholarly productivity is especially important for academic physicians, as it plays an important role in hiring and promoting.^14,15,19,31 Additionally, increased research productivity has been found to be associated with improved teaching and clinical activity.¹⁹ Research productivity of faculty members also influences the reputation and prestige of the department and the institution’s subsequent ability to attract higher-quality residents and faculty members.²⁸

There were significant differences in mean h-index between dermatology subspecialties. Academic dermatologists who completed procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships had the lowest mean h-index, while those who completed dermatopathology or other fellowships had the highest mean h-index. These findings suggest that an emphasis on research productivity may be greater in dermatopathology. Additionally, dermatologists who completed other fellowships, such as immunodermatology or dermatopharmacology, may have received such fellowships prior to dermatology training. It would be interesting to determine the amount of time allocated for research within each subspecialty fellowship training.

A greater amount of clinical responsibility also may influence the difference in measures of scholarly productivity within each subspecialty. For instance, there is a known shortage of pediatric dermatologists,³² which may translate as a decreased amount of time that can be dedicated to research activity because of higher clinical volume per physician. Dermatologists with no fellowship had a higher mean h-index than those with pediatric and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships, which may reflect the smaller number of subspecialists compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists (13.8% procedural dermatology/MMS; 6.8% pediatric dermatology; 52.0% no fellowship). As such, the research of subspecialists is targeted to a narrower audience and will garner fewer citations than non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, the lower number of subspecialists is not the only factor impacting scholarly productivity, as dermato-pathologists had higher scholarly impact than non–fellowship-trained individuals despite comprising only 15.5% of the cohort.

In corroboration with prior studies of academic medicine, the h-index increased with increasing rank from assistant professor to professor and chair.^29,30,33 This increase confirms that research productivity is associated with academic rank. When stratifying the 2 cohorts of fellowship-trained and non–fellowship-trained academic dermatologists by academic rank, there was no significant difference in the h-index for both groups at each rank, except for associate professor. In addition, there was a relatively equal distribution within each rank of fellowship-trained and non–fellowship-trained individuals. This lack of statistical difference also was demonstrated when stratifying for years of active publication experience. Academic dermatologists have been shown to be more interested in pursuing research activity, and research is pivotal to pursuing a dermatology residency.¹¹ Future studies may extend the comparison of scholarly productivity to nonacademic dermatologists.

It is important to acknowledge certain limitations in the data collection process and use of the h-index. Many of the dermatology department websites do not provide information about whether individual faculty members are pursuing a tenure track or nontenure track. This distinction may have bearing on the h-index, as research is more heavily emphasized in the tenure track. Moreover, the h-index does not take into account the type of research (ie, clinical vs basic science research). Therefore, while basic science research often is more time intensive than clinical research, a publication is weighed solely by its number of citations. As such, the h-index may not capture the true amount of time dedicated to research activities. In addition, the h-index cannot account for self-citation, which may increase this measure.³⁴ However, to greatly influence the h-index, many self-citations of each work would be necessary, making it less concerning. Another limitation of this study is that it does not take into account time dedicated to the education of residents and medical students, an act that is necessary for preservation of the field. Although education portfolios that detail an individual’s contribution to teaching are starting to become more popular, there currently is no measure for educational activities.^18,35 Finally, dermatology department websites are not frequently updated; as such, data gathered from websites regarding academic rank may not always be recent.

Conclusion

Scholarly productivity, as measured by the h-index, is a major contributory factor to hiring, promoting, and developing reputations in academic medicine. Our findings demonstrate that there is greater scholarly productivity among fellowship-trained dermatologists compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, when controlling for academic rank and publication range, this difference is minimized. As such, fellowships may provide more opportunity for structured research experiences but may not be necessary for successful academic careers. In addition, individuals who wish to dedicate a substantial portion of time to research may find that fellowships in dermatopathology, immunodermatology, dermatology-rheumatology, clinical education, dermatoepidemiology, cutaneous oncology, dermatopharmacology, and photobiology are more conducive to performing research. We also recommend that other activities, including clinical and teaching activities, serve as supplemental measures to scholarly productivity when evaluating a physician’s contribution.

The percentage of dermatology residents pursuing fellowship training is steadily increasing. A report from the American Board of Dermatology described an increase in the percentage of residents entering fellowships approved by the American Board of Dermatology and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education from 10% in 2006 to 24% in 2010.¹ The American Medical Association Residency & Fellowship Database FREIDA Online showed that 30% of dermatology residents or fellows pursued further fellowship training in 2013.² The number of dermatology fellowship positions offered also is steadily increasing. Data from SF Match showed that the number of participating applicants in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) fellowships increased from 64 in 2002 to 86 in 2014, and the number of programs increased from 48 to 56, respectively.³ Similarly, in pediatric dermatology the SF Match reported an increase from 14 to 22 in participating applicants and an increase in available programs from 14 to 20 in 2009 and 2012, respectively.4 Reports on dermatopathology programs also have suggested either a stable or increased percentage of residents pursuing fellowships in this specialty.^5,6

There are several reported factors that influence the pursuit of dermatology fellowships. Fellows often hope to gain further exposure to a dermatology subspecialty,⁷ which is especially applicable to procedural dermatology, as the prevailing opinion among dermatologists is that residency training should emphasize medical dermatology much more than surgery.^8,9 Increased financial compensation, responsibility to provide for a family, and increased levels of educational debt do not notably influence the desire to pursue a fellowship, though these factors often play a role in the decision to pursue a career in academia.^6,10-12 Additionally, it has been reported that fellowship-trained dermatologists are more likely to teach students, residents, and fellows and are up to 8 times more likely to participate in research than non–fellowship-trained dermatologists.^6,8,11 Research activity also correlates with the decision to pursue an academic career. As such, fellowship training may present physicians with opportunities to improve clinical care, garner more research opportunities, and advance in academic rank.¹³

Scholarly productivity, measured by contribution to research, is a heavily weighted factor when hiring and promoting within academic medicine.^14-17 Despite the importance of scholarly productivity, it is difficult to accurately quantify the measure. Commonly used metrics include number of publications, number of citations, amount of National Institutes of Health funding, number of research presentations, and number of lectures.^18,19 However, taken individually, none of these measures entirely represents an individual’s research contribution. For example, a physician may have a large number of relatively low-quality publications. Additionally, if considering the number of citations, one of an author’s publications may have many citations, while the remaining publications do not.

The h-index, introduced in 2005 by Hirsch,^20,21 is a measure of academic productivity that takes into account both the quantity and impact of research measured by recording the number of published articles and the number of citations in peer-reviewed journals. A high h-index indicates a high number of significant publications. For example, if a physician has 10 published articles cited 10 times each, his/her h-index is 10. Another physician with an h-index of 10 may have published 50 articles, which indicates that the remaining 40 articles were cited fewer than 10 times. Prior studies on the use of the h-index in fields as diverse as otolaryngology, radiology, anesthesiology, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, and urology indicate a strong association between the h-index and academic rank.^22-28 Other studies indicate that fellowship-trained individuals tend to have a higher h-index than their non–fellowship-trained counterparts.^29,30 One study demonstrated that fellowship-trained dermatologic surgeons had significantly increased academic productivity (P=.001), as measured by the number of publications in PubMed, compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologic surgeons.¹¹

The goal of this study was to determine whether dermatology fellowship training impacts scholarly productivity and academic promotion. Additionally, the scholarly productivity of procedural dermatology/MMS, dermatopathology, and pediatric dermatology fellows is compared to determine if type of subspecialty affects research productivity.

Methods

A list of academic dermatology departments was accessed using FREIDA Online. Individual departmental websites were visited to compile a list of academic faculty members. Additional recorded data included academic rank, gender, and fellowship training. Academic rank was classified as assistant professor, associate professor, professor, and chair. Physicians listed as chairs were not listed as professors to avoid duplication of these individuals. Voluntary, nonclinical, and nonacademic faculty members were excluded from the analysis. Departments that did not list the academic rank of faculty members also were excluded. Faculty members were organized by fellowship type: procedural dermatology/MMS, dermatopathology, pediatric dermatology, other fellowship, and no fellowship. Individuals with multiple fellowships were counted in multiple categories.

Faculty members were subsequently searched on the Scopus database to determine the h-index and publication range in years. Correct author identity was ensured by confirming correct departmental affiliations and publications related to dermatology. (Results collected from the Scopus database have been shown to correlate well with those ofISI Web of Knowledge.²³)

Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare continuous variables, and the Pearson χ² test was used to compare categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at P<.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software. This study qualified as nonhuman subject research per the institutional review board of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (Newark, New Jersey).

Results

The analysis included 1043 faculty members from 103 academic departments. There were 144 dermatologists (13.8%) with procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships, 162 (15.5%) with dermatopathology fellowships, 71 (6.8%) with pediatric dermatology fellowships, 124 (11.9%) with other fellowships, and 542 (52.0%) with no fellowships (Figure 1). Fellowships classified as other included immunodermatology, dermatology-rheumatology, clinical education, dermatoepidemiology, cutaneous oncology, dermatopharmacology, and photobiology. Fellowship-trained dermatologists had a higher mean h-index than dermatologists without fellowships (13.2 vs 11.7; P<.001)(Figure 2).

There were significant statistical differences among the fellowships examined (Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, P<.05). Academic dermatologists who completed dermatopathology or other fellowships had higher scholarly productivity than those who completed pediatric dermatology and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships (P<.05)(Figure 3). Those who did not complete a fellowship had a higher mean h-index than those who completed pediatric dermatology and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Regarding academic rank, there was a significant increase in scholarly productivity (as measured by the h-index) from assistant professor to professor (P<.05). There was no statistical difference in scholarly productivity between professors and chairs. When controlling for academic rank, there were no statistically significant differences in h-index between fellowship-trained versus non–fellowship-trained dermatologists, except at the level of associate professor. However, fellowship-trained dermatologists consistently had a higher mean h-index compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists in each rank (Figure 4). Fellowship-trained dermatologists made up 48.2% (222/461) of assistant professors, 45.2% (103/228) of associate professors, 47.3% (125/264) of professors, and 56.7% (51/90) of chairs.

When controlling for the number of active publication years, no statistically significant differences were found between scholarly productivity in fellowship-trained versus non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, fellowship-trained academic dermatologists consistently had a higher mean h-index than non–fellowship-trained dermatologists within each 10-year range, except for the 31- to 40-year range (Figure 5).

Comment

The proportion of dermatology residents who pursue fellowship training has been steadily increasing, according to data from the American Medical Association and American Board of Dermatology.^1,2 Fellowship training allows graduating residents to have greater exposure to a dermatology subspecialty and often provides a narrower focus for future clinical activities. In our study, we found that fellowship-trained dermatologists had significantly higher research productivity, as measured by the h-index, than academic dermatologists without fellowship, which is likely because fellowship training offers an opportunity to hone teaching skills and pursue more research activity.¹³ For instance, several fellowship programs allow focused research time during training.¹¹ Additionally, residents pursuing fellowships may be more likely to engage in research activities.

Greater scholarly productivity is especially important for academic physicians, as it plays an important role in hiring and promoting.^14,15,19,31 Additionally, increased research productivity has been found to be associated with improved teaching and clinical activity.¹⁹ Research productivity of faculty members also influences the reputation and prestige of the department and the institution’s subsequent ability to attract higher-quality residents and faculty members.²⁸

There were significant differences in mean h-index between dermatology subspecialties. Academic dermatologists who completed procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships had the lowest mean h-index, while those who completed dermatopathology or other fellowships had the highest mean h-index. These findings suggest that an emphasis on research productivity may be greater in dermatopathology. Additionally, dermatologists who completed other fellowships, such as immunodermatology or dermatopharmacology, may have received such fellowships prior to dermatology training. It would be interesting to determine the amount of time allocated for research within each subspecialty fellowship training.

A greater amount of clinical responsibility also may influence the difference in measures of scholarly productivity within each subspecialty. For instance, there is a known shortage of pediatric dermatologists,³² which may translate as a decreased amount of time that can be dedicated to research activity because of higher clinical volume per physician. Dermatologists with no fellowship had a higher mean h-index than those with pediatric and procedural dermatology/MMS fellowships, which may reflect the smaller number of subspecialists compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists (13.8% procedural dermatology/MMS; 6.8% pediatric dermatology; 52.0% no fellowship). As such, the research of subspecialists is targeted to a narrower audience and will garner fewer citations than non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, the lower number of subspecialists is not the only factor impacting scholarly productivity, as dermato-pathologists had higher scholarly impact than non–fellowship-trained individuals despite comprising only 15.5% of the cohort.

