Doctor Shortage and Caribbean Medical Schools

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/04/2018 - 09:31
Display Headline
Doctor Shortage and Caribbean Medical Schools

Thirty years ago, the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee predicted a surplus of 145,000 physicians, including cardiologists, by the year 2000, and recommended a limitation of the number of entering positions in U.S. medical schools and the number of international graduates coming to the United States.

Although there was no restriction placed on international graduates coming to the United States, the number of positions available for students to enter U.S. medical schools has remained static until the last 2 years. This obstruction to medical school entry led many students to seek education at offshore medical schools (OMS), particularly in the Caribbean.

The flawed predictions of a surplus of doctors were made in anticipation of an expanded role of health maintenance organizations as gatekeepers for access to both family and specialty doctors. GMENAC also failed to foresee the expansion of the elderly population as a result of the baby boomer generation and the increased availability of new diagnostic and therapeutic technologies.

It is now estimated that by 2020 or 2025 there will be a shortage of almost 200,000 doctors in the United States (J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2007;22:264–8). U.S. medical schools are now projected to graduate 16,000 doctors annually, and that number is expected to increase by 30% in 2015, unless the proposed restrictions to education budgets by Congress come into place. However, this increase will continue to fall short of national requirements if physician retirement is factored into the estimates.

I recently had an opportunity to visit one of the Caribbean medical schools and to observe the students in the classroom. I also learned a great deal about the role that the OMS play in mitigating the doctor shortage in the United States. The students in these schools are clearly different from those who attend American medical schools. They are distinguished, not exclusively by their MCAT scores, as though that really matters, but also by being very motivated to become doctors. Many had been out of undergraduate programs for sometime – some as long 15 years – and had tested other careers and come to the realization that medicine is what they really wanted.

Most of these students will spend 2 years in the Caribbean and then move to clinical training in hospitals throughout the United States, ultimately entering residency programs and practice in mainland America.

One of the first hurdles that the OMS students will face is passing the United States Medical Licensing Examination taken by both U.S. and International Medical Graduates (IMGs). Measured against U.S. medical school graduates, who have a first-time passing rate of about 95%, they unfortunately fall short: The rate for non-U.S. IMGs is 73%, and that for American IMGs is lower still, at 60% (Health Aff. 2009;28:1226–33).

Upon the completion of their training, although they may go into subspecialties as do U.S. students, more of the Caribbean students enter family practice, a fact that has not been lost on health planners.

There have been some recent attempts to limit the number of training slots available for OMS students in New York City hospitals because of the presumed lack of total residency positions.

However, the state legislators, aware of current needs, have been reluctant to erect any barriers for physicians interested in family practice.

Currently there are 40 OMS in the Caribbean basin including Mexico, 24 of which were started in the last 10 years, which graduate more than 4,000 students annually in three classes, which vary in size between 60 and 600 students. Tuition is similar to that of U.S. schools and ranges from $47,500 to $186,085 for the 4 years. U.S. medical schools must be accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, but there is no accreditation process for OMS.

The LCME is now partnering with the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions to establish similar accreditation processes. Federally supported scholarships are available to U.S. citizens in the OMS just as they are for students enrolled in U.S. schools. As a result of the high tuition and relatively low overhead, some of these schools have been targets for venture capitalists.

Of the 800,000 actively practicing doctors in the United States, 23.7% are IMGs, a percentage that is sure to increase. Approximately 60% of the IMGs are from the offshore medical schools.

It is clear that the United States has become increasingly dependent on OMS to meet our doctor supply. It is also clear that a vigorous attempt to improve the certification process for OMS would go a long way to ensure the quality of our future doctors.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Article PDF
Article PDF

Thirty years ago, the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee predicted a surplus of 145,000 physicians, including cardiologists, by the year 2000, and recommended a limitation of the number of entering positions in U.S. medical schools and the number of international graduates coming to the United States.

Although there was no restriction placed on international graduates coming to the United States, the number of positions available for students to enter U.S. medical schools has remained static until the last 2 years. This obstruction to medical school entry led many students to seek education at offshore medical schools (OMS), particularly in the Caribbean.

The flawed predictions of a surplus of doctors were made in anticipation of an expanded role of health maintenance organizations as gatekeepers for access to both family and specialty doctors. GMENAC also failed to foresee the expansion of the elderly population as a result of the baby boomer generation and the increased availability of new diagnostic and therapeutic technologies.

It is now estimated that by 2020 or 2025 there will be a shortage of almost 200,000 doctors in the United States (J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2007;22:264–8). U.S. medical schools are now projected to graduate 16,000 doctors annually, and that number is expected to increase by 30% in 2015, unless the proposed restrictions to education budgets by Congress come into place. However, this increase will continue to fall short of national requirements if physician retirement is factored into the estimates.

I recently had an opportunity to visit one of the Caribbean medical schools and to observe the students in the classroom. I also learned a great deal about the role that the OMS play in mitigating the doctor shortage in the United States. The students in these schools are clearly different from those who attend American medical schools. They are distinguished, not exclusively by their MCAT scores, as though that really matters, but also by being very motivated to become doctors. Many had been out of undergraduate programs for sometime – some as long 15 years – and had tested other careers and come to the realization that medicine is what they really wanted.

Most of these students will spend 2 years in the Caribbean and then move to clinical training in hospitals throughout the United States, ultimately entering residency programs and practice in mainland America.

One of the first hurdles that the OMS students will face is passing the United States Medical Licensing Examination taken by both U.S. and International Medical Graduates (IMGs). Measured against U.S. medical school graduates, who have a first-time passing rate of about 95%, they unfortunately fall short: The rate for non-U.S. IMGs is 73%, and that for American IMGs is lower still, at 60% (Health Aff. 2009;28:1226–33).

Upon the completion of their training, although they may go into subspecialties as do U.S. students, more of the Caribbean students enter family practice, a fact that has not been lost on health planners.

There have been some recent attempts to limit the number of training slots available for OMS students in New York City hospitals because of the presumed lack of total residency positions.

However, the state legislators, aware of current needs, have been reluctant to erect any barriers for physicians interested in family practice.

Currently there are 40 OMS in the Caribbean basin including Mexico, 24 of which were started in the last 10 years, which graduate more than 4,000 students annually in three classes, which vary in size between 60 and 600 students. Tuition is similar to that of U.S. schools and ranges from $47,500 to $186,085 for the 4 years. U.S. medical schools must be accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, but there is no accreditation process for OMS.

The LCME is now partnering with the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions to establish similar accreditation processes. Federally supported scholarships are available to U.S. citizens in the OMS just as they are for students enrolled in U.S. schools. As a result of the high tuition and relatively low overhead, some of these schools have been targets for venture capitalists.

Of the 800,000 actively practicing doctors in the United States, 23.7% are IMGs, a percentage that is sure to increase. Approximately 60% of the IMGs are from the offshore medical schools.

It is clear that the United States has become increasingly dependent on OMS to meet our doctor supply. It is also clear that a vigorous attempt to improve the certification process for OMS would go a long way to ensure the quality of our future doctors.

Thirty years ago, the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee predicted a surplus of 145,000 physicians, including cardiologists, by the year 2000, and recommended a limitation of the number of entering positions in U.S. medical schools and the number of international graduates coming to the United States.

Although there was no restriction placed on international graduates coming to the United States, the number of positions available for students to enter U.S. medical schools has remained static until the last 2 years. This obstruction to medical school entry led many students to seek education at offshore medical schools (OMS), particularly in the Caribbean.

The flawed predictions of a surplus of doctors were made in anticipation of an expanded role of health maintenance organizations as gatekeepers for access to both family and specialty doctors. GMENAC also failed to foresee the expansion of the elderly population as a result of the baby boomer generation and the increased availability of new diagnostic and therapeutic technologies.

It is now estimated that by 2020 or 2025 there will be a shortage of almost 200,000 doctors in the United States (J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2007;22:264–8). U.S. medical schools are now projected to graduate 16,000 doctors annually, and that number is expected to increase by 30% in 2015, unless the proposed restrictions to education budgets by Congress come into place. However, this increase will continue to fall short of national requirements if physician retirement is factored into the estimates.

I recently had an opportunity to visit one of the Caribbean medical schools and to observe the students in the classroom. I also learned a great deal about the role that the OMS play in mitigating the doctor shortage in the United States. The students in these schools are clearly different from those who attend American medical schools. They are distinguished, not exclusively by their MCAT scores, as though that really matters, but also by being very motivated to become doctors. Many had been out of undergraduate programs for sometime – some as long 15 years – and had tested other careers and come to the realization that medicine is what they really wanted.

Most of these students will spend 2 years in the Caribbean and then move to clinical training in hospitals throughout the United States, ultimately entering residency programs and practice in mainland America.

One of the first hurdles that the OMS students will face is passing the United States Medical Licensing Examination taken by both U.S. and International Medical Graduates (IMGs). Measured against U.S. medical school graduates, who have a first-time passing rate of about 95%, they unfortunately fall short: The rate for non-U.S. IMGs is 73%, and that for American IMGs is lower still, at 60% (Health Aff. 2009;28:1226–33).

Upon the completion of their training, although they may go into subspecialties as do U.S. students, more of the Caribbean students enter family practice, a fact that has not been lost on health planners.

There have been some recent attempts to limit the number of training slots available for OMS students in New York City hospitals because of the presumed lack of total residency positions.

However, the state legislators, aware of current needs, have been reluctant to erect any barriers for physicians interested in family practice.

Currently there are 40 OMS in the Caribbean basin including Mexico, 24 of which were started in the last 10 years, which graduate more than 4,000 students annually in three classes, which vary in size between 60 and 600 students. Tuition is similar to that of U.S. schools and ranges from $47,500 to $186,085 for the 4 years. U.S. medical schools must be accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, but there is no accreditation process for OMS.

The LCME is now partnering with the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions to establish similar accreditation processes. Federally supported scholarships are available to U.S. citizens in the OMS just as they are for students enrolled in U.S. schools. As a result of the high tuition and relatively low overhead, some of these schools have been targets for venture capitalists.

Of the 800,000 actively practicing doctors in the United States, 23.7% are IMGs, a percentage that is sure to increase. Approximately 60% of the IMGs are from the offshore medical schools.

It is clear that the United States has become increasingly dependent on OMS to meet our doctor supply. It is also clear that a vigorous attempt to improve the certification process for OMS would go a long way to ensure the quality of our future doctors.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Doctor Shortage and Caribbean Medical Schools
Display Headline
Doctor Shortage and Caribbean Medical Schools
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Treating Sports Overuse Injuries

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 05/06/2019 - 12:02
Display Headline
Treating Sports Overuse Injuries

Overuse injuries are very common in children and teenagers, especially among kids who play sports throughout the year.

A high volume of sports puts your patients at higher risk for an overuse injury. Ask which sports they play, how often they play them, and how many teams they play for when taking the patient history. It is more and more common now that kids play on multiple teams at the same time or that sports seasons overlap. Here in the South, for example, baseball can start in January or February, while basketball – a winter sport – is still going on.

Year-round participation in multiple sports has an advantage as well – it becomes a form of built-in cross training. Your patients will be using the same muscles but developing them in different ways.

Encourage your athletic patients to play different sports and discourage “early specialization.” You can counsel patients regularly about sports diversification – during well-child visits and school or sports physical examinations. Patients who play football or soccer in the fall; basketball or wrestling in the winter; and then softball or lacrosse in the spring generally are at a lower risk for overuse injuries.

In contrast, specialization in the same sport throughout the year increases the risk for overuse injuries as well as “burnout.” For example, a child who starts at age 7 or 8 years and plays the same sport for years might find participation becomes less fun by age 13 or 14 years. In some cases, parents get enthusiastic, pay for private lessons to extend the “season” to 12 months, and the kids just never have a time to rest.

For some families, it seems like success of the team or success on the playing field becomes more important than the health of the child. You can face a dilemma if you recommend rest for a child about to play a big game or tournament. The best way I found around that is to spend sufficient time to explain why you are making your recommendations. If you just say, “His knee hurts, and he shouldn't play,” the patient and parents are less likely to be compliant.

We give advice. We rarely forbid a kid from playing. But you can explain what could happen if they don't follow recommendations. You might say something like, “Here is what I think you have, here is what I think you should do, and here's why. If you don't, the risk of making this a stress fracture is higher.” You can also explain that a nonsurgical elbow injury could become surgical if you continue to throw, play, or tumble.

Pediatricians can manage most overuse injuries. Watch for signs that can warrant referral, however, such as a swollen joint, limitation of joint movement, or symptoms of trauma/acute injury. Consider consulting a subspecialist when the child cannot completely bend or extend the elbow, for example. These findings suggest something worse than just overuse.

In general, the best way to treat an overuse injury is to underuse the affected area. Apply the PRICEMM techniques (protection, rest, ice, compression, elevation, medication, and [physical therapy] modalities) for 2 or 3 days. If there is no improvement, expand your differential diagnosis. Overuse injuries should improve quickly if patients start underusing the affected area in addition to modifying their workouts and using ice and anti-inflammatory medications.

Recommend the patient back off after you identify the likely source of pain. If a baseball player presents with elbow pain, for example, he might improve by pitching less or switching from shortstop to first base. Rarely do children need to stop playing altogether. Modification of the workout a little bit might be all it takes to give the body a chance to adapt. You could recommend a child play only part of the soccer game or avoid particular conditioning drills during practice, for example.

An overuse injury is defined as repetitive, submaximal stress applied to a tissue that occurs when the adaptive capability of the tissue is exceeded and injury results. A blister is a perfect example. If you put on a new shoe that starts rubbing your foot too much, eventually the skin breaks down. But if you wear the new shoes for a little bit, then switch to sandals, then boots, and finally put your new shoes back on, you slowly introduce those stresses. This way, the body has a chance to adapt, the skin will become callused, and you won't develop a blister.