In corroboration with prior studies of academic medicine, the h-index increased with increasing rank from assistant professor to professor and chair.^29,30,33 This increase confirms that research productivity is associated with academic rank. When stratifying the 2 cohorts of fellowship-trained and non–fellowship-trained academic dermatologists by academic rank, there was no significant difference in the h-index for both groups at each rank, except for associate professor. In addition, there was a relatively equal distribution within each rank of fellowship-trained and non–fellowship-trained individuals. This lack of statistical difference also was demonstrated when stratifying for years of active publication experience. Academic dermatologists have been shown to be more interested in pursuing research activity, and research is pivotal to pursuing a dermatology residency.¹¹ Future studies may extend the comparison of scholarly productivity to nonacademic dermatologists.

It is important to acknowledge certain limitations in the data collection process and use of the h-index. Many of the dermatology department websites do not provide information about whether individual faculty members are pursuing a tenure track or nontenure track. This distinction may have bearing on the h-index, as research is more heavily emphasized in the tenure track. Moreover, the h-index does not take into account the type of research (ie, clinical vs basic science research). Therefore, while basic science research often is more time intensive than clinical research, a publication is weighed solely by its number of citations. As such, the h-index may not capture the true amount of time dedicated to research activities. In addition, the h-index cannot account for self-citation, which may increase this measure.³⁴ However, to greatly influence the h-index, many self-citations of each work would be necessary, making it less concerning. Another limitation of this study is that it does not take into account time dedicated to the education of residents and medical students, an act that is necessary for preservation of the field. Although education portfolios that detail an individual’s contribution to teaching are starting to become more popular, there currently is no measure for educational activities.^18,35 Finally, dermatology department websites are not frequently updated; as such, data gathered from websites regarding academic rank may not always be recent.

Conclusion

Scholarly productivity, as measured by the h-index, is a major contributory factor to hiring, promoting, and developing reputations in academic medicine. Our findings demonstrate that there is greater scholarly productivity among fellowship-trained dermatologists compared to non–fellowship-trained dermatologists. However, when controlling for academic rank and publication range, this difference is minimized. As such, fellowships may provide more opportunity for structured research experiences but may not be necessary for successful academic careers. In addition, individuals who wish to dedicate a substantial portion of time to research may find that fellowships in dermatopathology, immunodermatology, dermatology-rheumatology, clinical education, dermatoepidemiology, cutaneous oncology, dermatopharmacology, and photobiology are more conducive to performing research. We also recommend that other activities, including clinical and teaching activities, serve as supplemental measures to scholarly productivity when evaluating a physician’s contribution.

VANCOUVER – Multiple sclerosis patients discontinued treatment and relapsed earlier with dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) than with fingolimod (Gilenya), and had more gadolinium-enhancing lesions at 12 months, in a propensity score matching analysis involving 775 patients at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Based on these data, I now [favor] Gilenya over Tecfidera; Gilenya works a little bit better,” lead investigator and staff neurologist Carrie Hersh said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The two drugs performed about equally in clinical trials, but Dr. Hersh and her colleagues said fingolimod seems to have the edge in clinical practice; they wanted to see if that hunch held up to scrutiny.

In the single-center cohort study, about 30% of the 458 dimethyl fumarate patients discontinued the drug after an average of 4 months, and about 14% relapsed within a year of starting it. About a quarter of the 317 fingolimod patients discontinued at an average of 6.5 months, and 11% relapsed. About 9% of dimethyl fumarate patients, but 6% of fingolimod patients, had new gadolinium-enhancing (GdE) brain lesions at 12 months.

A propensity score analysis was performed to control for confounders; patients were matched one to one for baseline demographics and clinical and MRI characteristics. Dimethyl fumarate patients were almost three times more likely than fingolimod patients to have new GdE lesions after a year (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-6.57). They also had an earlier time to discontinuation (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05-1.74) and clinical relapse (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.10-2.46). The study included patients with secondary progressive disease. Results were the same when the analysis was limited to relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

The investigators concluded that “dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod have comparable annualized relapse rates, overall brain MRI activity, and discontinuation at 12 months.” However, “dimethyl fumarate may have greater GdE lesions and side effects early after treatment initiation, leading to early discontinuation and relapses.

“This makes sense from what we are seeing in the clinic. We know Tecfidera patients have tolerability issues,” especially with gastrointestinal and flushing events, “so they discontinue earlier or might not be as adherent, and so they relapse earlier. The new enhancing lesions might be a difference in efficacy,” Dr. Hersh said.

Patients treated with fingolimod were more likely to be white (91% vs. 83%), have a longer disease duration (16 vs. 14 years), have a higher proportion of relapsing-remitting disease (82% vs. 74%), and have more severe baseline brain lesion burden (15% vs. 8%). The subjects had tried interferon, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), natalizumab (Tysabri), or other options before being switched to the study medications because of disease activity or intolerability. Patients were in their 40s, on average, and about 70% were women.

Data are now being collected for a 2-year analysis.

There was no industry funding for the work, and Dr. Hersh had no disclosures. Other investigators reported ties to both Novartis, the maker of Gilenya, and Biogen, the maker of Tecfidera.

[email protected]

VANCOUVER – Multiple sclerosis patients discontinued treatment and relapsed earlier with dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) than with fingolimod (Gilenya), and had more gadolinium-enhancing lesions at 12 months, in a propensity score matching analysis involving 775 patients at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Based on these data, I now [favor] Gilenya over Tecfidera; Gilenya works a little bit better,” lead investigator and staff neurologist Carrie Hersh said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The two drugs performed about equally in clinical trials, but Dr. Hersh and her colleagues said fingolimod seems to have the edge in clinical practice; they wanted to see if that hunch held up to scrutiny.

In the single-center cohort study, about 30% of the 458 dimethyl fumarate patients discontinued the drug after an average of 4 months, and about 14% relapsed within a year of starting it. About a quarter of the 317 fingolimod patients discontinued at an average of 6.5 months, and 11% relapsed. About 9% of dimethyl fumarate patients, but 6% of fingolimod patients, had new gadolinium-enhancing (GdE) brain lesions at 12 months.

A propensity score analysis was performed to control for confounders; patients were matched one to one for baseline demographics and clinical and MRI characteristics. Dimethyl fumarate patients were almost three times more likely than fingolimod patients to have new GdE lesions after a year (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-6.57). They also had an earlier time to discontinuation (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05-1.74) and clinical relapse (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.10-2.46). The study included patients with secondary progressive disease. Results were the same when the analysis was limited to relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

The investigators concluded that “dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod have comparable annualized relapse rates, overall brain MRI activity, and discontinuation at 12 months.” However, “dimethyl fumarate may have greater GdE lesions and side effects early after treatment initiation, leading to early discontinuation and relapses.

“This makes sense from what we are seeing in the clinic. We know Tecfidera patients have tolerability issues,” especially with gastrointestinal and flushing events, “so they discontinue earlier or might not be as adherent, and so they relapse earlier. The new enhancing lesions might be a difference in efficacy,” Dr. Hersh said.

Patients treated with fingolimod were more likely to be white (91% vs. 83%), have a longer disease duration (16 vs. 14 years), have a higher proportion of relapsing-remitting disease (82% vs. 74%), and have more severe baseline brain lesion burden (15% vs. 8%). The subjects had tried interferon, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), natalizumab (Tysabri), or other options before being switched to the study medications because of disease activity or intolerability. Patients were in their 40s, on average, and about 70% were women.

Data are now being collected for a 2-year analysis.

There was no industry funding for the work, and Dr. Hersh had no disclosures. Other investigators reported ties to both Novartis, the maker of Gilenya, and Biogen, the maker of Tecfidera.

[email protected]

VANCOUVER – Multiple sclerosis patients discontinued treatment and relapsed earlier with dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) than with fingolimod (Gilenya), and had more gadolinium-enhancing lesions at 12 months, in a propensity score matching analysis involving 775 patients at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Based on these data, I now [favor] Gilenya over Tecfidera; Gilenya works a little bit better,” lead investigator and staff neurologist Carrie Hersh said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The two drugs performed about equally in clinical trials, but Dr. Hersh and her colleagues said fingolimod seems to have the edge in clinical practice; they wanted to see if that hunch held up to scrutiny.

In the single-center cohort study, about 30% of the 458 dimethyl fumarate patients discontinued the drug after an average of 4 months, and about 14% relapsed within a year of starting it. About a quarter of the 317 fingolimod patients discontinued at an average of 6.5 months, and 11% relapsed. About 9% of dimethyl fumarate patients, but 6% of fingolimod patients, had new gadolinium-enhancing (GdE) brain lesions at 12 months.

A propensity score analysis was performed to control for confounders; patients were matched one to one for baseline demographics and clinical and MRI characteristics. Dimethyl fumarate patients were almost three times more likely than fingolimod patients to have new GdE lesions after a year (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-6.57). They also had an earlier time to discontinuation (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05-1.74) and clinical relapse (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.10-2.46). The study included patients with secondary progressive disease. Results were the same when the analysis was limited to relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

The investigators concluded that “dimethyl fumarate and fingolimod have comparable annualized relapse rates, overall brain MRI activity, and discontinuation at 12 months.” However, “dimethyl fumarate may have greater GdE lesions and side effects early after treatment initiation, leading to early discontinuation and relapses.

“This makes sense from what we are seeing in the clinic. We know Tecfidera patients have tolerability issues,” especially with gastrointestinal and flushing events, “so they discontinue earlier or might not be as adherent, and so they relapse earlier. The new enhancing lesions might be a difference in efficacy,” Dr. Hersh said.

Patients treated with fingolimod were more likely to be white (91% vs. 83%), have a longer disease duration (16 vs. 14 years), have a higher proportion of relapsing-remitting disease (82% vs. 74%), and have more severe baseline brain lesion burden (15% vs. 8%). The subjects had tried interferon, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), natalizumab (Tysabri), or other options before being switched to the study medications because of disease activity or intolerability. Patients were in their 40s, on average, and about 70% were women.

Data are now being collected for a 2-year analysis.

There was no industry funding for the work, and Dr. Hersh had no disclosures. Other investigators reported ties to both Novartis, the maker of Gilenya, and Biogen, the maker of Tecfidera.

[email protected]

Atopic dermatitis (AD) may be triggered by viral infections, food allergens, weather, and other causes, and it may trigger an inflammatory progression known as the atopic march. This article reviews research on triggers of pediatric AD so that dermatologists may discuss trigger avoidance with patients and guardians. Other factors affecting AD development include genetics and hygiene. Grading of AD also is discussed.

The Atopic March

The persistence of AD in untreated skin can trigger an inflammatory progression called the atopic march in which food and environmental allergies as well as asthma may occur progressively due to ongoing inflammatory triggering.¹ In a study of asthma and food allergy reporting and management in public schools in Chicago, Illinois, food allergies were seen in 9.3% of asthmatic students (n=18,000), and 40.1% of food allergic students (n=4000) had asthma.² An observational study by Flohr et al³ in London, England, included 619 exclusively breastfed infants who were recruited at 3 months of age. The investigators determined that food sensitization was unrelated to the presence of filaggrin mutations, type of eczema (flexural vs nonflexural), and transepidermal water loss but was associated with AD severity as determined by SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis), a composite score of AD that includes pruritus as a factor in severity. Other AD associations included 3 leading food allergens: eggs, milk, and peanuts. No association with cod, wheat, or sesame allergy was noted. The investigators concluded that AD and AD severity were the leading skin-related risk factors for food allergies and therefore food allergy development in breastfed infants was probably mediated by cutaneous antigen-presenting cells.³

The skin has been documented to react to contact with known food allergens⁴ and is known to be a route of allergic sensitization to allergens such as fragrance in patients with AD.^5,6 Two phenotypes of eczema that have been associated with asthma development are severe AD disease and multiple environmental allergies, supporting the theory of the atopic march.⁷ There also is evidence that release of danger-associated proteins from an impaired barrier also may trigger asthma.⁸ An analysis of the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health, a population-based study of91,642 children aged 0 to 17 years, showed that children with AD had a higher prevalence of comorbid asthma (25.1% vs 12.3%), hay fever (34.4% vs 14.3%), and food allergies (15.1% vs 3.6%) compared to children without AD.⁹ A recent article provided detailed information on how food and diet interplay with AD.¹⁰

Triggers of Disease Flares

Triggers are the leading source of AD flare initiation, and avoidance of triggers is an important mechanism by which patients can control disease activity. Despite the best skin care and trigger avoidance, disease flares occur, sometimes due to ongoing inflammation and other times due to inability to prevent flares such as heat and humidity. A survey of patients with AD in Spain identified the following triggers: cosmetic products, clothing, mites, detergents/soaps, and temperature changes.¹¹ In childhood, wool also is a known trigger of AD.¹² Viral infections including respiratory syncytial virus may trigger the first onset of AD.¹³ Patients with AD may become allergic to fragrance and metals causing disease exacerbation on exposure.^14,15 Food allergens contribute to approximately 40% of cases of AD in infancy but are not the cause of AD. The best evidence for improvement of AD with food allergen avoidance exists for egg white allergy.¹⁶ Food avoidance programs should be developed in conjunction with an allergist, as it is no longer advised in many cases to completely withdraw foods; therefore, an allergist has to assess the level of allergic severity and the risk-benefit ratio of food avoidance or introduction.¹⁷ Emotional stressors, heat, and humidity, as well as indoor heating in the winter months, can cause AD flares.¹⁸

A study by Silverberg et al¹⁹ provided evidence of climate influences on the US prevalence of childhood eczema using a merged analysis of the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health and the 2006-2007 National Climate Data Center and Weather Service. Results showed that eczema prevalence was significantly lower when associated with higher annual relative humidity (P=.01), UV index (P<.0001), and highest-quartile air temperature (P=.002).¹⁹ The Pediatric Eczema Elective Registry also showed that warm, humid, and high-sun-exposure climates are associated with poorly controlled eczema in affected patients.²⁰ The association of eczema with latitude as well as its negative association with mean annual outdoor temperature has been described by Weiland et al²¹ in the ISAAC (International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood) study. Long airplane flights in low humidity can trigger eczema in adults. Climate has been postulated to affect eczema through alterations in filaggrin and skin barrier function.²² Indoor temperature and humidity regulation may be used adjunctively for daily flare prevention.