Acute trauma is another reason to consider referring the child to a sports medicine specialist. If a child comes to you with instant pain from a jump off the monkey bars or a slide into home, she should be referred to rule out something more serious, such as a fracture or a cartilage or a ligament tear.

 

 

Another time to refer is anytime you feel uncomfortable. If you sense something isn't right, you will never be faulted for referring the patient to a specialist. So, when in doubt, go ahead and refer.

Typically, a good history and physical examination will be sufficient, with or without x-rays, for a pediatrician to determine the best recommendations for the patient.

Although x-rays are a necessity for evaluation of most orthopedic or sports injuries, it is preferable to refer the child and have the subspecialist order imaging tests. This avoids duplication of radiation exposure for the child and the unnecessary time and expense of repeated x-rays. In addition, laboratory assays typically do not help in the evaluation of a suspected overuse injury, unless you suspect a comorbid condition such as arthritis or joint infection.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Article PDF
Article PDF

Overuse injuries are very common in children and teenagers, especially among kids who play sports throughout the year.

A high volume of sports puts your patients at higher risk for an overuse injury. Ask which sports they play, how often they play them, and how many teams they play for when taking the patient history. It is more and more common now that kids play on multiple teams at the same time or that sports seasons overlap. Here in the South, for example, baseball can start in January or February, while basketball – a winter sport – is still going on.

Year-round participation in multiple sports has an advantage as well – it becomes a form of built-in cross training. Your patients will be using the same muscles but developing them in different ways.

Encourage your athletic patients to play different sports and discourage “early specialization.” You can counsel patients regularly about sports diversification – during well-child visits and school or sports physical examinations. Patients who play football or soccer in the fall; basketball or wrestling in the winter; and then softball or lacrosse in the spring generally are at a lower risk for overuse injuries.

In contrast, specialization in the same sport throughout the year increases the risk for overuse injuries as well as “burnout.” For example, a child who starts at age 7 or 8 years and plays the same sport for years might find participation becomes less fun by age 13 or 14 years. In some cases, parents get enthusiastic, pay for private lessons to extend the “season” to 12 months, and the kids just never have a time to rest.

For some families, it seems like success of the team or success on the playing field becomes more important than the health of the child. You can face a dilemma if you recommend rest for a child about to play a big game or tournament. The best way I found around that is to spend sufficient time to explain why you are making your recommendations. If you just say, “His knee hurts, and he shouldn't play,” the patient and parents are less likely to be compliant.

We give advice. We rarely forbid a kid from playing. But you can explain what could happen if they don't follow recommendations. You might say something like, “Here is what I think you have, here is what I think you should do, and here's why. If you don't, the risk of making this a stress fracture is higher.” You can also explain that a nonsurgical elbow injury could become surgical if you continue to throw, play, or tumble.

Pediatricians can manage most overuse injuries. Watch for signs that can warrant referral, however, such as a swollen joint, limitation of joint movement, or symptoms of trauma/acute injury. Consider consulting a subspecialist when the child cannot completely bend or extend the elbow, for example. These findings suggest something worse than just overuse.

In general, the best way to treat an overuse injury is to underuse the affected area. Apply the PRICEMM techniques (protection, rest, ice, compression, elevation, medication, and [physical therapy] modalities) for 2 or 3 days. If there is no improvement, expand your differential diagnosis. Overuse injuries should improve quickly if patients start underusing the affected area in addition to modifying their workouts and using ice and anti-inflammatory medications.

Recommend the patient back off after you identify the likely source of pain. If a baseball player presents with elbow pain, for example, he might improve by pitching less or switching from shortstop to first base. Rarely do children need to stop playing altogether. Modification of the workout a little bit might be all it takes to give the body a chance to adapt. You could recommend a child play only part of the soccer game or avoid particular conditioning drills during practice, for example.

An overuse injury is defined as repetitive, submaximal stress applied to a tissue that occurs when the adaptive capability of the tissue is exceeded and injury results. A blister is a perfect example. If you put on a new shoe that starts rubbing your foot too much, eventually the skin breaks down. But if you wear the new shoes for a little bit, then switch to sandals, then boots, and finally put your new shoes back on, you slowly introduce those stresses. This way, the body has a chance to adapt, the skin will become callused, and you won't develop a blister.

Acute trauma is another reason to consider referring the child to a sports medicine specialist. If a child comes to you with instant pain from a jump off the monkey bars or a slide into home, she should be referred to rule out something more serious, such as a fracture or a cartilage or a ligament tear.

 

 

Another time to refer is anytime you feel uncomfortable. If you sense something isn't right, you will never be faulted for referring the patient to a specialist. So, when in doubt, go ahead and refer.

Typically, a good history and physical examination will be sufficient, with or without x-rays, for a pediatrician to determine the best recommendations for the patient.

Although x-rays are a necessity for evaluation of most orthopedic or sports injuries, it is preferable to refer the child and have the subspecialist order imaging tests. This avoids duplication of radiation exposure for the child and the unnecessary time and expense of repeated x-rays. In addition, laboratory assays typically do not help in the evaluation of a suspected overuse injury, unless you suspect a comorbid condition such as arthritis or joint infection.

Overuse injuries are very common in children and teenagers, especially among kids who play sports throughout the year.

A high volume of sports puts your patients at higher risk for an overuse injury. Ask which sports they play, how often they play them, and how many teams they play for when taking the patient history. It is more and more common now that kids play on multiple teams at the same time or that sports seasons overlap. Here in the South, for example, baseball can start in January or February, while basketball – a winter sport – is still going on.

Year-round participation in multiple sports has an advantage as well – it becomes a form of built-in cross training. Your patients will be using the same muscles but developing them in different ways.

Encourage your athletic patients to play different sports and discourage “early specialization.” You can counsel patients regularly about sports diversification – during well-child visits and school or sports physical examinations. Patients who play football or soccer in the fall; basketball or wrestling in the winter; and then softball or lacrosse in the spring generally are at a lower risk for overuse injuries.

In contrast, specialization in the same sport throughout the year increases the risk for overuse injuries as well as “burnout.” For example, a child who starts at age 7 or 8 years and plays the same sport for years might find participation becomes less fun by age 13 or 14 years. In some cases, parents get enthusiastic, pay for private lessons to extend the “season” to 12 months, and the kids just never have a time to rest.

For some families, it seems like success of the team or success on the playing field becomes more important than the health of the child. You can face a dilemma if you recommend rest for a child about to play a big game or tournament. The best way I found around that is to spend sufficient time to explain why you are making your recommendations. If you just say, “His knee hurts, and he shouldn't play,” the patient and parents are less likely to be compliant.

We give advice. We rarely forbid a kid from playing. But you can explain what could happen if they don't follow recommendations. You might say something like, “Here is what I think you have, here is what I think you should do, and here's why. If you don't, the risk of making this a stress fracture is higher.” You can also explain that a nonsurgical elbow injury could become surgical if you continue to throw, play, or tumble.

Pediatricians can manage most overuse injuries. Watch for signs that can warrant referral, however, such as a swollen joint, limitation of joint movement, or symptoms of trauma/acute injury. Consider consulting a subspecialist when the child cannot completely bend or extend the elbow, for example. These findings suggest something worse than just overuse.

In general, the best way to treat an overuse injury is to underuse the affected area. Apply the PRICEMM techniques (protection, rest, ice, compression, elevation, medication, and [physical therapy] modalities) for 2 or 3 days. If there is no improvement, expand your differential diagnosis. Overuse injuries should improve quickly if patients start underusing the affected area in addition to modifying their workouts and using ice and anti-inflammatory medications.

Recommend the patient back off after you identify the likely source of pain. If a baseball player presents with elbow pain, for example, he might improve by pitching less or switching from shortstop to first base. Rarely do children need to stop playing altogether. Modification of the workout a little bit might be all it takes to give the body a chance to adapt. You could recommend a child play only part of the soccer game or avoid particular conditioning drills during practice, for example.

An overuse injury is defined as repetitive, submaximal stress applied to a tissue that occurs when the adaptive capability of the tissue is exceeded and injury results. A blister is a perfect example. If you put on a new shoe that starts rubbing your foot too much, eventually the skin breaks down. But if you wear the new shoes for a little bit, then switch to sandals, then boots, and finally put your new shoes back on, you slowly introduce those stresses. This way, the body has a chance to adapt, the skin will become callused, and you won't develop a blister.

Acute trauma is another reason to consider referring the child to a sports medicine specialist. If a child comes to you with instant pain from a jump off the monkey bars or a slide into home, she should be referred to rule out something more serious, such as a fracture or a cartilage or a ligament tear.

 

 

Another time to refer is anytime you feel uncomfortable. If you sense something isn't right, you will never be faulted for referring the patient to a specialist. So, when in doubt, go ahead and refer.

Typically, a good history and physical examination will be sufficient, with or without x-rays, for a pediatrician to determine the best recommendations for the patient.

Although x-rays are a necessity for evaluation of most orthopedic or sports injuries, it is preferable to refer the child and have the subspecialist order imaging tests. This avoids duplication of radiation exposure for the child and the unnecessary time and expense of repeated x-rays. In addition, laboratory assays typically do not help in the evaluation of a suspected overuse injury, unless you suspect a comorbid condition such as arthritis or joint infection.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Treating Sports Overuse Injuries
Display Headline
Treating Sports Overuse Injuries
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Managing ADHD in a Young Child

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/06/2018 - 16:06
Display Headline
Managing ADHD in a Young Child

 

[email protected]

Some parents of very young children – those 6 years old and younger – will come to you exhausted, feeling inadequate as parents, and even angry at their children.

Parents will report that their children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are very difficult at home and in preschool. Probably when their children were around age 2, 3, or 4 years old, their parents began wondering if the youngsters were immature, were more impulsive, and had a shorter attention span, compared with peers.

Pediatricians will recognize this pattern as likely ADHD and, in addition to making an accurate diagnosis, know that much is at stake in guiding and supporting parents. A critical relationship is at risk as the child's behavior evokes criticism and a negative tone from parents. Pediatricians should help parents set reasonable expectations and focus on behaviors and activities that build self-esteem. For some families, this work can be difficult and time consuming, requiring counseling and behavioral reward training – probably better delegated to a mental health specialist.

Attention span, impulsivity, and motoric hyperactivity are active concerns every waking hour of the child's day. Certain demands in preschool, at a longer dinner, or in church may exacerbate the symptoms, whereas playing in the park or playing a fun-filled computer game may ease the symptoms. The pediatrician can sort through a typical day and recommend approaches that are consistent with developmentally reasonable expectations, and modified for the child's ADHD symptoms.

Family history is another consideration. About 30% of children with ADHD come from fathers who had or have the disorder. Reminding a father of his difficulties growing up or any ongoing ADHD symptoms can be helpful in eliciting some empathy from him for his child's suffering.

Beyond family life, ADHD will affect the choice of school and activities. Based on what works for the child, consider how many hours a child should spend in preschool and how much structure is helpful. How will the culture of the school fit the child's style? Remember that the last thing a child with ADHD needs is an early school experience characterized by criticism and a sense of not being able to please teachers. A school with more recess and activity opportunities, as well as after-school programs, might be a good choice, and might offer some respite for parents.

As part of building self-esteem, ask parents if there is anything the child is really good at. For example, I treated a 6-year-old with ADHD who was gifted with computers. He was able to teach his peers and play games with friends, and he felt genuine pride working with a machine that was tolerant and nonjudgmental, and could be reset as needed. Might this not lead to a path of an after-school computer club or computer summer camp (that of course would include other activities)? Other young children may show strength in music, art, or a sport, and these activities are at least as important as remediating weaknesses.

Awareness of the different ADHD subtypes is important in general, but also can guide you in when to refer these children. Some kids with ADHD are more moody or depressed, some are more anxious, and others are more physically aggressive. Consider referral to a child and adolescent psychiatrist if one of these subtypes becomes more difficult to manage. A mental health consultation can help these higher-risk children.

Some children with ADHD also have learning disabilities, and diagnosis at a young age, before school failure, is invaluable. If you suspect this in a particular patient, you might want to recommend some early testing through the schools to avoid creation of unrealistic expectations in the classroom.

Parents may tell you their children are impulsive. While other kids are more predictable when playing in the sandbox, their children with ADHD may do something unpredictable. They might jump out of the sandbox or grab a toy from another child, for example. A mother of a 3-year-old with ADHD will stay closer to the sandbox because she doesn't know what that child is going to do next.

Typically, the child also will have a shorter attention span. The parents cannot relax because they know the sandbox, or a particular project in the sandbox, won't hold their child as long. Other children may be occupied for 15, 20, or even 30 minutes, but their young child with ADHD might last only 3 or 4 minutes and then need to move on. That, as you can imagine, is going to make the parenting demands much higher. Remember this doesn't happen for just 1 or 2 hours per day; children with true ADHD are going to be like this from the time they get up until the time they go to sleep.

 

 

All these behaviors associated with ADHD set these children up for a fair amount of criticism. The parents are tempted, especially if they don't understand the disorder, to say: “Don't do that!”; “Put that down!”; “I just bought you this – why don't you want to play with it?”; “Why can't you play like your friend Johnny does?”; “Why can't you sit still for a minute while Mommy fixes dinner?”

These children are subject to a lot of negative feedback from their environment. The world is not very tolerant of a young child, or even an older child, with ADHD. My guess is if these children are in preschool, the teacher is having the same issues with their behaviors. They may get criticized during circle time or while doing a certain project. Except for recess and lunch, they are going to be under a lot of scrutiny and most of the feedback is going to be negative.

We can see how children with ADHD, in a typical day, can hear 10, if not 25, negative comments. That is about two to three per hour. That degree of criticism begins to become part of how they see themselves, and they become fairly self-critical.

One of the key risks from ADHD at this young age is that it's hard for these children to differentiate if what they are doing is bad or if they are bad. Their self-esteem is very vulnerable. One principle that guides a lot of my management of these youngsters with ADHD is figuring out how to protect or enhance their self-esteem. Therefore, one of the initial things I ask parents to do is to think about how much negative criticism their child is hearing. Next, I ask them to think about what are reasonable expectations for that particular child.