Genetics and AD

Of 762 infants in a birth cohort with a parent with atopy in Cincinnati, Ohio, 39% developed eczema by the age of 3 years. Single nucleotide polymorphisms of IL-4Rα 175 V and CD14-159 C/T were linked to greater eczema risk at 2 to 3 years of age.²³ Monozygotic twins have a concordance rate of 0.72 to 0.86 versus 0.21 to 0.23 in dizygotic twins, demonstrating a strong genetic component in the development of AD.²⁴ Linkage to AD has been positively made to the epidermal differentiation complex on human chromosome 1q21, which contains the genes for filaggrin and other proteins such as loricrin. Other genes linked to AD include the serine protease inhibitor SPINK5 (serine peptidase inhibitor, Kazal type 5) implicated in Netherton syndrome (triad of ichthyosis linearis circumflexa, bamboo hair, and atopic disorders); RANTES (regulated on activation, normal T-expressed, and secreted), which has been associated with severity of AD; IL-4; and IL-13.^5,25,26

The Hygiene Hypothesis

Atopic dermatitis is more common in wealthy developed countries, leading some to believe that hygiene and relative reduction in illness via vaccination have contributed to the rise of AD prevalence in developed nations.^13,27 There currently is evidence demonstrating that wild-type varicella infection confers long-standing protection against AD and mediates reduced total IgE and peripheral blood lymphocytes.²⁷

Grading of AD

Grading of AD is a subject of controversy, as there currently are no uniform grading scales.²⁸ A recent outcomes group attempted to determine the best scale for disease monitoring. Schmitt et al²⁹ presented the Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap, which was intended to determine a core outcome set for eczema; however, because these outcome measurements have not yet been standardized, only the eczema assessment and severity index (EASI) scoring system meets criteria for standardization. In clinical practice, physicians often assign mild, moderate, or severe labeling based on their general sense of the disease extent using an investigator global assessment score.²⁸

The EASI score is a well-validated composite score of AD severity based on 4 body regions: (1) head and neck, (2) trunk (including genital area), (3) upper limbs, and (4) lower limbs (including buttocks). The total area of involvement in each region is graded on a scale of 0 to 6, and AD severity is graded as a composite of 4 parameters (ranked on a scale of 0–3), including redness (erythema, inflammation), thickness (induration, papulation, swelling [acute eczema]), scratching (excoriation), and lichenification (prurigo nodules [chronic eczema]). The surface area of each region relative to body size is used as a multiplying factor, resulting in the following severity strata: 0=clear; 0.1–1.0=almost clear; 1.1–7.0=mild; 7.1–21.0=moderate; 21.1–50.0=severe; 50.1–72.0=very severe (κ=0.75).^30-32 The six area, six sign AD (SASSAD) score^32,33 is a similar score without adjustment for body surface area by region.³⁴

An older, now less frequently used eczema score is the SCORAD, which addressed surface area by rule of nines and severity of 6 features—redness, swelling, oozing/crusting, scratch marks, skin thickening (lichenification), dryness (assessed in an area with no inflammation)—by region on a scale of 0 to 3. A subjective symptom parameter for itching and sleeplessness helped highlight that these comorbidities are important in gauging disease activity and impact on a child’s life.³⁵

Natural History of AD

The clinical dogma has been that AD would improve with age, with reduction at grade school entry and perhaps full disappearance in adulthood; however, 3 recent surveys have suggested otherwise. The ISAAC group has found prevalence of AD in wealthy developed countries among children aged 6 to 7 years to be at a consistent increase.³⁶ A US-based survey from the National Health Interview Survey showed a 1-year prevalence of 10.2% of active AD in adults and 9.8% when occupational dermatitis was excluded.³⁷ Halvorsen et al³⁸ demonstrated that eczema prevalence is 9.7% in individuals aged 18 to 19 years.

A prospective trial of eighth graders followed from 1995 to 2010 demonstrated that AD persisted in 50% at school age. Persistent eczema into adulthood was associated with early-onset childhood allergic rhinitis and hand eczema.³⁹ In a cohort of hand eczema patients (N=368), 28% had AD and 39% had an atopic illness.⁴⁰ An association with allergic contact dermatitis and increased IgE to Malassezia furfur was further associated.⁴¹

Conclusion

The role of triggers and allergens in disease activity in AD is an important consideration in children with AD and requires ongoing consideration with age and varied exposures. Understanding the grading of AD is important in evaluating clinical trial data. The natural history of AD has changed, which is important for the practitioner to note when counseling patients and guardians.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) may be triggered by viral infections, food allergens, weather, and other causes, and it may trigger an inflammatory progression known as the atopic march. This article reviews research on triggers of pediatric AD so that dermatologists may discuss trigger avoidance with patients and guardians. Other factors affecting AD development include genetics and hygiene. Grading of AD also is discussed.

The Atopic March

The persistence of AD in untreated skin can trigger an inflammatory progression called the atopic march in which food and environmental allergies as well as asthma may occur progressively due to ongoing inflammatory triggering.¹ In a study of asthma and food allergy reporting and management in public schools in Chicago, Illinois, food allergies were seen in 9.3% of asthmatic students (n=18,000), and 40.1% of food allergic students (n=4000) had asthma.² An observational study by Flohr et al³ in London, England, included 619 exclusively breastfed infants who were recruited at 3 months of age. The investigators determined that food sensitization was unrelated to the presence of filaggrin mutations, type of eczema (flexural vs nonflexural), and transepidermal water loss but was associated with AD severity as determined by SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis), a composite score of AD that includes pruritus as a factor in severity. Other AD associations included 3 leading food allergens: eggs, milk, and peanuts. No association with cod, wheat, or sesame allergy was noted. The investigators concluded that AD and AD severity were the leading skin-related risk factors for food allergies and therefore food allergy development in breastfed infants was probably mediated by cutaneous antigen-presenting cells.³

The skin has been documented to react to contact with known food allergens⁴ and is known to be a route of allergic sensitization to allergens such as fragrance in patients with AD.^5,6 Two phenotypes of eczema that have been associated with asthma development are severe AD disease and multiple environmental allergies, supporting the theory of the atopic march.⁷ There also is evidence that release of danger-associated proteins from an impaired barrier also may trigger asthma.⁸ An analysis of the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health, a population-based study of91,642 children aged 0 to 17 years, showed that children with AD had a higher prevalence of comorbid asthma (25.1% vs 12.3%), hay fever (34.4% vs 14.3%), and food allergies (15.1% vs 3.6%) compared to children without AD.⁹ A recent article provided detailed information on how food and diet interplay with AD.¹⁰

Triggers of Disease Flares

Triggers are the leading source of AD flare initiation, and avoidance of triggers is an important mechanism by which patients can control disease activity. Despite the best skin care and trigger avoidance, disease flares occur, sometimes due to ongoing inflammation and other times due to inability to prevent flares such as heat and humidity. A survey of patients with AD in Spain identified the following triggers: cosmetic products, clothing, mites, detergents/soaps, and temperature changes.¹¹ In childhood, wool also is a known trigger of AD.¹² Viral infections including respiratory syncytial virus may trigger the first onset of AD.¹³ Patients with AD may become allergic to fragrance and metals causing disease exacerbation on exposure.^14,15 Food allergens contribute to approximately 40% of cases of AD in infancy but are not the cause of AD. The best evidence for improvement of AD with food allergen avoidance exists for egg white allergy.¹⁶ Food avoidance programs should be developed in conjunction with an allergist, as it is no longer advised in many cases to completely withdraw foods; therefore, an allergist has to assess the level of allergic severity and the risk-benefit ratio of food avoidance or introduction.¹⁷ Emotional stressors, heat, and humidity, as well as indoor heating in the winter months, can cause AD flares.¹⁸

A study by Silverberg et al¹⁹ provided evidence of climate influences on the US prevalence of childhood eczema using a merged analysis of the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health and the 2006-2007 National Climate Data Center and Weather Service. Results showed that eczema prevalence was significantly lower when associated with higher annual relative humidity (P=.01), UV index (P<.0001), and highest-quartile air temperature (P=.002).¹⁹ The Pediatric Eczema Elective Registry also showed that warm, humid, and high-sun-exposure climates are associated with poorly controlled eczema in affected patients.²⁰ The association of eczema with latitude as well as its negative association with mean annual outdoor temperature has been described by Weiland et al²¹ in the ISAAC (International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood) study. Long airplane flights in low humidity can trigger eczema in adults. Climate has been postulated to affect eczema through alterations in filaggrin and skin barrier function.²² Indoor temperature and humidity regulation may be used adjunctively for daily flare prevention.

Genetics and AD

Of 762 infants in a birth cohort with a parent with atopy in Cincinnati, Ohio, 39% developed eczema by the age of 3 years. Single nucleotide polymorphisms of IL-4Rα 175 V and CD14-159 C/T were linked to greater eczema risk at 2 to 3 years of age.²³ Monozygotic twins have a concordance rate of 0.72 to 0.86 versus 0.21 to 0.23 in dizygotic twins, demonstrating a strong genetic component in the development of AD.²⁴ Linkage to AD has been positively made to the epidermal differentiation complex on human chromosome 1q21, which contains the genes for filaggrin and other proteins such as loricrin. Other genes linked to AD include the serine protease inhibitor SPINK5 (serine peptidase inhibitor, Kazal type 5) implicated in Netherton syndrome (triad of ichthyosis linearis circumflexa, bamboo hair, and atopic disorders); RANTES (regulated on activation, normal T-expressed, and secreted), which has been associated with severity of AD; IL-4; and IL-13.^5,25,26

The Hygiene Hypothesis

Atopic dermatitis is more common in wealthy developed countries, leading some to believe that hygiene and relative reduction in illness via vaccination have contributed to the rise of AD prevalence in developed nations.^13,27 There currently is evidence demonstrating that wild-type varicella infection confers long-standing protection against AD and mediates reduced total IgE and peripheral blood lymphocytes.²⁷

Grading of AD

Grading of AD is a subject of controversy, as there currently are no uniform grading scales.²⁸ A recent outcomes group attempted to determine the best scale for disease monitoring. Schmitt et al²⁹ presented the Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap, which was intended to determine a core outcome set for eczema; however, because these outcome measurements have not yet been standardized, only the eczema assessment and severity index (EASI) scoring system meets criteria for standardization. In clinical practice, physicians often assign mild, moderate, or severe labeling based on their general sense of the disease extent using an investigator global assessment score.²⁸

The EASI score is a well-validated composite score of AD severity based on 4 body regions: (1) head and neck, (2) trunk (including genital area), (3) upper limbs, and (4) lower limbs (including buttocks). The total area of involvement in each region is graded on a scale of 0 to 6, and AD severity is graded as a composite of 4 parameters (ranked on a scale of 0–3), including redness (erythema, inflammation), thickness (induration, papulation, swelling [acute eczema]), scratching (excoriation), and lichenification (prurigo nodules [chronic eczema]). The surface area of each region relative to body size is used as a multiplying factor, resulting in the following severity strata: 0=clear; 0.1–1.0=almost clear; 1.1–7.0=mild; 7.1–21.0=moderate; 21.1–50.0=severe; 50.1–72.0=very severe (κ=0.75).^30-32 The six area, six sign AD (SASSAD) score^32,33 is a similar score without adjustment for body surface area by region.³⁴

An older, now less frequently used eczema score is the SCORAD, which addressed surface area by rule of nines and severity of 6 features—redness, swelling, oozing/crusting, scratch marks, skin thickening (lichenification), dryness (assessed in an area with no inflammation)—by region on a scale of 0 to 3. A subjective symptom parameter for itching and sleeplessness helped highlight that these comorbidities are important in gauging disease activity and impact on a child’s life.³⁵

Natural History of AD

The clinical dogma has been that AD would improve with age, with reduction at grade school entry and perhaps full disappearance in adulthood; however, 3 recent surveys have suggested otherwise. The ISAAC group has found prevalence of AD in wealthy developed countries among children aged 6 to 7 years to be at a consistent increase.³⁶ A US-based survey from the National Health Interview Survey showed a 1-year prevalence of 10.2% of active AD in adults and 9.8% when occupational dermatitis was excluded.³⁷ Halvorsen et al³⁸ demonstrated that eczema prevalence is 9.7% in individuals aged 18 to 19 years.