Any opportunity to build self-esteem and build a sense of success based on reasonable expectations is worthwhile. A lot of parents will start sports for their children when they are 4 or 5. Kids with ADHD don't do very well in the outfield of T-ball because they are distracted. They don't stand out there waiting for the hit, and then they get yelled at for missing the ball. Help parents choose a sport that fits their children. I've seen some ADHD kids be goalies because they have to pay attention for a few seconds when the ball is coming, and then when the ball is somewhere else they can daydream with impunity. A lot of children with ADHD do well with swimming, for example, because there are fewer rules and they have a little more freedom. Others thrive with the structure and sense of accomplishment that comes from the “belt” system of karate.

Clearly one of the most effective treatments for the symptoms of ADHD is medication. Medication will increase attention span in school, church, or at dinner. Of course, every parent has concerns about how young to start children on medication, or whether to use medication at all. For those families, the first set of efforts may be directed to setting reasonable expectations and reviewing daily activities.

This focus will help, but will not be enough, and medication will be a critical part of treatment. Medication adds some risk, but the benefits to the child's functioning and self-esteem often outweigh these risks.

One of the things that medication probably does best is reduce the amount of negative feedback because the child will not be as impulsive and will appear to have a longer attention span. Again, you can ask too much of a child, but you will see higher expectations if the child is taking medication that is working correctly. Once ADHD is diagnosed in a young child, the pediatrician has a key role in trying to protect and enhance the child's self-esteem, advising on the child's day-to-day functioning, and supporting the overall care with appropriate use of medications.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Article PDF
Article PDF

 

[email protected]

Some parents of very young children – those 6 years old and younger – will come to you exhausted, feeling inadequate as parents, and even angry at their children.

Parents will report that their children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are very difficult at home and in preschool. Probably when their children were around age 2, 3, or 4 years old, their parents began wondering if the youngsters were immature, were more impulsive, and had a shorter attention span, compared with peers.

Pediatricians will recognize this pattern as likely ADHD and, in addition to making an accurate diagnosis, know that much is at stake in guiding and supporting parents. A critical relationship is at risk as the child's behavior evokes criticism and a negative tone from parents. Pediatricians should help parents set reasonable expectations and focus on behaviors and activities that build self-esteem. For some families, this work can be difficult and time consuming, requiring counseling and behavioral reward training – probably better delegated to a mental health specialist.

Attention span, impulsivity, and motoric hyperactivity are active concerns every waking hour of the child's day. Certain demands in preschool, at a longer dinner, or in church may exacerbate the symptoms, whereas playing in the park or playing a fun-filled computer game may ease the symptoms. The pediatrician can sort through a typical day and recommend approaches that are consistent with developmentally reasonable expectations, and modified for the child's ADHD symptoms.

Family history is another consideration. About 30% of children with ADHD come from fathers who had or have the disorder. Reminding a father of his difficulties growing up or any ongoing ADHD symptoms can be helpful in eliciting some empathy from him for his child's suffering.

Beyond family life, ADHD will affect the choice of school and activities. Based on what works for the child, consider how many hours a child should spend in preschool and how much structure is helpful. How will the culture of the school fit the child's style? Remember that the last thing a child with ADHD needs is an early school experience characterized by criticism and a sense of not being able to please teachers. A school with more recess and activity opportunities, as well as after-school programs, might be a good choice, and might offer some respite for parents.

As part of building self-esteem, ask parents if there is anything the child is really good at. For example, I treated a 6-year-old with ADHD who was gifted with computers. He was able to teach his peers and play games with friends, and he felt genuine pride working with a machine that was tolerant and nonjudgmental, and could be reset as needed. Might this not lead to a path of an after-school computer club or computer summer camp (that of course would include other activities)? Other young children may show strength in music, art, or a sport, and these activities are at least as important as remediating weaknesses.

Awareness of the different ADHD subtypes is important in general, but also can guide you in when to refer these children. Some kids with ADHD are more moody or depressed, some are more anxious, and others are more physically aggressive. Consider referral to a child and adolescent psychiatrist if one of these subtypes becomes more difficult to manage. A mental health consultation can help these higher-risk children.

Some children with ADHD also have learning disabilities, and diagnosis at a young age, before school failure, is invaluable. If you suspect this in a particular patient, you might want to recommend some early testing through the schools to avoid creation of unrealistic expectations in the classroom.

Parents may tell you their children are impulsive. While other kids are more predictable when playing in the sandbox, their children with ADHD may do something unpredictable. They might jump out of the sandbox or grab a toy from another child, for example. A mother of a 3-year-old with ADHD will stay closer to the sandbox because she doesn't know what that child is going to do next.

Typically, the child also will have a shorter attention span. The parents cannot relax because they know the sandbox, or a particular project in the sandbox, won't hold their child as long. Other children may be occupied for 15, 20, or even 30 minutes, but their young child with ADHD might last only 3 or 4 minutes and then need to move on. That, as you can imagine, is going to make the parenting demands much higher. Remember this doesn't happen for just 1 or 2 hours per day; children with true ADHD are going to be like this from the time they get up until the time they go to sleep.

 

 

All these behaviors associated with ADHD set these children up for a fair amount of criticism. The parents are tempted, especially if they don't understand the disorder, to say: “Don't do that!”; “Put that down!”; “I just bought you this – why don't you want to play with it?”; “Why can't you play like your friend Johnny does?”; “Why can't you sit still for a minute while Mommy fixes dinner?”

These children are subject to a lot of negative feedback from their environment. The world is not very tolerant of a young child, or even an older child, with ADHD. My guess is if these children are in preschool, the teacher is having the same issues with their behaviors. They may get criticized during circle time or while doing a certain project. Except for recess and lunch, they are going to be under a lot of scrutiny and most of the feedback is going to be negative.

We can see how children with ADHD, in a typical day, can hear 10, if not 25, negative comments. That is about two to three per hour. That degree of criticism begins to become part of how they see themselves, and they become fairly self-critical.

One of the key risks from ADHD at this young age is that it's hard for these children to differentiate if what they are doing is bad or if they are bad. Their self-esteem is very vulnerable. One principle that guides a lot of my management of these youngsters with ADHD is figuring out how to protect or enhance their self-esteem. Therefore, one of the initial things I ask parents to do is to think about how much negative criticism their child is hearing. Next, I ask them to think about what are reasonable expectations for that particular child.

Any opportunity to build self-esteem and build a sense of success based on reasonable expectations is worthwhile. A lot of parents will start sports for their children when they are 4 or 5. Kids with ADHD don't do very well in the outfield of T-ball because they are distracted. They don't stand out there waiting for the hit, and then they get yelled at for missing the ball. Help parents choose a sport that fits their children. I've seen some ADHD kids be goalies because they have to pay attention for a few seconds when the ball is coming, and then when the ball is somewhere else they can daydream with impunity. A lot of children with ADHD do well with swimming, for example, because there are fewer rules and they have a little more freedom. Others thrive with the structure and sense of accomplishment that comes from the “belt” system of karate.

Clearly one of the most effective treatments for the symptoms of ADHD is medication. Medication will increase attention span in school, church, or at dinner. Of course, every parent has concerns about how young to start children on medication, or whether to use medication at all. For those families, the first set of efforts may be directed to setting reasonable expectations and reviewing daily activities.

This focus will help, but will not be enough, and medication will be a critical part of treatment. Medication adds some risk, but the benefits to the child's functioning and self-esteem often outweigh these risks.

One of the things that medication probably does best is reduce the amount of negative feedback because the child will not be as impulsive and will appear to have a longer attention span. Again, you can ask too much of a child, but you will see higher expectations if the child is taking medication that is working correctly. Once ADHD is diagnosed in a young child, the pediatrician has a key role in trying to protect and enhance the child's self-esteem, advising on the child's day-to-day functioning, and supporting the overall care with appropriate use of medications.

 

[email protected]

Some parents of very young children – those 6 years old and younger – will come to you exhausted, feeling inadequate as parents, and even angry at their children.

Parents will report that their children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are very difficult at home and in preschool. Probably when their children were around age 2, 3, or 4 years old, their parents began wondering if the youngsters were immature, were more impulsive, and had a shorter attention span, compared with peers.

Pediatricians will recognize this pattern as likely ADHD and, in addition to making an accurate diagnosis, know that much is at stake in guiding and supporting parents. A critical relationship is at risk as the child's behavior evokes criticism and a negative tone from parents. Pediatricians should help parents set reasonable expectations and focus on behaviors and activities that build self-esteem. For some families, this work can be difficult and time consuming, requiring counseling and behavioral reward training – probably better delegated to a mental health specialist.

Attention span, impulsivity, and motoric hyperactivity are active concerns every waking hour of the child's day. Certain demands in preschool, at a longer dinner, or in church may exacerbate the symptoms, whereas playing in the park or playing a fun-filled computer game may ease the symptoms. The pediatrician can sort through a typical day and recommend approaches that are consistent with developmentally reasonable expectations, and modified for the child's ADHD symptoms.

Family history is another consideration. About 30% of children with ADHD come from fathers who had or have the disorder. Reminding a father of his difficulties growing up or any ongoing ADHD symptoms can be helpful in eliciting some empathy from him for his child's suffering.

Beyond family life, ADHD will affect the choice of school and activities. Based on what works for the child, consider how many hours a child should spend in preschool and how much structure is helpful. How will the culture of the school fit the child's style? Remember that the last thing a child with ADHD needs is an early school experience characterized by criticism and a sense of not being able to please teachers. A school with more recess and activity opportunities, as well as after-school programs, might be a good choice, and might offer some respite for parents.

As part of building self-esteem, ask parents if there is anything the child is really good at. For example, I treated a 6-year-old with ADHD who was gifted with computers. He was able to teach his peers and play games with friends, and he felt genuine pride working with a machine that was tolerant and nonjudgmental, and could be reset as needed. Might this not lead to a path of an after-school computer club or computer summer camp (that of course would include other activities)? Other young children may show strength in music, art, or a sport, and these activities are at least as important as remediating weaknesses.

Awareness of the different ADHD subtypes is important in general, but also can guide you in when to refer these children. Some kids with ADHD are more moody or depressed, some are more anxious, and others are more physically aggressive. Consider referral to a child and adolescent psychiatrist if one of these subtypes becomes more difficult to manage. A mental health consultation can help these higher-risk children.

Some children with ADHD also have learning disabilities, and diagnosis at a young age, before school failure, is invaluable. If you suspect this in a particular patient, you might want to recommend some early testing through the schools to avoid creation of unrealistic expectations in the classroom.

Parents may tell you their children are impulsive. While other kids are more predictable when playing in the sandbox, their children with ADHD may do something unpredictable. They might jump out of the sandbox or grab a toy from another child, for example. A mother of a 3-year-old with ADHD will stay closer to the sandbox because she doesn't know what that child is going to do next.

Typically, the child also will have a shorter attention span. The parents cannot relax because they know the sandbox, or a particular project in the sandbox, won't hold their child as long. Other children may be occupied for 15, 20, or even 30 minutes, but their young child with ADHD might last only 3 or 4 minutes and then need to move on. That, as you can imagine, is going to make the parenting demands much higher. Remember this doesn't happen for just 1 or 2 hours per day; children with true ADHD are going to be like this from the time they get up until the time they go to sleep.

 

 

All these behaviors associated with ADHD set these children up for a fair amount of criticism. The parents are tempted, especially if they don't understand the disorder, to say: “Don't do that!”; “Put that down!”; “I just bought you this – why don't you want to play with it?”; “Why can't you play like your friend Johnny does?”; “Why can't you sit still for a minute while Mommy fixes dinner?”

These children are subject to a lot of negative feedback from their environment. The world is not very tolerant of a young child, or even an older child, with ADHD. My guess is if these children are in preschool, the teacher is having the same issues with their behaviors. They may get criticized during circle time or while doing a certain project. Except for recess and lunch, they are going to be under a lot of scrutiny and most of the feedback is going to be negative.

We can see how children with ADHD, in a typical day, can hear 10, if not 25, negative comments. That is about two to three per hour. That degree of criticism begins to become part of how they see themselves, and they become fairly self-critical.

One of the key risks from ADHD at this young age is that it's hard for these children to differentiate if what they are doing is bad or if they are bad. Their self-esteem is very vulnerable. One principle that guides a lot of my management of these youngsters with ADHD is figuring out how to protect or enhance their self-esteem. Therefore, one of the initial things I ask parents to do is to think about how much negative criticism their child is hearing. Next, I ask them to think about what are reasonable expectations for that particular child.

Any opportunity to build self-esteem and build a sense of success based on reasonable expectations is worthwhile. A lot of parents will start sports for their children when they are 4 or 5. Kids with ADHD don't do very well in the outfield of T-ball because they are distracted. They don't stand out there waiting for the hit, and then they get yelled at for missing the ball. Help parents choose a sport that fits their children. I've seen some ADHD kids be goalies because they have to pay attention for a few seconds when the ball is coming, and then when the ball is somewhere else they can daydream with impunity. A lot of children with ADHD do well with swimming, for example, because there are fewer rules and they have a little more freedom. Others thrive with the structure and sense of accomplishment that comes from the “belt” system of karate.

Clearly one of the most effective treatments for the symptoms of ADHD is medication. Medication will increase attention span in school, church, or at dinner. Of course, every parent has concerns about how young to start children on medication, or whether to use medication at all. For those families, the first set of efforts may be directed to setting reasonable expectations and reviewing daily activities.

This focus will help, but will not be enough, and medication will be a critical part of treatment. Medication adds some risk, but the benefits to the child's functioning and self-esteem often outweigh these risks.