A prospective trial of eighth graders followed from 1995 to 2010 demonstrated that AD persisted in 50% at school age. Persistent eczema into adulthood was associated with early-onset childhood allergic rhinitis and hand eczema.³⁹ In a cohort of hand eczema patients (N=368), 28% had AD and 39% had an atopic illness.⁴⁰ An association with allergic contact dermatitis and increased IgE to Malassezia furfur was further associated.⁴¹

Conclusion

The role of triggers and allergens in disease activity in AD is an important consideration in children with AD and requires ongoing consideration with age and varied exposures. Understanding the grading of AD is important in evaluating clinical trial data. The natural history of AD has changed, which is important for the practitioner to note when counseling patients and guardians.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) may be triggered by viral infections, food allergens, weather, and other causes, and it may trigger an inflammatory progression known as the atopic march. This article reviews research on triggers of pediatric AD so that dermatologists may discuss trigger avoidance with patients and guardians. Other factors affecting AD development include genetics and hygiene. Grading of AD also is discussed.

The Atopic March

The persistence of AD in untreated skin can trigger an inflammatory progression called the atopic march in which food and environmental allergies as well as asthma may occur progressively due to ongoing inflammatory triggering.¹ In a study of asthma and food allergy reporting and management in public schools in Chicago, Illinois, food allergies were seen in 9.3% of asthmatic students (n=18,000), and 40.1% of food allergic students (n=4000) had asthma.² An observational study by Flohr et al³ in London, England, included 619 exclusively breastfed infants who were recruited at 3 months of age. The investigators determined that food sensitization was unrelated to the presence of filaggrin mutations, type of eczema (flexural vs nonflexural), and transepidermal water loss but was associated with AD severity as determined by SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis), a composite score of AD that includes pruritus as a factor in severity. Other AD associations included 3 leading food allergens: eggs, milk, and peanuts. No association with cod, wheat, or sesame allergy was noted. The investigators concluded that AD and AD severity were the leading skin-related risk factors for food allergies and therefore food allergy development in breastfed infants was probably mediated by cutaneous antigen-presenting cells.³

The skin has been documented to react to contact with known food allergens⁴ and is known to be a route of allergic sensitization to allergens such as fragrance in patients with AD.^5,6 Two phenotypes of eczema that have been associated with asthma development are severe AD disease and multiple environmental allergies, supporting the theory of the atopic march.⁷ There also is evidence that release of danger-associated proteins from an impaired barrier also may trigger asthma.⁸ An analysis of the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health, a population-based study of91,642 children aged 0 to 17 years, showed that children with AD had a higher prevalence of comorbid asthma (25.1% vs 12.3%), hay fever (34.4% vs 14.3%), and food allergies (15.1% vs 3.6%) compared to children without AD.⁹ A recent article provided detailed information on how food and diet interplay with AD.¹⁰

Triggers of Disease Flares

Triggers are the leading source of AD flare initiation, and avoidance of triggers is an important mechanism by which patients can control disease activity. Despite the best skin care and trigger avoidance, disease flares occur, sometimes due to ongoing inflammation and other times due to inability to prevent flares such as heat and humidity. A survey of patients with AD in Spain identified the following triggers: cosmetic products, clothing, mites, detergents/soaps, and temperature changes.¹¹ In childhood, wool also is a known trigger of AD.¹² Viral infections including respiratory syncytial virus may trigger the first onset of AD.¹³ Patients with AD may become allergic to fragrance and metals causing disease exacerbation on exposure.^14,15 Food allergens contribute to approximately 40% of cases of AD in infancy but are not the cause of AD. The best evidence for improvement of AD with food allergen avoidance exists for egg white allergy.¹⁶ Food avoidance programs should be developed in conjunction with an allergist, as it is no longer advised in many cases to completely withdraw foods; therefore, an allergist has to assess the level of allergic severity and the risk-benefit ratio of food avoidance or introduction.¹⁷ Emotional stressors, heat, and humidity, as well as indoor heating in the winter months, can cause AD flares.¹⁸

A study by Silverberg et al¹⁹ provided evidence of climate influences on the US prevalence of childhood eczema using a merged analysis of the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health and the 2006-2007 National Climate Data Center and Weather Service. Results showed that eczema prevalence was significantly lower when associated with higher annual relative humidity (P=.01), UV index (P<.0001), and highest-quartile air temperature (P=.002).¹⁹ The Pediatric Eczema Elective Registry also showed that warm, humid, and high-sun-exposure climates are associated with poorly controlled eczema in affected patients.²⁰ The association of eczema with latitude as well as its negative association with mean annual outdoor temperature has been described by Weiland et al²¹ in the ISAAC (International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood) study. Long airplane flights in low humidity can trigger eczema in adults. Climate has been postulated to affect eczema through alterations in filaggrin and skin barrier function.²² Indoor temperature and humidity regulation may be used adjunctively for daily flare prevention.

Genetics and AD

Of 762 infants in a birth cohort with a parent with atopy in Cincinnati, Ohio, 39% developed eczema by the age of 3 years. Single nucleotide polymorphisms of IL-4Rα 175 V and CD14-159 C/T were linked to greater eczema risk at 2 to 3 years of age.²³ Monozygotic twins have a concordance rate of 0.72 to 0.86 versus 0.21 to 0.23 in dizygotic twins, demonstrating a strong genetic component in the development of AD.²⁴ Linkage to AD has been positively made to the epidermal differentiation complex on human chromosome 1q21, which contains the genes for filaggrin and other proteins such as loricrin. Other genes linked to AD include the serine protease inhibitor SPINK5 (serine peptidase inhibitor, Kazal type 5) implicated in Netherton syndrome (triad of ichthyosis linearis circumflexa, bamboo hair, and atopic disorders); RANTES (regulated on activation, normal T-expressed, and secreted), which has been associated with severity of AD; IL-4; and IL-13.^5,25,26

The Hygiene Hypothesis

Atopic dermatitis is more common in wealthy developed countries, leading some to believe that hygiene and relative reduction in illness via vaccination have contributed to the rise of AD prevalence in developed nations.^13,27 There currently is evidence demonstrating that wild-type varicella infection confers long-standing protection against AD and mediates reduced total IgE and peripheral blood lymphocytes.²⁷

Grading of AD

Grading of AD is a subject of controversy, as there currently are no uniform grading scales.²⁸ A recent outcomes group attempted to determine the best scale for disease monitoring. Schmitt et al²⁹ presented the Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap, which was intended to determine a core outcome set for eczema; however, because these outcome measurements have not yet been standardized, only the eczema assessment and severity index (EASI) scoring system meets criteria for standardization. In clinical practice, physicians often assign mild, moderate, or severe labeling based on their general sense of the disease extent using an investigator global assessment score.²⁸

The EASI score is a well-validated composite score of AD severity based on 4 body regions: (1) head and neck, (2) trunk (including genital area), (3) upper limbs, and (4) lower limbs (including buttocks). The total area of involvement in each region is graded on a scale of 0 to 6, and AD severity is graded as a composite of 4 parameters (ranked on a scale of 0–3), including redness (erythema, inflammation), thickness (induration, papulation, swelling [acute eczema]), scratching (excoriation), and lichenification (prurigo nodules [chronic eczema]). The surface area of each region relative to body size is used as a multiplying factor, resulting in the following severity strata: 0=clear; 0.1–1.0=almost clear; 1.1–7.0=mild; 7.1–21.0=moderate; 21.1–50.0=severe; 50.1–72.0=very severe (κ=0.75).^30-32 The six area, six sign AD (SASSAD) score^32,33 is a similar score without adjustment for body surface area by region.³⁴

An older, now less frequently used eczema score is the SCORAD, which addressed surface area by rule of nines and severity of 6 features—redness, swelling, oozing/crusting, scratch marks, skin thickening (lichenification), dryness (assessed in an area with no inflammation)—by region on a scale of 0 to 3. A subjective symptom parameter for itching and sleeplessness helped highlight that these comorbidities are important in gauging disease activity and impact on a child’s life.³⁵

Natural History of AD

The clinical dogma has been that AD would improve with age, with reduction at grade school entry and perhaps full disappearance in adulthood; however, 3 recent surveys have suggested otherwise. The ISAAC group has found prevalence of AD in wealthy developed countries among children aged 6 to 7 years to be at a consistent increase.³⁶ A US-based survey from the National Health Interview Survey showed a 1-year prevalence of 10.2% of active AD in adults and 9.8% when occupational dermatitis was excluded.³⁷ Halvorsen et al³⁸ demonstrated that eczema prevalence is 9.7% in individuals aged 18 to 19 years.

A prospective trial of eighth graders followed from 1995 to 2010 demonstrated that AD persisted in 50% at school age. Persistent eczema into adulthood was associated with early-onset childhood allergic rhinitis and hand eczema.³⁹ In a cohort of hand eczema patients (N=368), 28% had AD and 39% had an atopic illness.⁴⁰ An association with allergic contact dermatitis and increased IgE to Malassezia furfur was further associated.⁴¹

Conclusion

The role of triggers and allergens in disease activity in AD is an important consideration in children with AD and requires ongoing consideration with age and varied exposures. Understanding the grading of AD is important in evaluating clinical trial data. The natural history of AD has changed, which is important for the practitioner to note when counseling patients and guardians.

INDIAN WELLS, CALIF. – Both surgery and pessary are effective at helping women with pelvic organ prolapse attain pre-treatment goals, improvements in quality of life, and improvements in patient-reported outcome scores, results from a prospective cohort study demonstrated.

“Women seeking care for pelvic organ prolapse have a wide range of severity in symptoms and they often have highly individual goals for treatment,” Dr. Kyle J. Wohlrab said at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. “We know that when we attain those goals, we help their quality of life.”

Dr. Wohlrab, of the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, R.I., and his associates set out to compare goal attainment between women who chose surgery versus pessary for treatment of their pelvic organ prolapse. Their secondary aim was to evaluate the association between improvements in symptoms and quality of life scores with goal attainment.

Women were eligible if they had symptomatic bulge symptoms and stage 2 or greater pelvic organ prolapse. They were enrolled when they chose either surgery or pessary for treatment and had a successful pessary fitting. The study participants were asked what their 10 most important goals for treatment were, and the researchers categorized them as functional goals (physical, social, emotional, and sexual) or symptom goals (prolapse, urinary, bowel, and pain/discomfort).

The secondary study outcomes were patient-reported outcomes based on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7 (PFIQ-7), the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), and the Body Image Scale (BIS), which were administered at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.

A total of 160 women were studied, 80 in each treatment group. Compared with those in the pessary group, women in the surgical group were younger at baseline (a mean of 59 years vs. 64 years), and had less severe prolapse (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System stage 2 vs. 3), but they had worse PFDI-20 scores (a mean of 126 vs. 104) and BIS scores (a mean of 32 vs. 22).

Dr. Wohlrab and his associates found that 75% of patients in the surgery group achieved all of their functional goals, compared with 58% of those in the pessary group, a difference that did not reach statistical significance except in the category of physical function, which favored patients in the surgery group (87% of goals attained, vs. 62% of those in the pessary group; P = .03).

At the same time, 74% of patients in the surgery group achieved all of their symptom goals, compared with 70% of those in the pessary group, a difference that did not reach statistical significance (P = .7).

Both surgery and pessary groups had significant improvements in the PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, and the BIS scores from baseline (P less than .05 for all). Mean scores on the PISQ-12 also improved from baseline in the surgery group (P less than .05), but not in the pessary group.

Dr. Wohlrab reported having no financial disclosures. The meeting was jointly sponsored by the American College of Surgeons.

[email protected]

INDIAN WELLS, CALIF. – Both surgery and pessary are effective at helping women with pelvic organ prolapse attain pre-treatment goals, improvements in quality of life, and improvements in patient-reported outcome scores, results from a prospective cohort study demonstrated.

“Women seeking care for pelvic organ prolapse have a wide range of severity in symptoms and they often have highly individual goals for treatment,” Dr. Kyle J. Wohlrab said at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. “We know that when we attain those goals, we help their quality of life.”

Dr. Wohlrab, of the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, R.I., and his associates set out to compare goal attainment between women who chose surgery versus pessary for treatment of their pelvic organ prolapse. Their secondary aim was to evaluate the association between improvements in symptoms and quality of life scores with goal attainment.

Women were eligible if they had symptomatic bulge symptoms and stage 2 or greater pelvic organ prolapse. They were enrolled when they chose either surgery or pessary for treatment and had a successful pessary fitting. The study participants were asked what their 10 most important goals for treatment were, and the researchers categorized them as functional goals (physical, social, emotional, and sexual) or symptom goals (prolapse, urinary, bowel, and pain/discomfort).

The secondary study outcomes were patient-reported outcomes based on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7 (PFIQ-7), the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), and the Body Image Scale (BIS), which were administered at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.

A total of 160 women were studied, 80 in each treatment group. Compared with those in the pessary group, women in the surgical group were younger at baseline (a mean of 59 years vs. 64 years), and had less severe prolapse (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System stage 2 vs. 3), but they had worse PFDI-20 scores (a mean of 126 vs. 104) and BIS scores (a mean of 32 vs. 22).

Dr. Wohlrab and his associates found that 75% of patients in the surgery group achieved all of their functional goals, compared with 58% of those in the pessary group, a difference that did not reach statistical significance except in the category of physical function, which favored patients in the surgery group (87% of goals attained, vs. 62% of those in the pessary group; P = .03).

At the same time, 74% of patients in the surgery group achieved all of their symptom goals, compared with 70% of those in the pessary group, a difference that did not reach statistical significance (P = .7).

Both surgery and pessary groups had significant improvements in the PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, and the BIS scores from baseline (P less than .05 for all). Mean scores on the PISQ-12 also improved from baseline in the surgery group (P less than .05), but not in the pessary group.

Dr. Wohlrab reported having no financial disclosures. The meeting was jointly sponsored by the American College of Surgeons.

[email protected]

INDIAN WELLS, CALIF. – Both surgery and pessary are effective at helping women with pelvic organ prolapse attain pre-treatment goals, improvements in quality of life, and improvements in patient-reported outcome scores, results from a prospective cohort study demonstrated.

“Women seeking care for pelvic organ prolapse have a wide range of severity in symptoms and they often have highly individual goals for treatment,” Dr. Kyle J. Wohlrab said at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. “We know that when we attain those goals, we help their quality of life.”

Dr. Wohlrab, of the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, R.I., and his associates set out to compare goal attainment between women who chose surgery versus pessary for treatment of their pelvic organ prolapse. Their secondary aim was to evaluate the association between improvements in symptoms and quality of life scores with goal attainment.

Women were eligible if they had symptomatic bulge symptoms and stage 2 or greater pelvic organ prolapse. They were enrolled when they chose either surgery or pessary for treatment and had a successful pessary fitting. The study participants were asked what their 10 most important goals for treatment were, and the researchers categorized them as functional goals (physical, social, emotional, and sexual) or symptom goals (prolapse, urinary, bowel, and pain/discomfort).

The secondary study outcomes were patient-reported outcomes based on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7 (PFIQ-7), the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), and the Body Image Scale (BIS), which were administered at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.

A total of 160 women were studied, 80 in each treatment group. Compared with those in the pessary group, women in the surgical group were younger at baseline (a mean of 59 years vs. 64 years), and had less severe prolapse (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System stage 2 vs. 3), but they had worse PFDI-20 scores (a mean of 126 vs. 104) and BIS scores (a mean of 32 vs. 22).

Dr. Wohlrab and his associates found that 75% of patients in the surgery group achieved all of their functional goals, compared with 58% of those in the pessary group, a difference that did not reach statistical significance except in the category of physical function, which favored patients in the surgery group (87% of goals attained, vs. 62% of those in the pessary group; P = .03).

At the same time, 74% of patients in the surgery group achieved all of their symptom goals, compared with 70% of those in the pessary group, a difference that did not reach statistical significance (P = .7).

Both surgery and pessary groups had significant improvements in the PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, and the BIS scores from baseline (P less than .05 for all). Mean scores on the PISQ-12 also improved from baseline in the surgery group (P less than .05), but not in the pessary group.

Dr. Wohlrab reported having no financial disclosures. The meeting was jointly sponsored by the American College of Surgeons.

[email protected]

FROM THE AACR ANNUAL MEETING

A differently engineered chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell promises to overcome major limitations of current CAR T cell therapies. Rather than engineer the CAR T cells to have a receptor that recognizes specific tumor antigens one at a time and requiring different CAR T cells for every antigen, this technique engineers a T cell receptor that can bind one invariant end of a bifunctional molecule. The molecule is constructed such that the other end can bind to whatever tumor cell surface marker is of interest. In this way, the CAR T cells can be constructed once and be directed to various tumor markers.

Standard CAR T cells are engineered to express on their surfaces receptors that recognize a specific antigen. These cells have been used up to now to recognize and kill tumor cells – for example, B cell leukemias carrying the pan-B cell marker CD19. The CAR T cells and their progeny, including memory T cells, remain in the body and continue to carry out their functions, potentially providing immune surveillance in case cancer cells arise again. But they uniquely recognize just CD19 – a problem, in that they kill even normal B cells, so-called off-target toxicity.

Beyond the unique specificity of standard CAR T cells, Philip Low, Ph.D., director of the Center for Drug Discovery at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, said these cells have three major limitations. First, they may lyse tumor cells so rapidly that a systemic tumor lysis syndrome or “cytokine storm” occurs. Second, the persisting CAR T cells can kill normal cells – for example, ones directed against CD19 killing normal B cells. Third, tumor cells have unstable genomes, leading to tumor heterogeneity, with some cells potentially losing the targeted antigens and therefore becoming “invisible” to the CAR T cells.

“So what we have done is basically designed a solution to all three, and we call it a universal CAR T cell because of its ability, with the help of an adapter molecule, to recognize all of these mutated tumor cells within a heterogeneous tumor,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. The key was to make a CAR T cell with a surface receptor that binds to the dye fluorescein. Then fluorescein is coupled through a short linker to a molecule that binds specifically to a molecule expressed on tumor cells. In this way the CAR T cell can be made to interact with any tumor cell, depending on what is coupled to the fluorescein. The technique is analogous to a socket wrench. Every socket has the same size hole that the ratchet handle fits into regardless of the size of the “business end” of the sockets, which recognize different size nuts.

Dr. Low gave an example of folic acid, for which he says a receptor is overexpressed on about 40% of human tumors but almost never on normal cells. “We link fluorescein to the vitamin folic acid,” he said. CAR T cells are injected into an animal, and nothing happens unless a folate-fluorescein conjugate is also injected. “As soon as we inject folate-fluorescein, the folate binds to the tumor cell surface, the fluorescein part of the folate-fluorescein binds to the CAR T cell, this forces a very tight interaction between the engineered T cell and the cancer cell, and we found it leads to melting away of the tumor,” he said.

This technique addresses the three major problems with standard CAR T cell therapy. By titrating the binding affinity, concentration, and rate of administration of the fluorescein conjugate, the rate of tumor killing can be controlled, mitigating tumor lysis syndrome. Plus, normal cells may be spared if the parameters are adjusted so that the conjugate binds only to cells with high levels of the target molecule, such as tumor cells.

Because its low molecular weight, the bi-specific conjugate rapidly disappears from the circulation, and the cell killing can be terminated, allowing normal cells to regenerate – for example, in the case of normal B cells that carry CD19. Since CAR T cells generate progeny that stay in the body, the progeny remain “dormant” but are ready to be activated again by addition of the conjugate to attack tumor cells if they arise.

A major issue is dealing with tumor heterogeneity; Dr. Low’s method seems to address that, as well. “We have tumor-specific ligands for over 90% of all human cancers,” he said. “Within another couple of months we’ll have them for 100%.”

Tumors typically contain lots of hypoxic cells, and hypoxic cells overexpress carbonic anhydrase-9. “Virtually every tumor has large fractions of the tumor mass that overexpress carbonic anhydrase-9, and we have a ligand that binds very specifically to that,” Dr. Low said.

To address the problem of tumor heterogeneity, with different mutations within different areas of the tumor or over time because of genetic instability in the cells, Dr. Low said, “We have a cocktail of about five of these small molecules… they are inexpensive to produce… and they clear very rapidly… and with the cocktail we can hit nearly all cancer cells, even in heterogeneous cancers.”

One limitation, as with standard CAR T cell therapy, is that the technique will still depend on using an individual patient’s T cells to modify through use of a lentiviral vector, so there would not be a universal, off-the-shelf T cell to use for everyone.

The technique and materials have been tested only in animals so far, using tumor-specific ligands for the folate receptor, a prostate-specific membrane antigen, and an antigen overexpressed on neuroendocrine tumors. Dr. Low has intentions to move the technology into human trials. He said the bridging molecules exist in highly purified form, and CAR T cell technology has already been developed by others. “Today we see great success in animal models and have no reason to believe that it won’t translate at least to a good extent to the clinic,” he said. Still, he expects some obstacles along the way and is willing to partner with others working on similar problems as well as large pharmaceutical companies.

The research has been supported by Endocyte, a company that Dr. Low founded and for which he is Chief Scientific Officer and a member of the board of directors. He has filed two patents on the technology, which are held by Purdue University and licensed to Endocyte.

FROM THE AACR ANNUAL MEETING

A differently engineered chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell promises to overcome major limitations of current CAR T cell therapies. Rather than engineer the CAR T cells to have a receptor that recognizes specific tumor antigens one at a time and requiring different CAR T cells for every antigen, this technique engineers a T cell receptor that can bind one invariant end of a bifunctional molecule. The molecule is constructed such that the other end can bind to whatever tumor cell surface marker is of interest. In this way, the CAR T cells can be constructed once and be directed to various tumor markers.

Standard CAR T cells are engineered to express on their surfaces receptors that recognize a specific antigen. These cells have been used up to now to recognize and kill tumor cells – for example, B cell leukemias carrying the pan-B cell marker CD19. The CAR T cells and their progeny, including memory T cells, remain in the body and continue to carry out their functions, potentially providing immune surveillance in case cancer cells arise again. But they uniquely recognize just CD19 – a problem, in that they kill even normal B cells, so-called off-target toxicity.

Beyond the unique specificity of standard CAR T cells, Philip Low, Ph.D., director of the Center for Drug Discovery at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, said these cells have three major limitations. First, they may lyse tumor cells so rapidly that a systemic tumor lysis syndrome or “cytokine storm” occurs. Second, the persisting CAR T cells can kill normal cells – for example, ones directed against CD19 killing normal B cells. Third, tumor cells have unstable genomes, leading to tumor heterogeneity, with some cells potentially losing the targeted antigens and therefore becoming “invisible” to the CAR T cells.

“So what we have done is basically designed a solution to all three, and we call it a universal CAR T cell because of its ability, with the help of an adapter molecule, to recognize all of these mutated tumor cells within a heterogeneous tumor,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. The key was to make a CAR T cell with a surface receptor that binds to the dye fluorescein. Then fluorescein is coupled through a short linker to a molecule that binds specifically to a molecule expressed on tumor cells. In this way the CAR T cell can be made to interact with any tumor cell, depending on what is coupled to the fluorescein. The technique is analogous to a socket wrench. Every socket has the same size hole that the ratchet handle fits into regardless of the size of the “business end” of the sockets, which recognize different size nuts.

Dr. Low gave an example of folic acid, for which he says a receptor is overexpressed on about 40% of human tumors but almost never on normal cells. “We link fluorescein to the vitamin folic acid,” he said. CAR T cells are injected into an animal, and nothing happens unless a folate-fluorescein conjugate is also injected. “As soon as we inject folate-fluorescein, the folate binds to the tumor cell surface, the fluorescein part of the folate-fluorescein binds to the CAR T cell, this forces a very tight interaction between the engineered T cell and the cancer cell, and we found it leads to melting away of the tumor,” he said.

This technique addresses the three major problems with standard CAR T cell therapy. By titrating the binding affinity, concentration, and rate of administration of the fluorescein conjugate, the rate of tumor killing can be controlled, mitigating tumor lysis syndrome. Plus, normal cells may be spared if the parameters are adjusted so that the conjugate binds only to cells with high levels of the target molecule, such as tumor cells.

Because its low molecular weight, the bi-specific conjugate rapidly disappears from the circulation, and the cell killing can be terminated, allowing normal cells to regenerate – for example, in the case of normal B cells that carry CD19. Since CAR T cells generate progeny that stay in the body, the progeny remain “dormant” but are ready to be activated again by addition of the conjugate to attack tumor cells if they arise.