One of the things that medication probably does best is reduce the amount of negative feedback because the child will not be as impulsive and will appear to have a longer attention span. Again, you can ask too much of a child, but you will see higher expectations if the child is taking medication that is working correctly. Once ADHD is diagnosed in a young child, the pediatrician has a key role in trying to protect and enhance the child's self-esteem, advising on the child's day-to-day functioning, and supporting the overall care with appropriate use of medications.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Managing ADHD in a Young Child
Display Headline
Managing ADHD in a Young Child
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Article PDF Media

Big Changes in AAP Car Safety Guidelines

Guidelines Mean Additional Counseling for Pediatricians
Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/06/2018 - 16:06
Display Headline
Big Changes in AAP Car Safety Guidelines

The American Academy of Pediatrics, citing a substantial increase in scientific evidence backing best practices for child passenger safety, is recommending changes in child car seat use that include keeping most infants and toddlers in rear-facing safety seats until they reach age 2 years, according to a new policy statement.

The new guidelines also recommend forward-facing car safety seats for most children until they outgrow the weight or height limits on those seats; belt-positioning booster seats for most children through age 8 years or well beyond; and lap-and-shoulder belts for all those children who have outgrown booster seats. In addition, the policy statement recommends that all children ride in the back seat of vehicles through age 12 years (Pediatrics 2011;127:788–93).

Although the AAP policy recommendations are not binding, states use them in crafting and revising child safety seat laws, said Dr. Benjamin Hoffman, an expert in child passenger safety and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Previous academy recommendations regarding the use of booster seats prompted many states to enact laws requiring booster seats for older children, which has improved safety dramatically, he said.

“The best way to get people to use child safety seats appropriately is to have state laws requiring their use,” Dr. Hoffman said in an interview. “Our job is to help consumer organizations and states understand what the best practice is.”

The new AAP guidelines represent big changes in the way car safety seat use has been viewed, said Dr. Hoffman, a new member of the AAP's committee on injury, violence, and poison prevention, which crafted the recommendations. Now, there's much more emphasis on the transitions between different types of seats – rear-facing seats to forward-facing seats, forward-facing seats to booster seats, and booster seats to seat belts.

“In these transitions, you lose protection every step of the way,” he noted. “Therefore, you need to delay these transitions for as long as possible.”

However, many parents and even older children themselves view the transitions as milestones, which encourages them to make the transition as quickly as they legally can, he said. “Parents are really viewing these transitions as graduations. There's a perception that this graduation is a positive thing. It's not.”

Instead of making the switch to a lower level of protection as soon as they're legally able, parents should keep their children in safety seats until they outgrow the weight and height limits, Dr. Hoffman said. For example, many rear-facing seats can handle children up to 35 pounds, and parents should use these seats in their rear-facing configuration until their children no longer can fit in them.

Likewise, parents should keep their children in forward-facing car seats until they have outgrown the weight or height limits on those seats, and should use a belt-positioning booster seat until the vehicle lap-and-shoulder belt fits properly, typically when children have reached 4 feet, 9 inches in height and are between 8 and 12 years of age.

According to the technical report by committee member Dr. Dennis R. Durbin, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, research in Sweden shows that rear-facing child safety seats reduce the risk of significant injuries by 90% relative to unrestrained children. Many infants and children in Sweden remain in rear-facing seats until age 4 years, when they transition directly to booster seats, according to the report (Pediatrics 2011;127:e1050–66). h

“There's a 500% increased risk of injury” for toddlers between the ages of 1 and 2 years when seated in a forward-facing seat, compared with a rear-facing seat, Dr. Hoffman said.

Analysis of the data also indicates substantial benefits for children aged 2 years and older seated in forward-facing car seats, compared with just booster seats or seat belts, and for children seated in booster seats who have outgrown car seats but who have not yet reached 4 feet, 9 inches, according to the report.

Some forward-facing seats can accommodate children up to 65 or 80 pounds, and should be used until that weight limit, according to the report.

Pediatricians should counsel their patients on these new recommendations at every well-child visit, the guidelines say.

“Pediatricians don't have to know how to install car seats, but they have to know what the best recommendations are,” said Dr. Hoffman. “They should know what the resources are in their communities [for car seat installation help], and it would be even better for them to make contact with those resources” in order to facilitate assistance for patients who might need it.

 

 

In addition, pediatricians should counsel parents to follow the AAP recommendations for the utmost car seat safety rather than simply follow state laws, which may allow “graduation” to the next level before the child is large enough, Dr. Hoffman said.

“The laws of physics will always trump the laws of the state,” he concluded.

All authors filed conflict of interest statements with the AAP, and any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the AAP Board of Directors, according to a statement in the journal.

A list of formal car seat inspection stations is available at www.seatcheck.orghttp://cert.safekids.org

Article PDF
Body

“I think there's going to be broad acceptance of this,” said Dr. H.

Garry Gardner. “I personally think that there's enough realization that

we're dealing with a safety issue for this to be widely accepted.”

Dr. Gardner said he had already counseled two mothers of babies

turning 1-year-old on the new recommendations, and both responded very

positively. “One mom was relieved to find that she could still use the

same rear-facing seat until her baby was 30 pounds – she thought she'd

have to buy another car seat,” he said. “The other said she was

intending to keep her child facing rearward until age 3.”

Pediatricians may be concerned that the new recommendations will take more time to discuss with parents, Dr. Gardner said.

However, he predicted that the new AAP recommendations will be

quickly disseminated, especially with the help of the National Highway

Safety Traffic Administration and other agencies and groups. “They've

been waiting for the academy to take the lead on this,” he said in an

interview.

DR. GARDNER is professor of clinical pediatrics at Northwestern

University, Chicago, and chairman of the AAP committee on injury,

violence, and poison prevention that developed the recommendations. He

said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Article PDF
Article PDF
Body

“I think there's going to be broad acceptance of this,” said Dr. H.

Garry Gardner. “I personally think that there's enough realization that

we're dealing with a safety issue for this to be widely accepted.”

Dr. Gardner said he had already counseled two mothers of babies

turning 1-year-old on the new recommendations, and both responded very

positively. “One mom was relieved to find that she could still use the

same rear-facing seat until her baby was 30 pounds – she thought she'd

have to buy another car seat,” he said. “The other said she was

intending to keep her child facing rearward until age 3.”

Pediatricians may be concerned that the new recommendations will take more time to discuss with parents, Dr. Gardner said.

However, he predicted that the new AAP recommendations will be

quickly disseminated, especially with the help of the National Highway

Safety Traffic Administration and other agencies and groups. “They've

been waiting for the academy to take the lead on this,” he said in an

interview.

DR. GARDNER is professor of clinical pediatrics at Northwestern

University, Chicago, and chairman of the AAP committee on injury,

violence, and poison prevention that developed the recommendations. He

said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

Body

“I think there's going to be broad acceptance of this,” said Dr. H.

Garry Gardner. “I personally think that there's enough realization that

we're dealing with a safety issue for this to be widely accepted.”

Dr. Gardner said he had already counseled two mothers of babies

turning 1-year-old on the new recommendations, and both responded very

positively. “One mom was relieved to find that she could still use the

same rear-facing seat until her baby was 30 pounds – she thought she'd

have to buy another car seat,” he said. “The other said she was

intending to keep her child facing rearward until age 3.”

Pediatricians may be concerned that the new recommendations will take more time to discuss with parents, Dr. Gardner said.

However, he predicted that the new AAP recommendations will be

quickly disseminated, especially with the help of the National Highway

Safety Traffic Administration and other agencies and groups. “They've

been waiting for the academy to take the lead on this,” he said in an

interview.

DR. GARDNER is professor of clinical pediatrics at Northwestern

University, Chicago, and chairman of the AAP committee on injury,

violence, and poison prevention that developed the recommendations. He

said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

Title
Guidelines Mean Additional Counseling for Pediatricians
Guidelines Mean Additional Counseling for Pediatricians

The American Academy of Pediatrics, citing a substantial increase in scientific evidence backing best practices for child passenger safety, is recommending changes in child car seat use that include keeping most infants and toddlers in rear-facing safety seats until they reach age 2 years, according to a new policy statement.

The new guidelines also recommend forward-facing car safety seats for most children until they outgrow the weight or height limits on those seats; belt-positioning booster seats for most children through age 8 years or well beyond; and lap-and-shoulder belts for all those children who have outgrown booster seats. In addition, the policy statement recommends that all children ride in the back seat of vehicles through age 12 years (Pediatrics 2011;127:788–93).

Although the AAP policy recommendations are not binding, states use them in crafting and revising child safety seat laws, said Dr. Benjamin Hoffman, an expert in child passenger safety and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Previous academy recommendations regarding the use of booster seats prompted many states to enact laws requiring booster seats for older children, which has improved safety dramatically, he said.

“The best way to get people to use child safety seats appropriately is to have state laws requiring their use,” Dr. Hoffman said in an interview. “Our job is to help consumer organizations and states understand what the best practice is.”

The new AAP guidelines represent big changes in the way car safety seat use has been viewed, said Dr. Hoffman, a new member of the AAP's committee on injury, violence, and poison prevention, which crafted the recommendations. Now, there's much more emphasis on the transitions between different types of seats – rear-facing seats to forward-facing seats, forward-facing seats to booster seats, and booster seats to seat belts.

“In these transitions, you lose protection every step of the way,” he noted. “Therefore, you need to delay these transitions for as long as possible.”

However, many parents and even older children themselves view the transitions as milestones, which encourages them to make the transition as quickly as they legally can, he said. “Parents are really viewing these transitions as graduations. There's a perception that this graduation is a positive thing. It's not.”

Instead of making the switch to a lower level of protection as soon as they're legally able, parents should keep their children in safety seats until they outgrow the weight and height limits, Dr. Hoffman said. For example, many rear-facing seats can handle children up to 35 pounds, and parents should use these seats in their rear-facing configuration until their children no longer can fit in them.

Likewise, parents should keep their children in forward-facing car seats until they have outgrown the weight or height limits on those seats, and should use a belt-positioning booster seat until the vehicle lap-and-shoulder belt fits properly, typically when children have reached 4 feet, 9 inches in height and are between 8 and 12 years of age.

According to the technical report by committee member Dr. Dennis R. Durbin, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, research in Sweden shows that rear-facing child safety seats reduce the risk of significant injuries by 90% relative to unrestrained children. Many infants and children in Sweden remain in rear-facing seats until age 4 years, when they transition directly to booster seats, according to the report (Pediatrics 2011;127:e1050–66). h

“There's a 500% increased risk of injury” for toddlers between the ages of 1 and 2 years when seated in a forward-facing seat, compared with a rear-facing seat, Dr. Hoffman said.

Analysis of the data also indicates substantial benefits for children aged 2 years and older seated in forward-facing car seats, compared with just booster seats or seat belts, and for children seated in booster seats who have outgrown car seats but who have not yet reached 4 feet, 9 inches, according to the report.

Some forward-facing seats can accommodate children up to 65 or 80 pounds, and should be used until that weight limit, according to the report.

Pediatricians should counsel their patients on these new recommendations at every well-child visit, the guidelines say.

“Pediatricians don't have to know how to install car seats, but they have to know what the best recommendations are,” said Dr. Hoffman. “They should know what the resources are in their communities [for car seat installation help], and it would be even better for them to make contact with those resources” in order to facilitate assistance for patients who might need it.

 

 

In addition, pediatricians should counsel parents to follow the AAP recommendations for the utmost car seat safety rather than simply follow state laws, which may allow “graduation” to the next level before the child is large enough, Dr. Hoffman said.

“The laws of physics will always trump the laws of the state,” he concluded.

All authors filed conflict of interest statements with the AAP, and any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the AAP Board of Directors, according to a statement in the journal.

A list of formal car seat inspection stations is available at www.seatcheck.orghttp://cert.safekids.org

The American Academy of Pediatrics, citing a substantial increase in scientific evidence backing best practices for child passenger safety, is recommending changes in child car seat use that include keeping most infants and toddlers in rear-facing safety seats until they reach age 2 years, according to a new policy statement.

The new guidelines also recommend forward-facing car safety seats for most children until they outgrow the weight or height limits on those seats; belt-positioning booster seats for most children through age 8 years or well beyond; and lap-and-shoulder belts for all those children who have outgrown booster seats. In addition, the policy statement recommends that all children ride in the back seat of vehicles through age 12 years (Pediatrics 2011;127:788–93).

Although the AAP policy recommendations are not binding, states use them in crafting and revising child safety seat laws, said Dr. Benjamin Hoffman, an expert in child passenger safety and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Previous academy recommendations regarding the use of booster seats prompted many states to enact laws requiring booster seats for older children, which has improved safety dramatically, he said.

“The best way to get people to use child safety seats appropriately is to have state laws requiring their use,” Dr. Hoffman said in an interview. “Our job is to help consumer organizations and states understand what the best practice is.”

The new AAP guidelines represent big changes in the way car safety seat use has been viewed, said Dr. Hoffman, a new member of the AAP's committee on injury, violence, and poison prevention, which crafted the recommendations. Now, there's much more emphasis on the transitions between different types of seats – rear-facing seats to forward-facing seats, forward-facing seats to booster seats, and booster seats to seat belts.

“In these transitions, you lose protection every step of the way,” he noted. “Therefore, you need to delay these transitions for as long as possible.”

However, many parents and even older children themselves view the transitions as milestones, which encourages them to make the transition as quickly as they legally can, he said. “Parents are really viewing these transitions as graduations. There's a perception that this graduation is a positive thing. It's not.”

Instead of making the switch to a lower level of protection as soon as they're legally able, parents should keep their children in safety seats until they outgrow the weight and height limits, Dr. Hoffman said. For example, many rear-facing seats can handle children up to 35 pounds, and parents should use these seats in their rear-facing configuration until their children no longer can fit in them.

Likewise, parents should keep their children in forward-facing car seats until they have outgrown the weight or height limits on those seats, and should use a belt-positioning booster seat until the vehicle lap-and-shoulder belt fits properly, typically when children have reached 4 feet, 9 inches in height and are between 8 and 12 years of age.