A major issue is dealing with tumor heterogeneity; Dr. Low’s method seems to address that, as well. “We have tumor-specific ligands for over 90% of all human cancers,” he said. “Within another couple of months we’ll have them for 100%.”

Tumors typically contain lots of hypoxic cells, and hypoxic cells overexpress carbonic anhydrase-9. “Virtually every tumor has large fractions of the tumor mass that overexpress carbonic anhydrase-9, and we have a ligand that binds very specifically to that,” Dr. Low said.

To address the problem of tumor heterogeneity, with different mutations within different areas of the tumor or over time because of genetic instability in the cells, Dr. Low said, “We have a cocktail of about five of these small molecules… they are inexpensive to produce… and they clear very rapidly… and with the cocktail we can hit nearly all cancer cells, even in heterogeneous cancers.”

One limitation, as with standard CAR T cell therapy, is that the technique will still depend on using an individual patient’s T cells to modify through use of a lentiviral vector, so there would not be a universal, off-the-shelf T cell to use for everyone.

The technique and materials have been tested only in animals so far, using tumor-specific ligands for the folate receptor, a prostate-specific membrane antigen, and an antigen overexpressed on neuroendocrine tumors. Dr. Low has intentions to move the technology into human trials. He said the bridging molecules exist in highly purified form, and CAR T cell technology has already been developed by others. “Today we see great success in animal models and have no reason to believe that it won’t translate at least to a good extent to the clinic,” he said. Still, he expects some obstacles along the way and is willing to partner with others working on similar problems as well as large pharmaceutical companies.

The research has been supported by Endocyte, a company that Dr. Low founded and for which he is Chief Scientific Officer and a member of the board of directors. He has filed two patents on the technology, which are held by Purdue University and licensed to Endocyte.

FROM THE AACR ANNUAL MEETING

A differently engineered chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell promises to overcome major limitations of current CAR T cell therapies. Rather than engineer the CAR T cells to have a receptor that recognizes specific tumor antigens one at a time and requiring different CAR T cells for every antigen, this technique engineers a T cell receptor that can bind one invariant end of a bifunctional molecule. The molecule is constructed such that the other end can bind to whatever tumor cell surface marker is of interest. In this way, the CAR T cells can be constructed once and be directed to various tumor markers.

Standard CAR T cells are engineered to express on their surfaces receptors that recognize a specific antigen. These cells have been used up to now to recognize and kill tumor cells – for example, B cell leukemias carrying the pan-B cell marker CD19. The CAR T cells and their progeny, including memory T cells, remain in the body and continue to carry out their functions, potentially providing immune surveillance in case cancer cells arise again. But they uniquely recognize just CD19 – a problem, in that they kill even normal B cells, so-called off-target toxicity.

Beyond the unique specificity of standard CAR T cells, Philip Low, Ph.D., director of the Center for Drug Discovery at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, said these cells have three major limitations. First, they may lyse tumor cells so rapidly that a systemic tumor lysis syndrome or “cytokine storm” occurs. Second, the persisting CAR T cells can kill normal cells – for example, ones directed against CD19 killing normal B cells. Third, tumor cells have unstable genomes, leading to tumor heterogeneity, with some cells potentially losing the targeted antigens and therefore becoming “invisible” to the CAR T cells.

“So what we have done is basically designed a solution to all three, and we call it a universal CAR T cell because of its ability, with the help of an adapter molecule, to recognize all of these mutated tumor cells within a heterogeneous tumor,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. The key was to make a CAR T cell with a surface receptor that binds to the dye fluorescein. Then fluorescein is coupled through a short linker to a molecule that binds specifically to a molecule expressed on tumor cells. In this way the CAR T cell can be made to interact with any tumor cell, depending on what is coupled to the fluorescein. The technique is analogous to a socket wrench. Every socket has the same size hole that the ratchet handle fits into regardless of the size of the “business end” of the sockets, which recognize different size nuts.

Dr. Low gave an example of folic acid, for which he says a receptor is overexpressed on about 40% of human tumors but almost never on normal cells. “We link fluorescein to the vitamin folic acid,” he said. CAR T cells are injected into an animal, and nothing happens unless a folate-fluorescein conjugate is also injected. “As soon as we inject folate-fluorescein, the folate binds to the tumor cell surface, the fluorescein part of the folate-fluorescein binds to the CAR T cell, this forces a very tight interaction between the engineered T cell and the cancer cell, and we found it leads to melting away of the tumor,” he said.

This technique addresses the three major problems with standard CAR T cell therapy. By titrating the binding affinity, concentration, and rate of administration of the fluorescein conjugate, the rate of tumor killing can be controlled, mitigating tumor lysis syndrome. Plus, normal cells may be spared if the parameters are adjusted so that the conjugate binds only to cells with high levels of the target molecule, such as tumor cells.

Because its low molecular weight, the bi-specific conjugate rapidly disappears from the circulation, and the cell killing can be terminated, allowing normal cells to regenerate – for example, in the case of normal B cells that carry CD19. Since CAR T cells generate progeny that stay in the body, the progeny remain “dormant” but are ready to be activated again by addition of the conjugate to attack tumor cells if they arise.

A major issue is dealing with tumor heterogeneity; Dr. Low’s method seems to address that, as well. “We have tumor-specific ligands for over 90% of all human cancers,” he said. “Within another couple of months we’ll have them for 100%.”

Tumors typically contain lots of hypoxic cells, and hypoxic cells overexpress carbonic anhydrase-9. “Virtually every tumor has large fractions of the tumor mass that overexpress carbonic anhydrase-9, and we have a ligand that binds very specifically to that,” Dr. Low said.

To address the problem of tumor heterogeneity, with different mutations within different areas of the tumor or over time because of genetic instability in the cells, Dr. Low said, “We have a cocktail of about five of these small molecules… they are inexpensive to produce… and they clear very rapidly… and with the cocktail we can hit nearly all cancer cells, even in heterogeneous cancers.”

One limitation, as with standard CAR T cell therapy, is that the technique will still depend on using an individual patient’s T cells to modify through use of a lentiviral vector, so there would not be a universal, off-the-shelf T cell to use for everyone.

The technique and materials have been tested only in animals so far, using tumor-specific ligands for the folate receptor, a prostate-specific membrane antigen, and an antigen overexpressed on neuroendocrine tumors. Dr. Low has intentions to move the technology into human trials. He said the bridging molecules exist in highly purified form, and CAR T cell technology has already been developed by others. “Today we see great success in animal models and have no reason to believe that it won’t translate at least to a good extent to the clinic,” he said. Still, he expects some obstacles along the way and is willing to partner with others working on similar problems as well as large pharmaceutical companies.

The research has been supported by Endocyte, a company that Dr. Low founded and for which he is Chief Scientific Officer and a member of the board of directors. He has filed two patents on the technology, which are held by Purdue University and licensed to Endocyte.

Meaningful use would get a new name and an emphasis on flexibility under a proposal from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“We’re proposing today to replace meaningful use in the physician office with a new effort that moves the emphasis away from the use of information technology to one that supports patient care, supported by better and more connected technology,” CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt said during an April 27 press teleconference to introduce the changes.

“The program, Advancing Care Information, is designed to be far simpler, less burdensome, and more flexible,” Mr. Slavitt said. “If this proposal is finalized, it will replace the current meaningful use program for physician offices and will be effective January 1, 2017, along with the other components of the MACRA implementations.”

Mr. Slavitt and Dr. Karen DeSalvo, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, noted in a blog postthat the improvements “should increase providers’ ability to use technology in ways that are more relevant to their needs and the needs of their patients.”

The changes come as part of a larger proposed regulation to implement the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, released online April 27 and scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on May 9.

MACRA will create two systems under which doctors will be paid for the quality of care they provide. The changes to the meaningful use program will affect physicians who choose to participate in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Under the proposed rule, efforts under the new Advancing Care Information program would account for 25% of the score used to determine pay for office-based physicians under Medicare.

The key difference between the proposed program and meaningful use is that physicians will no longer be faced with an all-or-nothing requirement for meeting criteria to qualify for extra payments under the MIPS program.

Advancing Care Information has been divided into two parts. The first is reporting measures and has been streamlined to 11 measures, down from 18. Reporting on computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support measures have been eliminated.

The second part is based on performance measures, with multiple pathways to achieve those targets, which allow physicians to select the measures that best align with their needs.

There also is an opportunity to earn an extra point if a physician is reporting to more than one public health registry.

“We’ve also taken this opportunity to really focus more on aligning quality, on seeing that we are streamlining workflow and creating opportunities for electronic health record and health IT developers to create products that really meet the needs and expectations of clinicians and providers on the front lines,” Dr. DeSalvo said during the April 27 call.

The proposal also emphasizes interoperability, information exchange, and security measures and requires that patients be able to access their health care information easily through the use of apps and other consumer-friendly technology, according to the blog post.

The proposed rule also emphasizes open data sharing and interoperability, something that has been a continual drag on the current meaningful use program.

Comments on the proposed rule can be made at www.regulations.gov and are due June 26.

[email protected]

Meaningful use would get a new name and an emphasis on flexibility under a proposal from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“We’re proposing today to replace meaningful use in the physician office with a new effort that moves the emphasis away from the use of information technology to one that supports patient care, supported by better and more connected technology,” CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt said during an April 27 press teleconference to introduce the changes.

“The program, Advancing Care Information, is designed to be far simpler, less burdensome, and more flexible,” Mr. Slavitt said. “If this proposal is finalized, it will replace the current meaningful use program for physician offices and will be effective January 1, 2017, along with the other components of the MACRA implementations.”

Mr. Slavitt and Dr. Karen DeSalvo, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, noted in a blog postthat the improvements “should increase providers’ ability to use technology in ways that are more relevant to their needs and the needs of their patients.”

The changes come as part of a larger proposed regulation to implement the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, released online April 27 and scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on May 9.

MACRA will create two systems under which doctors will be paid for the quality of care they provide. The changes to the meaningful use program will affect physicians who choose to participate in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Under the proposed rule, efforts under the new Advancing Care Information program would account for 25% of the score used to determine pay for office-based physicians under Medicare.

The key difference between the proposed program and meaningful use is that physicians will no longer be faced with an all-or-nothing requirement for meeting criteria to qualify for extra payments under the MIPS program.

Advancing Care Information has been divided into two parts. The first is reporting measures and has been streamlined to 11 measures, down from 18. Reporting on computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support measures have been eliminated.

The second part is based on performance measures, with multiple pathways to achieve those targets, which allow physicians to select the measures that best align with their needs.

There also is an opportunity to earn an extra point if a physician is reporting to more than one public health registry.

“We’ve also taken this opportunity to really focus more on aligning quality, on seeing that we are streamlining workflow and creating opportunities for electronic health record and health IT developers to create products that really meet the needs and expectations of clinicians and providers on the front lines,” Dr. DeSalvo said during the April 27 call.

The proposal also emphasizes interoperability, information exchange, and security measures and requires that patients be able to access their health care information easily through the use of apps and other consumer-friendly technology, according to the blog post.

The proposed rule also emphasizes open data sharing and interoperability, something that has been a continual drag on the current meaningful use program.

Comments on the proposed rule can be made at www.regulations.gov and are due June 26.

[email protected]

Meaningful use would get a new name and an emphasis on flexibility under a proposal from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“We’re proposing today to replace meaningful use in the physician office with a new effort that moves the emphasis away from the use of information technology to one that supports patient care, supported by better and more connected technology,” CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt said during an April 27 press teleconference to introduce the changes.

“The program, Advancing Care Information, is designed to be far simpler, less burdensome, and more flexible,” Mr. Slavitt said. “If this proposal is finalized, it will replace the current meaningful use program for physician offices and will be effective January 1, 2017, along with the other components of the MACRA implementations.”

Mr. Slavitt and Dr. Karen DeSalvo, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, noted in a blog postthat the improvements “should increase providers’ ability to use technology in ways that are more relevant to their needs and the needs of their patients.”

The changes come as part of a larger proposed regulation to implement the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, released online April 27 and scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on May 9.

MACRA will create two systems under which doctors will be paid for the quality of care they provide. The changes to the meaningful use program will affect physicians who choose to participate in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Under the proposed rule, efforts under the new Advancing Care Information program would account for 25% of the score used to determine pay for office-based physicians under Medicare.

The key difference between the proposed program and meaningful use is that physicians will no longer be faced with an all-or-nothing requirement for meeting criteria to qualify for extra payments under the MIPS program.

Advancing Care Information has been divided into two parts. The first is reporting measures and has been streamlined to 11 measures, down from 18. Reporting on computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support measures have been eliminated.