According to the technical report by committee member Dr. Dennis R. Durbin, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, research in Sweden shows that rear-facing child safety seats reduce the risk of significant injuries by 90% relative to unrestrained children. Many infants and children in Sweden remain in rear-facing seats until age 4 years, when they transition directly to booster seats, according to the report (Pediatrics 2011;127:e1050–66). h

“There's a 500% increased risk of injury” for toddlers between the ages of 1 and 2 years when seated in a forward-facing seat, compared with a rear-facing seat, Dr. Hoffman said.

Analysis of the data also indicates substantial benefits for children aged 2 years and older seated in forward-facing car seats, compared with just booster seats or seat belts, and for children seated in booster seats who have outgrown car seats but who have not yet reached 4 feet, 9 inches, according to the report.

Some forward-facing seats can accommodate children up to 65 or 80 pounds, and should be used until that weight limit, according to the report.

Pediatricians should counsel their patients on these new recommendations at every well-child visit, the guidelines say.

“Pediatricians don't have to know how to install car seats, but they have to know what the best recommendations are,” said Dr. Hoffman. “They should know what the resources are in their communities [for car seat installation help], and it would be even better for them to make contact with those resources” in order to facilitate assistance for patients who might need it.

 

 

In addition, pediatricians should counsel parents to follow the AAP recommendations for the utmost car seat safety rather than simply follow state laws, which may allow “graduation” to the next level before the child is large enough, Dr. Hoffman said.

“The laws of physics will always trump the laws of the state,” he concluded.

All authors filed conflict of interest statements with the AAP, and any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the AAP Board of Directors, according to a statement in the journal.

A list of formal car seat inspection stations is available at www.seatcheck.orghttp://cert.safekids.org

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Big Changes in AAP Car Safety Guidelines
Display Headline
Big Changes in AAP Car Safety Guidelines
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

BEST PRACTICES IN: Management of Patients With T2DM: The Risk and Role of Chronic Kidney Disease

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 12/07/2018 - 14:12
Display Headline
BEST PRACTICES IN: Management of Patients With T2DM: The Risk and Role of Chronic Kidney Disease

A supplement to Internal Medicine News®. This supplement was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company.

 


To view the supplement, click the image above.

Topics

 

  • Epidemiology of CKD/RI With DM
  • Risk Factors for CKD/RI in Patients With T2DM
  • Early Identification and Screening
  • CKD Strongly Effects CV Outcomes in Patients With DM
  • Awareness of the Importance of CKD/RI Is Lacking
  • CKD/RI Increases the Risk for Hypoglycemia in DM Treatment
  • Multifactorial Therapy May Benefit Outcomes in Patients With T2DM and CKD

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure Mark Stolar, MD
Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine
Northwestern University Medical School
Chicago, IL

Michael Kodack, PharmD
Vice President, Medical
BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC
Basking Ridge, NJ

Mark Stolar, MD, has served on the Speakers Bureau of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited and has developed educational programs for the TCL Institute and NACE. Michael Kodack, PharmD, is an employee of BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Publications
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

A supplement to Internal Medicine News®. This supplement was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company.

 


To view the supplement, click the image above.

Topics

 

  • Epidemiology of CKD/RI With DM
  • Risk Factors for CKD/RI in Patients With T2DM
  • Early Identification and Screening
  • CKD Strongly Effects CV Outcomes in Patients With DM
  • Awareness of the Importance of CKD/RI Is Lacking
  • CKD/RI Increases the Risk for Hypoglycemia in DM Treatment
  • Multifactorial Therapy May Benefit Outcomes in Patients With T2DM and CKD

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure Mark Stolar, MD
Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine
Northwestern University Medical School
Chicago, IL

Michael Kodack, PharmD
Vice President, Medical
BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC
Basking Ridge, NJ

Mark Stolar, MD, has served on the Speakers Bureau of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited and has developed educational programs for the TCL Institute and NACE. Michael Kodack, PharmD, is an employee of BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc.

A supplement to Internal Medicine News®. This supplement was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company.

 


To view the supplement, click the image above.

Topics

 

  • Epidemiology of CKD/RI With DM
  • Risk Factors for CKD/RI in Patients With T2DM
  • Early Identification and Screening
  • CKD Strongly Effects CV Outcomes in Patients With DM
  • Awareness of the Importance of CKD/RI Is Lacking
  • CKD/RI Increases the Risk for Hypoglycemia in DM Treatment
  • Multifactorial Therapy May Benefit Outcomes in Patients With T2DM and CKD

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure Mark Stolar, MD
Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine
Northwestern University Medical School
Chicago, IL

Michael Kodack, PharmD
Vice President, Medical
BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC
Basking Ridge, NJ

Mark Stolar, MD, has served on the Speakers Bureau of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited and has developed educational programs for the TCL Institute and NACE. Michael Kodack, PharmD, is an employee of BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
BEST PRACTICES IN: Management of Patients With T2DM: The Risk and Role of Chronic Kidney Disease
Display Headline
BEST PRACTICES IN: Management of Patients With T2DM: The Risk and Role of Chronic Kidney Disease
Sections
Disallow All Ads

Pomalidomide in lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma and carfilzomib in refractory and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

From the Oncologist's Perspective - Evolving therapies for multiple myeloma
Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 11:03
Display Headline
Pomalidomide in lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma and carfilzomib in refractory and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
Pomalidomide and carfilzomib represent active and well-tolerated new options in combination regimens.

What's new, what's important

Treatment of multiple myeloma is evolving rapidly. It is tough to keep up with the rapid pace of new drugs, updates, and changes in the standard of care. In this issue of Community Oncology we bring to you two new exciting drugs on the horizon, pomalidomide and carfilzomib. In addition to introducing these two new drugs, we have asked Dr. Noopur Raje to explain how she treats a newly diagnosed patient with multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide, a thalidomide (Thalomid) analog, is a promising myeloma drug with encouraging responses in relapsed/refractory myeloma patients. Carfilzomib is a novel proteasome inhibitor. When combined with lenalidomide (Revlimid) in the first-line setting, it produced a 100% response rate. Phase III studies are in progress or being completed. It will be exciting to see the final results of these studies. 

With this issue we are changing the format of Community Translations to incorporate the mechanism of action or pathophysiology of some of these new advances so that a clinician can relate to them in a clinical setting. 

--Jame Abraham, MD, Editor

Two of the most promising drugs on the horizon for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are pomalidomide and carfilzomib. Both agents have shown significant single-agent activity in clinical trials. They seem to work in patients whose MM is resistant to other treatments and are being studied in combination regimens.

Pomalidomide

Pomalidomide is a new immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) with high in vitro potency. In initial experience with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed MM, Lacy and colleagues found an overall response rate of 63% and observed responses in some patients who were refractory to lenalidomide (Revlimid), suggesting an absence of cross-resistance between pomalidomide and other IMiDs. In a recently reported phase II study,1 these investigators assessed the combination of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with lenalidomide-refractory MM, finding the combination to be highly active and well tolerated.

In this study, 34 patients with lenalidomide-refractory MM were treated with oral pomalidomide (2 mg daily) and dexamethasone (40 mg once weekly) in 28-day cycles. Patients had a median age of 61.5 years, 68% were male, 85% had an ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status of 0 or 1, and 41% were categorized as high risk. The median time from diagnosis was 62 months. The median number of prior chemotherapy regimens was four. In addition to lenalidomide, 58% of patients had received prior thalidomide (Thalomid), and 59% had received prior bortezomib (Velcade); 68% of patients had undergone prior autologous stem cell transplantation, and 53% had prior radiation therapy. Twenty patients (59%) had peripheral neuropathy at baseline.

Patients received a median of 5 cycles (range, 1−14) of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone. Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism was given in 204 of 209 treatment cycles (aspirin in 150 cycles and warfarin in 54 cycles). Treatment responses consisted of a very good partial response in 9%, a partial response in 23%, and a minimal response in 15%, for an overall clinical benefit rate of 47%; 35% of patients had stable disease, and 18% had disease progression. The median time to response was 2 months. Response was observed in 8 of 14 (57%) high-risk patients, in 8 of 19 (42%) who received previous thalidomide treatment, and in 9 of 20 (45%) who were given previous bortezomib treatment. In eight patients with stable disease, the pomalidomide dose was increased to 4 mg/d, with one patient improving to a partial response. The median duration of response in 11 patients with a partial response or better was 9.1 months. The median progression-free survival was 4.8 months, and progression-free survival did not differ between high-risk and standard-risk patients. The median overall survival was 13.9 months. During follow-up, treatment was stopped due to disease progression in 23 patients, 3 withdrew from the study due to patient/physician discretion, and 8 continued to receive treatment. Seven patients died, all due to disease progression. The median follow-up of patients remaining alive was 8.3 months.

Pomalidomide/dexamethasone treatment was well tolerated. Toxicity consisted mostly of myelosuppression. Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity at least possibly related to treatment occurred in 38% of patients, including neutropenia in 29%, anemia in 12%, and thrombocytopenia in 9%. The most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicity was fatigue, which occurred in 9% of patients (all grade 3); grade 3 pneumonitis, edema, pneumonia, and folliculitis were each observed in one patient. Nine patients (26%) had neuropathy during treatment (six grade 1, three grade 2); they included six patients with neuropathy at baseline, three of whom had a worsening of grade.
 

 

Carfilzomib

Carfilzomib is a highly selective epoxyketone proteasome inhibitor with minimal affinity for nontarget proteases. In a recent phase II trial in patients with relapsed/refractory MM, reported at the 2010 American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting, carfilzomib produced durable responses and was well tolerated.2 An ongoing phase I/II trial assessing carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed MM, also reported at the 2010 ASH meeting, has shown good activity and tolerability of the regimen.3 A phase III trial comparing carfilzomib plus lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed MM has been initiated.

Relapsed/refractory MM

In the trial in patients with relapsed/refractory MM, 266 patients with multiply relapsed MM who had disease refractory to their last treatment received carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) every 28 days for the first cycle, with the dose then being escalated to 27 mg/m2 on the same schedule for up to 12 cycles.2 Prior therapies included bortezomib, either lenalidomide or thalidomide, and an alkylating agent. Patients had a median duration of MM of 5.4 years and had received a median of 5 prior lines of chemotherapy and a median of 13 antimyeloma treatments; prior treatments included bortezomib in 99.6% of patients (a median of two prior regimens containing bortezomib), lenalidomide in 94%, thalidomide in 74%, corticosteroids in 98%, alkylating agents in 91%, and stem cell transplantation in 74%. Overall, 65% of patients were refractory to bortezomib prior to study entry.

At the time of reporting, 79 patients (30%) had completed at least 6 cycles of study treatment, approximately 11% had completed 12 cycles (with most entering an extension phase of the study), and 15 patients remained on study (all with more than 10 cycles of study treatment). Among 257 patients evaluable for response, 0.4% (one patient) had a complete response, 4.7% had a very good partial response, and 19% had a partial response, for an overall response rate of 24%; an additional 12% of patients had a minimal response, yielding an overall clinical benefit rate of 36%. Stable disease for at least 6 weeks was achieved in 32%. Among patients with a partial response or better, the median duration of response was 7.4 months. Among patients with a minimal response, the median duration of response was 6.3 months, indicating durable minor responses.

Toxicity consisted mainly of myelosuppression. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities consisted of thrombocytopenia in 18% of patients, lymphopenia in 11%, neutropenia in 8%, and anemia in 7%.4 Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included fatigue in 6% of patients; pneumonia and congestive cardiac failure in 3% each; nausea, dyspnea, increased blood creatinine levels, and increased blood uric acid levels in 1% each; and diarrhea in 0.4%. Grade 1/2 peripheral neuropathy was present in 77% of patients at baseline; new-onset neuropathy was infrequent, with grade 3 or lower neuropathy occurring in less than 1% of patients.2

Newly diagnosed MM

In an ongoing phase I/II trial, patients with newly diagnosed MM are receiving carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.3 Carfilzomib is started at 20 mg/m2 (dose level 1) and increased to 27 mg/m2 (dose level 2) and 36 mg/m2 (dose level 3) given IV on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 in 28-day cycles. Lenalidomide is given at 25 mg/d on days 1−21 in each cycle, and dexamethasone is given weekly at 40 mg during cycles 1−4 and at 20 mg during cycles 5−8. Patients with a partial response or better are eligible to proceed to stem cell collection and autologous stem cell transplantation after at least 4 cycles and can continue study treatment after transplantation. After completion of 8 cycles, patients are to receive maintenance cycles consisting of carfilzomib on days 1, 2, 15, and 16; lenalidomide on days 1−21; and weekly dexamethasone at doses tolerated at the end of 8 cycles. A planned 36 patients are to be treated at the carfilzomib maximum tolerated dose.

At the time of reporting, 24 patients had been enrolled, 4 at dose level 1, 14 at dose level 2, and 6 at dose level 3. Toxicity data were available for 21 patients, including 19 who completed at least 1 cycle of treatment. A single dose-limiting toxicity event was observed, consisting of nonfebrile neutropenia in a patient at dose level 2. The maximum tolerated dose had not yet been reached. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities consisted of neutropenia in three patients, thrombocytopenia in three patients, and anemia in one patient. Grade 3 nonhematologic toxicities included five cases of elevated blood glucose levels, deep vein thrombosis during aspirin prophylaxis in one patient, and fatigue in one patient. Emergent peripheral neuropathy was observed in two patients, who developed grade 1 neuropathy.
 

 

At the time of reporting, 23 patients continued on treatment, with 20 having no need for dose modifications. After a median of 4 months of treatment (range, 1−8 months), the preliminary response rate in 19 evaluable patients completing at least 1 cycle was 100% with at least a partial response, including 63% with a very good partial response and 37% with a complete response or near-complete response. Partial responses were observed in 17 of 19 patients after 1 cycle, with responses improving in all patients with continuing treatment. Seven patients had proceeded to stem cell collection using growth factors only after a median of 4 cycles, and all resumed study treatment after stem cell collection. No disease progression had been observed in any of the evaluable patients, and all remained alive.