The second part is based on performance measures, with multiple pathways to achieve those targets, which allow physicians to select the measures that best align with their needs.

There also is an opportunity to earn an extra point if a physician is reporting to more than one public health registry.

“We’ve also taken this opportunity to really focus more on aligning quality, on seeing that we are streamlining workflow and creating opportunities for electronic health record and health IT developers to create products that really meet the needs and expectations of clinicians and providers on the front lines,” Dr. DeSalvo said during the April 27 call.

The proposal also emphasizes interoperability, information exchange, and security measures and requires that patients be able to access their health care information easily through the use of apps and other consumer-friendly technology, according to the blog post.

The proposed rule also emphasizes open data sharing and interoperability, something that has been a continual drag on the current meaningful use program.

Comments on the proposed rule can be made at www.regulations.gov and are due June 26.

[email protected]

Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD

Photo courtesy of

Fred Hutch News Service

Researchers say they have conducted the first trial of CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in which CD4+ and CD8+ cells were administered in equal proportions.

And the assurance that each patient received the same mixture of cells allowed the team to draw clear conclusions about the effects of administering CAR T-cell therapy at different doses.

The researchers detailed these conclusions in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

This phase 1/2 trial (NCT01865617) was funded, in part, by Juno Therapeutics, the company developing the CAR T-cell therapy as JCAR014.

The work was also funded by the National Cancer Institute, private philanthropists, and the Life Sciences Discovery Fund.

Patients and treatment

The researchers reported data on 32 patients who had relapsed or refractory, CD19+ B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and a median age of 40 (range, 20–73). Two of these patients were excluded due to complications prior to receiving treatment.

The 30 patients who were treated in this study had received a median of 3 prior intensive chemotherapy regimens (range, 1–11). Eleven patients had failed a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). And all patients had detectable disease in the bone marrow, extramedullary sites, or cerebrospinal fluid at baseline.

To create the CAR T-cell therapy, the researchers modified CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell subsets separately to express a CD19-targeted CAR incorporating 4-1BB and CD3ζ signaling domains. The cells were then formulated in a defined ratio of CD4+:CD8+ CAR T cells.

Patients underwent lymphodepletion with a cyclophosphamide-based regimen (alone or with fludarabine or etoposide) and then received CAR T cells 48 to 96 hours later. The CAR T cells were given at 3 dose levels—2 × 10⁵/kg (DL1), 2 × 10⁶/kg (DL2), and 2 × 10⁷/kg (DL3).

Toxicity

The first 2 patients who received CAR T-cell therapy at DL3 developed severe toxicities, including 1 patient who died. So DL3 was not given to any subsequent patients.

Two patients died after CAR T-cell infusion. One patient had severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and multiorgan failure and died on day 3. The other patient had transient severe CRS with irreversible neurologic toxicity and died on day 122.

The most common adverse event observed in the first 14 days after CAR T-cell infusion was CRS, which occurred in 25 patients. Seven patients had severe CRS that put them in the intensive care unit.

However, for the patients treated at DL1 and DL2, dexamethasone alone or with tocilizumab resolved CRS.

Fifteen patients developed severe neurotoxicity (grade 3 or higher), either with CRS or after it resolved. For all but 1 patient (the aforementioned patient who died), neurologic symptoms and signs resolved.

Response

One patient died before response assessment, so 29 patients were evaluable. Twenty-seven of these patients (93%) achieved bone marrow remission by flow cytometry.

Of the 2 patients who did not achieve a complete response (CR), 1 underwent an allogeneic HSCT after receiving CAR T cells. After HSCT, she relapsed, was re-enrolled on the trial, and achieved a CR after receiving a higher dose of CAR T cells (DL2).

Twenty-five patients (86%) achieved a CR without evidence of minimal residual disease by flow cytometry and conventional karyotyping, FISH, or QPCR.

“Patients who come onto the trial have really limited options for treatment,” said study author Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“They have refractory acute leukemia. So the fact that we’re getting so many into remission is giving these people a way forward.”

Unfortunately, not all patients stayed in CR. Some relapsed and were treated again with CAR T cells, and 2 patients relapsed with leukemias that were immune to the CAR T cells. The researchers said it is still too early to know the long-term outcomes of the therapy.

“This is just the beginning,” Dr Turtle said. “It sounds fantastic to say that we get over 90% remissions, but there’s so much more work to do make sure they’re durable remissions, to work out who’s going to benefit the most, and extend this work to other diseases.”

Lessons learned

The researchers said that, because these CAR T cells had a defined CD4+:CD8+ composition, this study provides the first clear evidence of the relationships between the CAR T-cell dose patients receive and their outcomes after infusion.

The team found that high doses of CAR T cells and high tumor burden increase the risks of severe CRS and neurotoxicity. However, certain biomarkers can identify patients at the highest risk of toxicity.

Levels of IL-6, IFN-γ, and TNF-α on the first day after CAR T-cell infusion were significantly higher in patients who later developed severe neurotoxicity. Levels of these biomarkers were also higher in patients who were later sent to the intensive care unit.

Furthermore, risk-stratified CAR T-cell dosing based on bone marrow disease burden decreased toxicity.

The researchers also said they observed CD8+ T-cell-mediated anti-CAR transgene product immune responses in some patients, which limited CAR T-cell persistence and increased the risk of relapse.

And including fludarabine in the lymphodepletion regimen resulted in better CAR T-cell persistence and disease-free survival than when cyclophosphamide was given alone or with etoposide.

Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD

Photo courtesy of

Fred Hutch News Service

Researchers say they have conducted the first trial of CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in which CD4+ and CD8+ cells were administered in equal proportions.

And the assurance that each patient received the same mixture of cells allowed the team to draw clear conclusions about the effects of administering CAR T-cell therapy at different doses.

The researchers detailed these conclusions in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

This phase 1/2 trial (NCT01865617) was funded, in part, by Juno Therapeutics, the company developing the CAR T-cell therapy as JCAR014.

The work was also funded by the National Cancer Institute, private philanthropists, and the Life Sciences Discovery Fund.

Patients and treatment

The researchers reported data on 32 patients who had relapsed or refractory, CD19+ B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and a median age of 40 (range, 20–73). Two of these patients were excluded due to complications prior to receiving treatment.

The 30 patients who were treated in this study had received a median of 3 prior intensive chemotherapy regimens (range, 1–11). Eleven patients had failed a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). And all patients had detectable disease in the bone marrow, extramedullary sites, or cerebrospinal fluid at baseline.

To create the CAR T-cell therapy, the researchers modified CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell subsets separately to express a CD19-targeted CAR incorporating 4-1BB and CD3ζ signaling domains. The cells were then formulated in a defined ratio of CD4+:CD8+ CAR T cells.

Patients underwent lymphodepletion with a cyclophosphamide-based regimen (alone or with fludarabine or etoposide) and then received CAR T cells 48 to 96 hours later. The CAR T cells were given at 3 dose levels—2 × 10⁵/kg (DL1), 2 × 10⁶/kg (DL2), and 2 × 10⁷/kg (DL3).

Toxicity

The first 2 patients who received CAR T-cell therapy at DL3 developed severe toxicities, including 1 patient who died. So DL3 was not given to any subsequent patients.

Two patients died after CAR T-cell infusion. One patient had severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and multiorgan failure and died on day 3. The other patient had transient severe CRS with irreversible neurologic toxicity and died on day 122.

The most common adverse event observed in the first 14 days after CAR T-cell infusion was CRS, which occurred in 25 patients. Seven patients had severe CRS that put them in the intensive care unit.

However, for the patients treated at DL1 and DL2, dexamethasone alone or with tocilizumab resolved CRS.

Fifteen patients developed severe neurotoxicity (grade 3 or higher), either with CRS or after it resolved. For all but 1 patient (the aforementioned patient who died), neurologic symptoms and signs resolved.

Response

One patient died before response assessment, so 29 patients were evaluable. Twenty-seven of these patients (93%) achieved bone marrow remission by flow cytometry.

Of the 2 patients who did not achieve a complete response (CR), 1 underwent an allogeneic HSCT after receiving CAR T cells. After HSCT, she relapsed, was re-enrolled on the trial, and achieved a CR after receiving a higher dose of CAR T cells (DL2).

Twenty-five patients (86%) achieved a CR without evidence of minimal residual disease by flow cytometry and conventional karyotyping, FISH, or QPCR.

“Patients who come onto the trial have really limited options for treatment,” said study author Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“They have refractory acute leukemia. So the fact that we’re getting so many into remission is giving these people a way forward.”

Unfortunately, not all patients stayed in CR. Some relapsed and were treated again with CAR T cells, and 2 patients relapsed with leukemias that were immune to the CAR T cells. The researchers said it is still too early to know the long-term outcomes of the therapy.

“This is just the beginning,” Dr Turtle said. “It sounds fantastic to say that we get over 90% remissions, but there’s so much more work to do make sure they’re durable remissions, to work out who’s going to benefit the most, and extend this work to other diseases.”

Lessons learned

The researchers said that, because these CAR T cells had a defined CD4+:CD8+ composition, this study provides the first clear evidence of the relationships between the CAR T-cell dose patients receive and their outcomes after infusion.

The team found that high doses of CAR T cells and high tumor burden increase the risks of severe CRS and neurotoxicity. However, certain biomarkers can identify patients at the highest risk of toxicity.

Levels of IL-6, IFN-γ, and TNF-α on the first day after CAR T-cell infusion were significantly higher in patients who later developed severe neurotoxicity. Levels of these biomarkers were also higher in patients who were later sent to the intensive care unit.

Furthermore, risk-stratified CAR T-cell dosing based on bone marrow disease burden decreased toxicity.

The researchers also said they observed CD8+ T-cell-mediated anti-CAR transgene product immune responses in some patients, which limited CAR T-cell persistence and increased the risk of relapse.

And including fludarabine in the lymphodepletion regimen resulted in better CAR T-cell persistence and disease-free survival than when cyclophosphamide was given alone or with etoposide.

Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD

Photo courtesy of

Fred Hutch News Service

Researchers say they have conducted the first trial of CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in which CD4+ and CD8+ cells were administered in equal proportions.

And the assurance that each patient received the same mixture of cells allowed the team to draw clear conclusions about the effects of administering CAR T-cell therapy at different doses.

The researchers detailed these conclusions in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

This phase 1/2 trial (NCT01865617) was funded, in part, by Juno Therapeutics, the company developing the CAR T-cell therapy as JCAR014.

The work was also funded by the National Cancer Institute, private philanthropists, and the Life Sciences Discovery Fund.

Patients and treatment

The researchers reported data on 32 patients who had relapsed or refractory, CD19+ B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and a median age of 40 (range, 20–73). Two of these patients were excluded due to complications prior to receiving treatment.

The 30 patients who were treated in this study had received a median of 3 prior intensive chemotherapy regimens (range, 1–11). Eleven patients had failed a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). And all patients had detectable disease in the bone marrow, extramedullary sites, or cerebrospinal fluid at baseline.

To create the CAR T-cell therapy, the researchers modified CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell subsets separately to express a CD19-targeted CAR incorporating 4-1BB and CD3ζ signaling domains. The cells were then formulated in a defined ratio of CD4+:CD8+ CAR T cells.

Patients underwent lymphodepletion with a cyclophosphamide-based regimen (alone or with fludarabine or etoposide) and then received CAR T cells 48 to 96 hours later. The CAR T cells were given at 3 dose levels—2 × 10⁵/kg (DL1), 2 × 10⁶/kg (DL2), and 2 × 10⁷/kg (DL3).

Toxicity

The first 2 patients who received CAR T-cell therapy at DL3 developed severe toxicities, including 1 patient who died. So DL3 was not given to any subsequent patients.

Two patients died after CAR T-cell infusion. One patient had severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and multiorgan failure and died on day 3. The other patient had transient severe CRS with irreversible neurologic toxicity and died on day 122.

The most common adverse event observed in the first 14 days after CAR T-cell infusion was CRS, which occurred in 25 patients. Seven patients had severe CRS that put them in the intensive care unit.

However, for the patients treated at DL1 and DL2, dexamethasone alone or with tocilizumab resolved CRS.

Fifteen patients developed severe neurotoxicity (grade 3 or higher), either with CRS or after it resolved. For all but 1 patient (the aforementioned patient who died), neurologic symptoms and signs resolved.

Response

One patient died before response assessment, so 29 patients were evaluable. Twenty-seven of these patients (93%) achieved bone marrow remission by flow cytometry.

Of the 2 patients who did not achieve a complete response (CR), 1 underwent an allogeneic HSCT after receiving CAR T cells. After HSCT, she relapsed, was re-enrolled on the trial, and achieved a CR after receiving a higher dose of CAR T cells (DL2).

Twenty-five patients (86%) achieved a CR without evidence of minimal residual disease by flow cytometry and conventional karyotyping, FISH, or QPCR.

“Patients who come onto the trial have really limited options for treatment,” said study author Cameron Turtle, MBBS, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“They have refractory acute leukemia. So the fact that we’re getting so many into remission is giving these people a way forward.”

Unfortunately, not all patients stayed in CR. Some relapsed and were treated again with CAR T cells, and 2 patients relapsed with leukemias that were immune to the CAR T cells. The researchers said it is still too early to know the long-term outcomes of the therapy.

“This is just the beginning,” Dr Turtle said. “It sounds fantastic to say that we get over 90% remissions, but there’s so much more work to do make sure they’re durable remissions, to work out who’s going to benefit the most, and extend this work to other diseases.”

Lessons learned

The researchers said that, because these CAR T cells had a defined CD4+:CD8+ composition, this study provides the first clear evidence of the relationships between the CAR T-cell dose patients receive and their outcomes after infusion.

The team found that high doses of CAR T cells and high tumor burden increase the risks of severe CRS and neurotoxicity. However, certain biomarkers can identify patients at the highest risk of toxicity.

Levels of IL-6, IFN-γ, and TNF-α on the first day after CAR T-cell infusion were significantly higher in patients who later developed severe neurotoxicity. Levels of these biomarkers were also higher in patients who were later sent to the intensive care unit.

Furthermore, risk-stratified CAR T-cell dosing based on bone marrow disease burden decreased toxicity.

The researchers also said they observed CD8+ T-cell-mediated anti-CAR transgene product immune responses in some patients, which limited CAR T-cell persistence and increased the risk of relapse.

And including fludarabine in the lymphodepletion regimen resulted in better CAR T-cell persistence and disease-free survival than when cyclophosphamide was given alone or with etoposide.

Hospitalists’ struggles with the promise and pitfalls of the electronic health record (EHR) can also impinge on their personal satisfaction with their jobs.

The EHR has been identified as a major contributor to physician burnout. Research conducted in 2013 by the RAND Corporation and the American Medical Association (AMA) identified EHRs as the leading cause of physician dissatisfaction, emotional fatigue, depersonalization, and lost enthusiasm for the job.1 The MEMO study found that increased numbers of EHR functions in primary-care settings were associated with physician-reported stress, burnout, and desire to leave the practice.2 Daniel Roberts, MD, FHM, and colleagues found that more than half of hospitalists (52.3%) were affected by burnout, although rates were not higher than in outpatient settings.3

“It’s not fair to blame all physician burnout on the EHR, but the EHR has enabled others to place new demands on physicians and their practices,” says Christine Sinsky, MD, a former hospitalist and current vice president of professional satisfaction for AMA. “The current state of EHR technology appears to worsen professional satisfaction in multiple ways, resulting in reduced face time with patients and more time spent on data-entry functions.”

Dr. Sinsky says her association is trying to address the problem, both with advocacy to delay or revise government requirements for EHR adoption and through its STEPS Forward initiative to help physicians and their staffs redesign medical practices to minimize stress in a changing healthcare environment.

The AMA/RAND research did not break out hospital medicine specifically, although it identified high rates of job dissatisfaction for internists.

Jonathan Pell, MD, hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, says more research is needed to connect the dots between the EHR and hospitalists’ job satisfaction.

“It makes me wonder, does the EHR affect hospitalists differently than it does outpatient doctors?” he says. “More hospitals and health systems are starting to survey physicians regarding their job satisfaction.”

Dr. Pell also points to computerized physician order entry as a related contributor to job stress.

What Can the Hospitalist Do?

“I’m a believer in the EHR,” says R.J. Bunnell, MD, hospitalist at the 321-bed McKay-Dee Hospital in Ogden, Utah, and physician champion for EHR implementation at Salt Lake City–based Intermountain Healthcare. “We have the potential to reduce medical errors and decrease the burden on physicians, eventually providing unique decision support tools.”

Dr. Bunnell says many of the issues with EHR stem from the complex designs of the systems and cumbersome data collection.

“The practice of medicine is getting more complex year by year, with more regulatory oversight and well-intentioned—but poorly designed—mandates,” he says. “Physicians spend less one-on-one time with their patients and feel they no longer have power over their jobs.”

Dr. Bunnell helped plan implementation of the Intermountain EHR, including its rollout at McKay-Dee last fall.

“We had a positive response to going electronic here,” he says. “Part of it was just the inefficiency of how we did things before, where physicians were already spending 60% of their day on documenting. We started working with our vendor in 2013 to set things up. The team was very proactive, and we spent more than a year on staff training. There’s always a steep learning curve, but it has gone better here than other places.”

Poor rollout and lack of physician involvement in system design can be major contributors to EHR burnout, he adds.

“But for hospitalists, going forward, this is the kind of thing where our specialty could really shine—creating specialized roles for ourselves as agents of change,” Dr. Bunnell says. “If we as physicians don’t recognize the drivers behind these mandates, we’ll just continue to react to them. My hope is that … we will embrace the change, get involved, and find ways to use these tools to fulfill their promise.” TH

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in California.

References

1. Friedberg MW, Chen PG, Van Busum KR, et al. Research report: factors affecting physician professional satisfaction and their implications for patient care, health systems, and health policy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2013.
2. Babbott S, Manwell LB, Brown R, et al. Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO Study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(e1): e100-106.
3. Roberts DL, Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP. A national comparison of burnout and work-life balance among internal medicine hospitalists and outpatient general internists. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(3):176-181.

Hospitalists’ struggles with the promise and pitfalls of the electronic health record (EHR) can also impinge on their personal satisfaction with their jobs.

The EHR has been identified as a major contributor to physician burnout. Research conducted in 2013 by the RAND Corporation and the American Medical Association (AMA) identified EHRs as the leading cause of physician dissatisfaction, emotional fatigue, depersonalization, and lost enthusiasm for the job.1 The MEMO study found that increased numbers of EHR functions in primary-care settings were associated with physician-reported stress, burnout, and desire to leave the practice.2 Daniel Roberts, MD, FHM, and colleagues found that more than half of hospitalists (52.3%) were affected by burnout, although rates were not higher than in outpatient settings.3

“It’s not fair to blame all physician burnout on the EHR, but the EHR has enabled others to place new demands on physicians and their practices,” says Christine Sinsky, MD, a former hospitalist and current vice president of professional satisfaction for AMA. “The current state of EHR technology appears to worsen professional satisfaction in multiple ways, resulting in reduced face time with patients and more time spent on data-entry functions.”

Dr. Sinsky says her association is trying to address the problem, both with advocacy to delay or revise government requirements for EHR adoption and through its STEPS Forward initiative to help physicians and their staffs redesign medical practices to minimize stress in a changing healthcare environment.

The AMA/RAND research did not break out hospital medicine specifically, although it identified high rates of job dissatisfaction for internists.

Jonathan Pell, MD, hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, says more research is needed to connect the dots between the EHR and hospitalists’ job satisfaction.

“It makes me wonder, does the EHR affect hospitalists differently than it does outpatient doctors?” he says. “More hospitals and health systems are starting to survey physicians regarding their job satisfaction.”

Dr. Pell also points to computerized physician order entry as a related contributor to job stress.

What Can the Hospitalist Do?

“I’m a believer in the EHR,” says R.J. Bunnell, MD, hospitalist at the 321-bed McKay-Dee Hospital in Ogden, Utah, and physician champion for EHR implementation at Salt Lake City–based Intermountain Healthcare. “We have the potential to reduce medical errors and decrease the burden on physicians, eventually providing unique decision support tools.”

Dr. Bunnell says many of the issues with EHR stem from the complex designs of the systems and cumbersome data collection.

“The practice of medicine is getting more complex year by year, with more regulatory oversight and well-intentioned—but poorly designed—mandates,” he says. “Physicians spend less one-on-one time with their patients and feel they no longer have power over their jobs.”

Dr. Bunnell helped plan implementation of the Intermountain EHR, including its rollout at McKay-Dee last fall.

“We had a positive response to going electronic here,” he says. “Part of it was just the inefficiency of how we did things before, where physicians were already spending 60% of their day on documenting. We started working with our vendor in 2013 to set things up. The team was very proactive, and we spent more than a year on staff training. There’s always a steep learning curve, but it has gone better here than other places.”

Poor rollout and lack of physician involvement in system design can be major contributors to EHR burnout, he adds.

“But for hospitalists, going forward, this is the kind of thing where our specialty could really shine—creating specialized roles for ourselves as agents of change,” Dr. Bunnell says. “If we as physicians don’t recognize the drivers behind these mandates, we’ll just continue to react to them. My hope is that … we will embrace the change, get involved, and find ways to use these tools to fulfill their promise.” TH

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in California.

References

1. Friedberg MW, Chen PG, Van Busum KR, et al. Research report: factors affecting physician professional satisfaction and their implications for patient care, health systems, and health policy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2013.
2. Babbott S, Manwell LB, Brown R, et al. Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO Study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(e1): e100-106.
3. Roberts DL, Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP. A national comparison of burnout and work-life balance among internal medicine hospitalists and outpatient general internists. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(3):176-181.

Hospitalists’ struggles with the promise and pitfalls of the electronic health record (EHR) can also impinge on their personal satisfaction with their jobs.

The EHR has been identified as a major contributor to physician burnout. Research conducted in 2013 by the RAND Corporation and the American Medical Association (AMA) identified EHRs as the leading cause of physician dissatisfaction, emotional fatigue, depersonalization, and lost enthusiasm for the job.1 The MEMO study found that increased numbers of EHR functions in primary-care settings were associated with physician-reported stress, burnout, and desire to leave the practice.2 Daniel Roberts, MD, FHM, and colleagues found that more than half of hospitalists (52.3%) were affected by burnout, although rates were not higher than in outpatient settings.3

“It’s not fair to blame all physician burnout on the EHR, but the EHR has enabled others to place new demands on physicians and their practices,” says Christine Sinsky, MD, a former hospitalist and current vice president of professional satisfaction for AMA. “The current state of EHR technology appears to worsen professional satisfaction in multiple ways, resulting in reduced face time with patients and more time spent on data-entry functions.”

Dr. Sinsky says her association is trying to address the problem, both with advocacy to delay or revise government requirements for EHR adoption and through its STEPS Forward initiative to help physicians and their staffs redesign medical practices to minimize stress in a changing healthcare environment.

The AMA/RAND research did not break out hospital medicine specifically, although it identified high rates of job dissatisfaction for internists.

Jonathan Pell, MD, hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, says more research is needed to connect the dots between the EHR and hospitalists’ job satisfaction.

“It makes me wonder, does the EHR affect hospitalists differently than it does outpatient doctors?” he says. “More hospitals and health systems are starting to survey physicians regarding their job satisfaction.”

Dr. Pell also points to computerized physician order entry as a related contributor to job stress.

What Can the Hospitalist Do?

“I’m a believer in the EHR,” says R.J. Bunnell, MD, hospitalist at the 321-bed McKay-Dee Hospital in Ogden, Utah, and physician champion for EHR implementation at Salt Lake City–based Intermountain Healthcare. “We have the potential to reduce medical errors and decrease the burden on physicians, eventually providing unique decision support tools.”

Dr. Bunnell says many of the issues with EHR stem from the complex designs of the systems and cumbersome data collection.

“The practice of medicine is getting more complex year by year, with more regulatory oversight and well-intentioned—but poorly designed—mandates,” he says. “Physicians spend less one-on-one time with their patients and feel they no longer have power over their jobs.”

Dr. Bunnell helped plan implementation of the Intermountain EHR, including its rollout at McKay-Dee last fall.

“We had a positive response to going electronic here,” he says. “Part of it was just the inefficiency of how we did things before, where physicians were already spending 60% of their day on documenting. We started working with our vendor in 2013 to set things up. The team was very proactive, and we spent more than a year on staff training. There’s always a steep learning curve, but it has gone better here than other places.”

Poor rollout and lack of physician involvement in system design can be major contributors to EHR burnout, he adds.

“But for hospitalists, going forward, this is the kind of thing where our specialty could really shine—creating specialized roles for ourselves as agents of change,” Dr. Bunnell says. “If we as physicians don’t recognize the drivers behind these mandates, we’ll just continue to react to them. My hope is that … we will embrace the change, get involved, and find ways to use these tools to fulfill their promise.” TH

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in California.

References

1. Friedberg MW, Chen PG, Van Busum KR, et al. Research report: factors affecting physician professional satisfaction and their implications for patient care, health systems, and health policy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2013.
2. Babbott S, Manwell LB, Brown R, et al. Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO Study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(e1): e100-106.
3. Roberts DL, Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP. A national comparison of burnout and work-life balance among internal medicine hospitalists and outpatient general internists. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(3):176-181.