References

1. Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Gertz MA, et al. Pomalidomide (CC4047) plus low dose dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is active and well tolerated in lenalidomide refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Leukemia 2010;24:1934−1939.

2. Siegel DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.

3. Jakubowiak AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.

4. Singhal SB, Siegel DSD, Martin T, et al. Pooled safety analysis from phase 1 and 2 studies of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:1954.

Body

Noopur Raje, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Division of Hematology and Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Although multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable bone marrow

cancer, survival rates have improved markedly over the past decade. An

understanding of MM pathobiology (Figure 1) and improvement in stem cell

transplantation, better supportive care, and novel therapies with

higher efficacy and lower toxicity are all responsible for this

improvement. The availability of a rich pipeline of novel agents

undergoing early-phase clinical trials in MM is an exciting and active

area of research.1

Current treatment

Over the past several years, five therapeutic strategies have

received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval either as

monotherapy or in combination for treating MM, with thalidomide

(Thalomid), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and bortezomib (Velcade) as

important backbone drugs in these approaches. In the upfront setting,

thalidomide with dexamethasone2 and bortezomib in combination with melphalan and prednisone3

increased the overall response rate and significantly prolonged time to

disease progression and are FDA approved. For treatment of relapsed MM,

bortezomib alone4 and in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil),5 as well as lenalidomide/dexamethasone,6

have been approved. Results of a recent phase III randomized clinical

trial suggest that lower doses of dexamethasone provide a survival

advantage, at least in the upfront setting, mainly due to the increased

toxicity of high doses of dexamethasone.7

The availability of these novel agents has not only provided us

with several treatment options but has had an important impact on the

overall survival of our patients. To improve upon current outcomes,

optimal combinations of bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide are

currently under evaluation in phase II/III clinical trials.

Novel approaches

The preceding review refers to recent data on pomalidomide, the

newest immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) analog, which has shown single-agent

activity in phase I studies and was subsequently tested in a phase II

trial in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in patients with

relapsed or refractory MM. Pomalidomide/dexamethasone was found to be

highly active and well tolerated, providing a clinical benefit in 47% of

patients and no grade 3 neuropathy. These findings have led to a large

phase II study, which has completed accrual and is awaiting analysis.

Another promising agent discussed here is the novel proteasome

inhibitor carfilzomib. Although bortezomib is an effective agent in MM,

about 20% of newly diagnosed patients are resistant to bortezomib, and,

ultimately, all patients relapse and develop resistance to the drug.

Carfilzomib irreversibly blocks chymotrypsin-like activity and in phase I

studies achieved more than 80% proteasome inhibition. Encouraging data

presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of

Hematology demonstrated that it was well tolerated and had an overall

clinical benefit rate of 36% in relapsed/refractory MM.8 In the upfront setting, carfilzomib combined with lenalidomide led to a 100% response rate.9

This combination with low-dose dexamethasone is currently

undergoing testing in a phase III registration trial. These data,

therefore, provide important therapeutic options among the armamentarium

of current and future antimyeloma therapies, helping transform MM into

an even more chronic disease than it is today and ultimately leading to a

cure.

References

1. Cirstea D, Vallet S, Raje N. Future novel single agent and combination therapies. Cancer J 2009;15:511-518.

2. Rajkumar

SV, Rosinol L, Hussein M, et al. Multicenter, randomized, double-blind,

placebo-controlled study of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared

with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple

myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2171-2177.

3. San

Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and

prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med

2008;359:906-917.

4. Richardson

PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, et al. Bortezomib or high-dose

dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med

2005;352:2487-2498.

5. Orlowski

RZ, Nagler A, Sonneveld P, et al. Randomized phase III study of

pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus bortezomib compared with bortezomib

alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: combination therapy

improves time to progression. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3892-3901.

6. Dimopoulos

MA, Chen C, Spencer A, et al. Long-term follow-up on overall survival

from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus

dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Leukemia 2009;23:2147-2152.

7. Rajkumar

SV, Jacobus S, Callander NS, et al. Lenalidomide plus high-dose

dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial

therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised

controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:29-37.

8. Siegel

DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label,

single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with

relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.

9. Jakubowiak

AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and

dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of

phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.

Dr. Raje can be reached at [email protected].

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Pomalidomide and carfilzomib represent active and well-tolerated new options in combination regimens.
Pomalidomide and carfilzomib represent active and well-tolerated new options in combination regimens.
Body

Noopur Raje, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Division of Hematology and Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Although multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable bone marrow

cancer, survival rates have improved markedly over the past decade. An

understanding of MM pathobiology (Figure 1) and improvement in stem cell

transplantation, better supportive care, and novel therapies with

higher efficacy and lower toxicity are all responsible for this

improvement. The availability of a rich pipeline of novel agents

undergoing early-phase clinical trials in MM is an exciting and active

area of research.1

Current treatment

Over the past several years, five therapeutic strategies have

received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval either as

monotherapy or in combination for treating MM, with thalidomide

(Thalomid), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and bortezomib (Velcade) as

important backbone drugs in these approaches. In the upfront setting,

thalidomide with dexamethasone2 and bortezomib in combination with melphalan and prednisone3

increased the overall response rate and significantly prolonged time to

disease progression and are FDA approved. For treatment of relapsed MM,

bortezomib alone4 and in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil),5 as well as lenalidomide/dexamethasone,6

have been approved. Results of a recent phase III randomized clinical

trial suggest that lower doses of dexamethasone provide a survival

advantage, at least in the upfront setting, mainly due to the increased

toxicity of high doses of dexamethasone.7

The availability of these novel agents has not only provided us

with several treatment options but has had an important impact on the

overall survival of our patients. To improve upon current outcomes,

optimal combinations of bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide are

currently under evaluation in phase II/III clinical trials.

Novel approaches

The preceding review refers to recent data on pomalidomide, the

newest immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) analog, which has shown single-agent

activity in phase I studies and was subsequently tested in a phase II

trial in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in patients with

relapsed or refractory MM. Pomalidomide/dexamethasone was found to be

highly active and well tolerated, providing a clinical benefit in 47% of

patients and no grade 3 neuropathy. These findings have led to a large

phase II study, which has completed accrual and is awaiting analysis.

Another promising agent discussed here is the novel proteasome

inhibitor carfilzomib. Although bortezomib is an effective agent in MM,

about 20% of newly diagnosed patients are resistant to bortezomib, and,

ultimately, all patients relapse and develop resistance to the drug.

Carfilzomib irreversibly blocks chymotrypsin-like activity and in phase I

studies achieved more than 80% proteasome inhibition. Encouraging data

presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of

Hematology demonstrated that it was well tolerated and had an overall

clinical benefit rate of 36% in relapsed/refractory MM.8 In the upfront setting, carfilzomib combined with lenalidomide led to a 100% response rate.9

This combination with low-dose dexamethasone is currently

undergoing testing in a phase III registration trial. These data,

therefore, provide important therapeutic options among the armamentarium

of current and future antimyeloma therapies, helping transform MM into

an even more chronic disease than it is today and ultimately leading to a

cure.

References

1. Cirstea D, Vallet S, Raje N. Future novel single agent and combination therapies. Cancer J 2009;15:511-518.

2. Rajkumar

SV, Rosinol L, Hussein M, et al. Multicenter, randomized, double-blind,

placebo-controlled study of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared

with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple

myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2171-2177.

3. San

Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and

prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med

2008;359:906-917.

4. Richardson

PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, et al. Bortezomib or high-dose

dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med

2005;352:2487-2498.

5. Orlowski

RZ, Nagler A, Sonneveld P, et al. Randomized phase III study of

pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus bortezomib compared with bortezomib

alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: combination therapy

improves time to progression. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3892-3901.

6. Dimopoulos

MA, Chen C, Spencer A, et al. Long-term follow-up on overall survival

from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus

dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Leukemia 2009;23:2147-2152.

7. Rajkumar

SV, Jacobus S, Callander NS, et al. Lenalidomide plus high-dose

dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial

therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised

controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:29-37.

8. Siegel

DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label,

single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with

relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.

9. Jakubowiak

AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and

dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of

phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.

Dr. Raje can be reached at [email protected].

Body

Noopur Raje, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Division of Hematology and Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Although multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable bone marrow

cancer, survival rates have improved markedly over the past decade. An

understanding of MM pathobiology (Figure 1) and improvement in stem cell

transplantation, better supportive care, and novel therapies with

higher efficacy and lower toxicity are all responsible for this

improvement. The availability of a rich pipeline of novel agents

undergoing early-phase clinical trials in MM is an exciting and active

area of research.1

Current treatment

Over the past several years, five therapeutic strategies have

received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval either as

monotherapy or in combination for treating MM, with thalidomide

(Thalomid), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and bortezomib (Velcade) as

important backbone drugs in these approaches. In the upfront setting,

thalidomide with dexamethasone2 and bortezomib in combination with melphalan and prednisone3

increased the overall response rate and significantly prolonged time to

disease progression and are FDA approved. For treatment of relapsed MM,

bortezomib alone4 and in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil),5 as well as lenalidomide/dexamethasone,6

have been approved. Results of a recent phase III randomized clinical

trial suggest that lower doses of dexamethasone provide a survival

advantage, at least in the upfront setting, mainly due to the increased

toxicity of high doses of dexamethasone.7

The availability of these novel agents has not only provided us

with several treatment options but has had an important impact on the

overall survival of our patients. To improve upon current outcomes,

optimal combinations of bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide are

currently under evaluation in phase II/III clinical trials.

Novel approaches

The preceding review refers to recent data on pomalidomide, the

newest immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) analog, which has shown single-agent

activity in phase I studies and was subsequently tested in a phase II

trial in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in patients with

relapsed or refractory MM. Pomalidomide/dexamethasone was found to be

highly active and well tolerated, providing a clinical benefit in 47% of

patients and no grade 3 neuropathy. These findings have led to a large

phase II study, which has completed accrual and is awaiting analysis.

Another promising agent discussed here is the novel proteasome

inhibitor carfilzomib. Although bortezomib is an effective agent in MM,

about 20% of newly diagnosed patients are resistant to bortezomib, and,

ultimately, all patients relapse and develop resistance to the drug.

Carfilzomib irreversibly blocks chymotrypsin-like activity and in phase I

studies achieved more than 80% proteasome inhibition. Encouraging data

presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of

Hematology demonstrated that it was well tolerated and had an overall

clinical benefit rate of 36% in relapsed/refractory MM.8 In the upfront setting, carfilzomib combined with lenalidomide led to a 100% response rate.9

This combination with low-dose dexamethasone is currently

undergoing testing in a phase III registration trial. These data,

therefore, provide important therapeutic options among the armamentarium

of current and future antimyeloma therapies, helping transform MM into

an even more chronic disease than it is today and ultimately leading to a

cure.

References

1. Cirstea D, Vallet S, Raje N. Future novel single agent and combination therapies. Cancer J 2009;15:511-518.

2. Rajkumar

SV, Rosinol L, Hussein M, et al. Multicenter, randomized, double-blind,

placebo-controlled study of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared

with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple

myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2171-2177.

3. San

Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and

prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med

2008;359:906-917.

4. Richardson

PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, et al. Bortezomib or high-dose

dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med

2005;352:2487-2498.

5. Orlowski

RZ, Nagler A, Sonneveld P, et al. Randomized phase III study of

pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus bortezomib compared with bortezomib

alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: combination therapy

improves time to progression. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3892-3901.

6. Dimopoulos

MA, Chen C, Spencer A, et al. Long-term follow-up on overall survival

from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus

dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Leukemia 2009;23:2147-2152.

7. Rajkumar

SV, Jacobus S, Callander NS, et al. Lenalidomide plus high-dose

dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial

therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised

controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:29-37.

8. Siegel

DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label,

single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with

relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.

9. Jakubowiak

AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and

dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of

phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.

Dr. Raje can be reached at [email protected].

Title
From the Oncologist's Perspective - Evolving therapies for multiple myeloma
From the Oncologist's Perspective - Evolving therapies for multiple myeloma

What's new, what's important

Treatment of multiple myeloma is evolving rapidly. It is tough to keep up with the rapid pace of new drugs, updates, and changes in the standard of care. In this issue of Community Oncology we bring to you two new exciting drugs on the horizon, pomalidomide and carfilzomib. In addition to introducing these two new drugs, we have asked Dr. Noopur Raje to explain how she treats a newly diagnosed patient with multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide, a thalidomide (Thalomid) analog, is a promising myeloma drug with encouraging responses in relapsed/refractory myeloma patients. Carfilzomib is a novel proteasome inhibitor. When combined with lenalidomide (Revlimid) in the first-line setting, it produced a 100% response rate. Phase III studies are in progress or being completed. It will be exciting to see the final results of these studies. 

With this issue we are changing the format of Community Translations to incorporate the mechanism of action or pathophysiology of some of these new advances so that a clinician can relate to them in a clinical setting. 

--Jame Abraham, MD, Editor

Two of the most promising drugs on the horizon for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are pomalidomide and carfilzomib. Both agents have shown significant single-agent activity in clinical trials. They seem to work in patients whose MM is resistant to other treatments and are being studied in combination regimens.

Pomalidomide

Pomalidomide is a new immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) with high in vitro potency. In initial experience with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed MM, Lacy and colleagues found an overall response rate of 63% and observed responses in some patients who were refractory to lenalidomide (Revlimid), suggesting an absence of cross-resistance between pomalidomide and other IMiDs. In a recently reported phase II study,1 these investigators assessed the combination of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with lenalidomide-refractory MM, finding the combination to be highly active and well tolerated.

In this study, 34 patients with lenalidomide-refractory MM were treated with oral pomalidomide (2 mg daily) and dexamethasone (40 mg once weekly) in 28-day cycles. Patients had a median age of 61.5 years, 68% were male, 85% had an ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status of 0 or 1, and 41% were categorized as high risk. The median time from diagnosis was 62 months. The median number of prior chemotherapy regimens was four. In addition to lenalidomide, 58% of patients had received prior thalidomide (Thalomid), and 59% had received prior bortezomib (Velcade); 68% of patients had undergone prior autologous stem cell transplantation, and 53% had prior radiation therapy. Twenty patients (59%) had peripheral neuropathy at baseline.

Patients received a median of 5 cycles (range, 1−14) of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone. Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism was given in 204 of 209 treatment cycles (aspirin in 150 cycles and warfarin in 54 cycles). Treatment responses consisted of a very good partial response in 9%, a partial response in 23%, and a minimal response in 15%, for an overall clinical benefit rate of 47%; 35% of patients had stable disease, and 18% had disease progression. The median time to response was 2 months. Response was observed in 8 of 14 (57%) high-risk patients, in 8 of 19 (42%) who received previous thalidomide treatment, and in 9 of 20 (45%) who were given previous bortezomib treatment. In eight patients with stable disease, the pomalidomide dose was increased to 4 mg/d, with one patient improving to a partial response. The median duration of response in 11 patients with a partial response or better was 9.1 months. The median progression-free survival was 4.8 months, and progression-free survival did not differ between high-risk and standard-risk patients. The median overall survival was 13.9 months. During follow-up, treatment was stopped due to disease progression in 23 patients, 3 withdrew from the study due to patient/physician discretion, and 8 continued to receive treatment. Seven patients died, all due to disease progression. The median follow-up of patients remaining alive was 8.3 months.

Pomalidomide/dexamethasone treatment was well tolerated. Toxicity consisted mostly of myelosuppression. Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity at least possibly related to treatment occurred in 38% of patients, including neutropenia in 29%, anemia in 12%, and thrombocytopenia in 9%. The most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicity was fatigue, which occurred in 9% of patients (all grade 3); grade 3 pneumonitis, edema, pneumonia, and folliculitis were each observed in one patient. Nine patients (26%) had neuropathy during treatment (six grade 1, three grade 2); they included six patients with neuropathy at baseline, three of whom had a worsening of grade.
 

 

Carfilzomib

Carfilzomib is a highly selective epoxyketone proteasome inhibitor with minimal affinity for nontarget proteases. In a recent phase II trial in patients with relapsed/refractory MM, reported at the 2010 American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting, carfilzomib produced durable responses and was well tolerated.2 An ongoing phase I/II trial assessing carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed MM, also reported at the 2010 ASH meeting, has shown good activity and tolerability of the regimen.3 A phase III trial comparing carfilzomib plus lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed MM has been initiated.

Relapsed/refractory MM

In the trial in patients with relapsed/refractory MM, 266 patients with multiply relapsed MM who had disease refractory to their last treatment received carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) every 28 days for the first cycle, with the dose then being escalated to 27 mg/m2 on the same schedule for up to 12 cycles.2 Prior therapies included bortezomib, either lenalidomide or thalidomide, and an alkylating agent. Patients had a median duration of MM of 5.4 years and had received a median of 5 prior lines of chemotherapy and a median of 13 antimyeloma treatments; prior treatments included bortezomib in 99.6% of patients (a median of two prior regimens containing bortezomib), lenalidomide in 94%, thalidomide in 74%, corticosteroids in 98%, alkylating agents in 91%, and stem cell transplantation in 74%. Overall, 65% of patients were refractory to bortezomib prior to study entry.

At the time of reporting, 79 patients (30%) had completed at least 6 cycles of study treatment, approximately 11% had completed 12 cycles (with most entering an extension phase of the study), and 15 patients remained on study (all with more than 10 cycles of study treatment). Among 257 patients evaluable for response, 0.4% (one patient) had a complete response, 4.7% had a very good partial response, and 19% had a partial response, for an overall response rate of 24%; an additional 12% of patients had a minimal response, yielding an overall clinical benefit rate of 36%. Stable disease for at least 6 weeks was achieved in 32%. Among patients with a partial response or better, the median duration of response was 7.4 months. Among patients with a minimal response, the median duration of response was 6.3 months, indicating durable minor responses.

Toxicity consisted mainly of myelosuppression. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities consisted of thrombocytopenia in 18% of patients, lymphopenia in 11%, neutropenia in 8%, and anemia in 7%.4 Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included fatigue in 6% of patients; pneumonia and congestive cardiac failure in 3% each; nausea, dyspnea, increased blood creatinine levels, and increased blood uric acid levels in 1% each; and diarrhea in 0.4%. Grade 1/2 peripheral neuropathy was present in 77% of patients at baseline; new-onset neuropathy was infrequent, with grade 3 or lower neuropathy occurring in less than 1% of patients.2

Newly diagnosed MM

In an ongoing phase I/II trial, patients with newly diagnosed MM are receiving carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.3 Carfilzomib is started at 20 mg/m2 (dose level 1) and increased to 27 mg/m2 (dose level 2) and 36 mg/m2 (dose level 3) given IV on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 in 28-day cycles. Lenalidomide is given at 25 mg/d on days 1−21 in each cycle, and dexamethasone is given weekly at 40 mg during cycles 1−4 and at 20 mg during cycles 5−8. Patients with a partial response or better are eligible to proceed to stem cell collection and autologous stem cell transplantation after at least 4 cycles and can continue study treatment after transplantation. After completion of 8 cycles, patients are to receive maintenance cycles consisting of carfilzomib on days 1, 2, 15, and 16; lenalidomide on days 1−21; and weekly dexamethasone at doses tolerated at the end of 8 cycles. A planned 36 patients are to be treated at the carfilzomib maximum tolerated dose.

At the time of reporting, 24 patients had been enrolled, 4 at dose level 1, 14 at dose level 2, and 6 at dose level 3. Toxicity data were available for 21 patients, including 19 who completed at least 1 cycle of treatment. A single dose-limiting toxicity event was observed, consisting of nonfebrile neutropenia in a patient at dose level 2. The maximum tolerated dose had not yet been reached. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities consisted of neutropenia in three patients, thrombocytopenia in three patients, and anemia in one patient. Grade 3 nonhematologic toxicities included five cases of elevated blood glucose levels, deep vein thrombosis during aspirin prophylaxis in one patient, and fatigue in one patient. Emergent peripheral neuropathy was observed in two patients, who developed grade 1 neuropathy.
 

 

At the time of reporting, 23 patients continued on treatment, with 20 having no need for dose modifications. After a median of 4 months of treatment (range, 1−8 months), the preliminary response rate in 19 evaluable patients completing at least 1 cycle was 100% with at least a partial response, including 63% with a very good partial response and 37% with a complete response or near-complete response. Partial responses were observed in 17 of 19 patients after 1 cycle, with responses improving in all patients with continuing treatment. Seven patients had proceeded to stem cell collection using growth factors only after a median of 4 cycles, and all resumed study treatment after stem cell collection. No disease progression had been observed in any of the evaluable patients, and all remained alive.

References

1. Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Gertz MA, et al. Pomalidomide (CC4047) plus low dose dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is active and well tolerated in lenalidomide refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Leukemia 2010;24:1934−1939.

2. Siegel DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.

3. Jakubowiak AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.

4. Singhal SB, Siegel DSD, Martin T, et al. Pooled safety analysis from phase 1 and 2 studies of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:1954.

What's new, what's important

Treatment of multiple myeloma is evolving rapidly. It is tough to keep up with the rapid pace of new drugs, updates, and changes in the standard of care. In this issue of Community Oncology we bring to you two new exciting drugs on the horizon, pomalidomide and carfilzomib. In addition to introducing these two new drugs, we have asked Dr. Noopur Raje to explain how she treats a newly diagnosed patient with multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide, a thalidomide (Thalomid) analog, is a promising myeloma drug with encouraging responses in relapsed/refractory myeloma patients. Carfilzomib is a novel proteasome inhibitor. When combined with lenalidomide (Revlimid) in the first-line setting, it produced a 100% response rate. Phase III studies are in progress or being completed. It will be exciting to see the final results of these studies. 

With this issue we are changing the format of Community Translations to incorporate the mechanism of action or pathophysiology of some of these new advances so that a clinician can relate to them in a clinical setting. 

--Jame Abraham, MD, Editor

Two of the most promising drugs on the horizon for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are pomalidomide and carfilzomib. Both agents have shown significant single-agent activity in clinical trials. They seem to work in patients whose MM is resistant to other treatments and are being studied in combination regimens.

Pomalidomide

Pomalidomide is a new immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) with high in vitro potency. In initial experience with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed MM, Lacy and colleagues found an overall response rate of 63% and observed responses in some patients who were refractory to lenalidomide (Revlimid), suggesting an absence of cross-resistance between pomalidomide and other IMiDs. In a recently reported phase II study,1 these investigators assessed the combination of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with lenalidomide-refractory MM, finding the combination to be highly active and well tolerated.

In this study, 34 patients with lenalidomide-refractory MM were treated with oral pomalidomide (2 mg daily) and dexamethasone (40 mg once weekly) in 28-day cycles. Patients had a median age of 61.5 years, 68% were male, 85% had an ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status of 0 or 1, and 41% were categorized as high risk. The median time from diagnosis was 62 months. The median number of prior chemotherapy regimens was four. In addition to lenalidomide, 58% of patients had received prior thalidomide (Thalomid), and 59% had received prior bortezomib (Velcade); 68% of patients had undergone prior autologous stem cell transplantation, and 53% had prior radiation therapy. Twenty patients (59%) had peripheral neuropathy at baseline.

Patients received a median of 5 cycles (range, 1−14) of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone. Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism was given in 204 of 209 treatment cycles (aspirin in 150 cycles and warfarin in 54 cycles). Treatment responses consisted of a very good partial response in 9%, a partial response in 23%, and a minimal response in 15%, for an overall clinical benefit rate of 47%; 35% of patients had stable disease, and 18% had disease progression. The median time to response was 2 months. Response was observed in 8 of 14 (57%) high-risk patients, in 8 of 19 (42%) who received previous thalidomide treatment, and in 9 of 20 (45%) who were given previous bortezomib treatment. In eight patients with stable disease, the pomalidomide dose was increased to 4 mg/d, with one patient improving to a partial response. The median duration of response in 11 patients with a partial response or better was 9.1 months. The median progression-free survival was 4.8 months, and progression-free survival did not differ between high-risk and standard-risk patients. The median overall survival was 13.9 months. During follow-up, treatment was stopped due to disease progression in 23 patients, 3 withdrew from the study due to patient/physician discretion, and 8 continued to receive treatment. Seven patients died, all due to disease progression. The median follow-up of patients remaining alive was 8.3 months.

Pomalidomide/dexamethasone treatment was well tolerated. Toxicity consisted mostly of myelosuppression. Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity at least possibly related to treatment occurred in 38% of patients, including neutropenia in 29%, anemia in 12%, and thrombocytopenia in 9%. The most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicity was fatigue, which occurred in 9% of patients (all grade 3); grade 3 pneumonitis, edema, pneumonia, and folliculitis were each observed in one patient. Nine patients (26%) had neuropathy during treatment (six grade 1, three grade 2); they included six patients with neuropathy at baseline, three of whom had a worsening of grade.
 

 

Carfilzomib

Carfilzomib is a highly selective epoxyketone proteasome inhibitor with minimal affinity for nontarget proteases. In a recent phase II trial in patients with relapsed/refractory MM, reported at the 2010 American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting, carfilzomib produced durable responses and was well tolerated.2 An ongoing phase I/II trial assessing carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed MM, also reported at the 2010 ASH meeting, has shown good activity and tolerability of the regimen.3 A phase III trial comparing carfilzomib plus lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed MM has been initiated.

Relapsed/refractory MM

In the trial in patients with relapsed/refractory MM, 266 patients with multiply relapsed MM who had disease refractory to their last treatment received carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) every 28 days for the first cycle, with the dose then being escalated to 27 mg/m2 on the same schedule for up to 12 cycles.2 Prior therapies included bortezomib, either lenalidomide or thalidomide, and an alkylating agent. Patients had a median duration of MM of 5.4 years and had received a median of 5 prior lines of chemotherapy and a median of 13 antimyeloma treatments; prior treatments included bortezomib in 99.6% of patients (a median of two prior regimens containing bortezomib), lenalidomide in 94%, thalidomide in 74%, corticosteroids in 98%, alkylating agents in 91%, and stem cell transplantation in 74%. Overall, 65% of patients were refractory to bortezomib prior to study entry.

At the time of reporting, 79 patients (30%) had completed at least 6 cycles of study treatment, approximately 11% had completed 12 cycles (with most entering an extension phase of the study), and 15 patients remained on study (all with more than 10 cycles of study treatment). Among 257 patients evaluable for response, 0.4% (one patient) had a complete response, 4.7% had a very good partial response, and 19% had a partial response, for an overall response rate of 24%; an additional 12% of patients had a minimal response, yielding an overall clinical benefit rate of 36%. Stable disease for at least 6 weeks was achieved in 32%. Among patients with a partial response or better, the median duration of response was 7.4 months. Among patients with a minimal response, the median duration of response was 6.3 months, indicating durable minor responses.

Toxicity consisted mainly of myelosuppression. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities consisted of thrombocytopenia in 18% of patients, lymphopenia in 11%, neutropenia in 8%, and anemia in 7%.4 Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included fatigue in 6% of patients; pneumonia and congestive cardiac failure in 3% each; nausea, dyspnea, increased blood creatinine levels, and increased blood uric acid levels in 1% each; and diarrhea in 0.4%. Grade 1/2 peripheral neuropathy was present in 77% of patients at baseline; new-onset neuropathy was infrequent, with grade 3 or lower neuropathy occurring in less than 1% of patients.2

Newly diagnosed MM

In an ongoing phase I/II trial, patients with newly diagnosed MM are receiving carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.3 Carfilzomib is started at 20 mg/m2 (dose level 1) and increased to 27 mg/m2 (dose level 2) and 36 mg/m2 (dose level 3) given IV on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 in 28-day cycles. Lenalidomide is given at 25 mg/d on days 1−21 in each cycle, and dexamethasone is given weekly at 40 mg during cycles 1−4 and at 20 mg during cycles 5−8. Patients with a partial response or better are eligible to proceed to stem cell collection and autologous stem cell transplantation after at least 4 cycles and can continue study treatment after transplantation. After completion of 8 cycles, patients are to receive maintenance cycles consisting of carfilzomib on days 1, 2, 15, and 16; lenalidomide on days 1−21; and weekly dexamethasone at doses tolerated at the end of 8 cycles. A planned 36 patients are to be treated at the carfilzomib maximum tolerated dose.

At the time of reporting, 24 patients had been enrolled, 4 at dose level 1, 14 at dose level 2, and 6 at dose level 3. Toxicity data were available for 21 patients, including 19 who completed at least 1 cycle of treatment. A single dose-limiting toxicity event was observed, consisting of nonfebrile neutropenia in a patient at dose level 2. The maximum tolerated dose had not yet been reached. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities consisted of neutropenia in three patients, thrombocytopenia in three patients, and anemia in one patient. Grade 3 nonhematologic toxicities included five cases of elevated blood glucose levels, deep vein thrombosis during aspirin prophylaxis in one patient, and fatigue in one patient. Emergent peripheral neuropathy was observed in two patients, who developed grade 1 neuropathy.
 

 

At the time of reporting, 23 patients continued on treatment, with 20 having no need for dose modifications. After a median of 4 months of treatment (range, 1−8 months), the preliminary response rate in 19 evaluable patients completing at least 1 cycle was 100% with at least a partial response, including 63% with a very good partial response and 37% with a complete response or near-complete response. Partial responses were observed in 17 of 19 patients after 1 cycle, with responses improving in all patients with continuing treatment. Seven patients had proceeded to stem cell collection using growth factors only after a median of 4 cycles, and all resumed study treatment after stem cell collection. No disease progression had been observed in any of the evaluable patients, and all remained alive.

References

1. Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Gertz MA, et al. Pomalidomide (CC4047) plus low dose dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is active and well tolerated in lenalidomide refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Leukemia 2010;24:1934−1939.

2. Siegel DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.

3. Jakubowiak AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.

4. Singhal SB, Siegel DSD, Martin T, et al. Pooled safety analysis from phase 1 and 2 studies of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:1954.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Pomalidomide in lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma and carfilzomib in refractory and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
Display Headline
Pomalidomide in lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma and carfilzomib in refractory and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

BEST PRACTICES IN: The Treatment of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 12/07/2018 - 09:52
Display Headline
BEST PRACTICES IN: The Treatment of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding


A supplement to Internal Medicine News®. This supplement was sponsored by Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

 


To view the supplement, click the image above.

Topics

 

  • Introduction
  • Definition & Diagnosis
  • Tranexamic Acid for the Treatment of HMB
  • Conclusion

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure

Lee Shulman, MD, FACOG, FACMG
The Anna Ross Lapham Professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University
Chicago, Illinois

Dr Shulman is a consultant to Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  

Matt T. Rosenberg, MD
Family Physician
Mid-Michigan Health Centers
Jackson, Michigan

Dr Rosenberg

 

 

 

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Publications
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Author and Disclosure Information

 

 


A supplement to Internal Medicine News®. This supplement was sponsored by Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

 


To view the supplement, click the image above.

Topics

 

  • Introduction
  • Definition & Diagnosis
  • Tranexamic Acid for the Treatment of HMB
  • Conclusion

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure

Lee Shulman, MD, FACOG, FACMG
The Anna Ross Lapham Professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University
Chicago, Illinois

Dr Shulman is a consultant to Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  

Matt T. Rosenberg, MD
Family Physician
Mid-Michigan Health Centers
Jackson, Michigan

Dr Rosenberg

 

 

 

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc.


A supplement to Internal Medicine News®. This supplement was sponsored by Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

 


To view the supplement, click the image above.

Topics

 

  • Introduction
  • Definition & Diagnosis
  • Tranexamic Acid for the Treatment of HMB
  • Conclusion

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure

Lee Shulman, MD, FACOG, FACMG
The Anna Ross Lapham Professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University
Chicago, Illinois

Dr Shulman is a consultant to Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  

Matt T. Rosenberg, MD
Family Physician
Mid-Michigan Health Centers
Jackson, Michigan

Dr Rosenberg

 

 

 

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
BEST PRACTICES IN: The Treatment of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding
Display Headline
BEST PRACTICES IN: The Treatment of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding
Sections
Disallow All Ads

BEST PRACTICES IN: Renal Impairment in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: an Important Determinant of Treatment Selection

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/21/2019 - 12:21
Display Headline
BEST PRACTICES IN: Renal Impairment in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: an Important Determinant of Treatment Selection

A supplement to Family Practice News®. This supplement was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company.

 


To view the supplement, click the image above.

Topics

 

  • Complications Associated With T2DM
  • Epidemiology of CKD/RI With DM
  • Risk Factors for CKD/RI in Patients With DM
  • Early Identification and Screening
  • Healthcare Providers Are Unaware of the Negative Effects of CKD on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With T2DM
  • Awareness of CKD/RI: Clinicians
  • Awareness of CKD/RI: Patients
  • Awareness of CKD/RI: Glycemic Control
  • Prevention and Management

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure
Fernando Ovalle, MD

Associate Professor, Medicine
Director, Fellowship Training Program
,
Diabetes & Endocrine Research Unit and Comprehensive Diabetes Clinic
UAB School of Medicine
Birmingham, AL

Michael Kodack, PharmD
Vice President, Medical
BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC
Basking Ridge, NJ

Fernando Ovalle, MD, has disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Michael Kodack, PharmD, is an employee of BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Publications
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Article PDF
Article PDF

A supplement to Family Practice News®. This supplement was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company.

 


To view the supplement, click the image above.

Topics

 

  • Complications Associated With T2DM
  • Epidemiology of CKD/RI With DM
  • Risk Factors for CKD/RI in Patients With DM
  • Early Identification and Screening
  • Healthcare Providers Are Unaware of the Negative Effects of CKD on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With T2DM
  • Awareness of CKD/RI: Clinicians
  • Awareness of CKD/RI: Patients
  • Awareness of CKD/RI: Glycemic Control
  • Prevention and Management

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure
Fernando Ovalle, MD

Associate Professor, Medicine
Director, Fellowship Training Program
,
Diabetes & Endocrine Research Unit and Comprehensive Diabetes Clinic
UAB School of Medicine
Birmingham, AL

Michael Kodack, PharmD
Vice President, Medical
BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC
Basking Ridge, NJ

Fernando Ovalle, MD, has disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Michael Kodack, PharmD, is an employee of BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc.

A supplement to Family Practice News®. This supplement was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company.

 


To view the supplement, click the image above.

Topics

 

  • Complications Associated With T2DM
  • Epidemiology of CKD/RI With DM
  • Risk Factors for CKD/RI in Patients With DM
  • Early Identification and Screening
  • Healthcare Providers Are Unaware of the Negative Effects of CKD on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With T2DM
  • Awareness of CKD/RI: Clinicians
  • Awareness of CKD/RI: Patients
  • Awareness of CKD/RI: Glycemic Control
  • Prevention and Management

Faculty/Faculty Disclosure
Fernando Ovalle, MD

Associate Professor, Medicine
Director, Fellowship Training Program
,
Diabetes & Endocrine Research Unit and Comprehensive Diabetes Clinic
UAB School of Medicine
Birmingham, AL

Michael Kodack, PharmD
Vice President, Medical
BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC
Basking Ridge, NJ

Fernando Ovalle, MD, has disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Michael Kodack, PharmD, is an employee of BlueSpark Healthcare Communications LLC.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
BEST PRACTICES IN: Renal Impairment in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: an Important Determinant of Treatment Selection
Display Headline
BEST PRACTICES IN: Renal Impairment in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: an Important Determinant of Treatment Selection
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

CT Trial Results Change Lung Cancer Screening Landscape

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 13:37
Display Headline
CT Trial Results Change Lung Cancer Screening Landscape

LAS VEGAS – The results from the National Lung Screening Trial constitute a "game changer" for lung cancer screening, Dr. James R. Jett said at the annual meeting of the National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care.

The study results, reported in a press release by the National Cancer Institute last November, "changed the landscape" for screening by showing that lung imaging by low-dose helical CT done annually for 3 years in people with a smoking history of least 30 pack-years cut their mortality rate from lung cancer during follow-up by 20%, compared with people who underwent three annual chest x-rays. "This is the biggest advance in lung cancer in my career, an absolutely stunning result," said Dr. Jett, a pulmonologist and lung cancer specialist at National Jewish Health in Denver.

    Dr. James R. Jett

The researchers who ran the National Lung Screening Trial will likely publish their full results this spring, after which annual screening of people who match the profile of those in the study should become the standard of care, Dr. Jett predicted.

The screening trial enrolled 53,454 current or former cigarette smokers aged 55-74 years, who had each accumulated at least 30 pack-years of smoking history but had quit within the previous 15 years. The more than 75,000 total screening events by CT and more than 73,000 total screens by chest x-ray yielded 24% positive CT images and 7% positive x-ray images. During roughly 144,000 person-years of follow-up in each arm, the mortality due to lung cancer reached 246 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the CT group and 308 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the x-ray group, a 20% absolute mortality reduction with CT screening that was statistically significant, and which led the trial’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board to stop the study and release the results.

The people screened by CT also had a 7% reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with those screened by x-ray, also a statistically significant difference.

As about 160,000 Americans die from lung cancer annually, a 20% cut in mortality from low-dose helical CT screening could potentially save about 32,000 lives a year in the United States alone. "That’s almost like eliminating all 40,000 breast cancer deaths each year," Dr. Jett said.

The results did not directly address the question of how long annual screening should continue. In the trial, screening stopped after three annual examinations because of limited financial resources, although despite that the study cost about $200 million, he said. But his review of the results identified no suggestion that in routine practice screening should stop after 3 years. "There was no drop in the number of cancers" during each sequential year of screening. "I don’t see anything that tells me you can stop [screening] after 3 years," he said.

"The biggest question is, can we afford" to do annual CT screening on the scale needed to include all people who fit the profile included in the trial.

A second issue is the safety of annual CT imaging, but Dr. Jett presented a brief analysis suggesting that it is safe. A low-dose CT scan involves a radiation exposure of about 0.65 mSv, less than 10% of the dose of a conventional chest CT, Dr. Jett said. With that level of exposure, annual low-dose CT imaging of currently smoking women aged 50 might cause an excess of 5 cancer deaths for every 10,000 people screened, compared with a background lung cancer mortality of 100 for every 10,000 people with no screening. Because screening could prevent 20% of these 100 deaths, it would avert more deaths that it might cause. For men, the risk: benefit ratio runs even higher because currently smoking men undergoing annual CT screening would have about 2 extra lung cancer deaths per 10,000 people due to the radiation exposure, compared with 110 per 10,000 without screening. Women face a higher risk from the radiation of screening than men because of the impact of chest radiation on breast cancer, Dr. Jett said.

Dr. Jett said that he has been an adviser to Genentech, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and that he has a research grant pending from Oncimmune.



Meeting/Event
Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
lung cancer, ct scan, National Lung Screening Trial,
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

LAS VEGAS – The results from the National Lung Screening Trial constitute a "game changer" for lung cancer screening, Dr. James R. Jett said at the annual meeting of the National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care.

The study results, reported in a press release by the National Cancer Institute last November, "changed the landscape" for screening by showing that lung imaging by low-dose helical CT done annually for 3 years in people with a smoking history of least 30 pack-years cut their mortality rate from lung cancer during follow-up by 20%, compared with people who underwent three annual chest x-rays. "This is the biggest advance in lung cancer in my career, an absolutely stunning result," said Dr. Jett, a pulmonologist and lung cancer specialist at National Jewish Health in Denver.

    Dr. James R. Jett

The researchers who ran the National Lung Screening Trial will likely publish their full results this spring, after which annual screening of people who match the profile of those in the study should become the standard of care, Dr. Jett predicted.

The screening trial enrolled 53,454 current or former cigarette smokers aged 55-74 years, who had each accumulated at least 30 pack-years of smoking history but had quit within the previous 15 years. The more than 75,000 total screening events by CT and more than 73,000 total screens by chest x-ray yielded 24% positive CT images and 7% positive x-ray images. During roughly 144,000 person-years of follow-up in each arm, the mortality due to lung cancer reached 246 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the CT group and 308 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the x-ray group, a 20% absolute mortality reduction with CT screening that was statistically significant, and which led the trial’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board to stop the study and release the results.

The people screened by CT also had a 7% reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with those screened by x-ray, also a statistically significant difference.

As about 160,000 Americans die from lung cancer annually, a 20% cut in mortality from low-dose helical CT screening could potentially save about 32,000 lives a year in the United States alone. "That’s almost like eliminating all 40,000 breast cancer deaths each year," Dr. Jett said.

The results did not directly address the question of how long annual screening should continue. In the trial, screening stopped after three annual examinations because of limited financial resources, although despite that the study cost about $200 million, he said. But his review of the results identified no suggestion that in routine practice screening should stop after 3 years. "There was no drop in the number of cancers" during each sequential year of screening. "I don’t see anything that tells me you can stop [screening] after 3 years," he said.

"The biggest question is, can we afford" to do annual CT screening on the scale needed to include all people who fit the profile included in the trial.

A second issue is the safety of annual CT imaging, but Dr. Jett presented a brief analysis suggesting that it is safe. A low-dose CT scan involves a radiation exposure of about 0.65 mSv, less than 10% of the dose of a conventional chest CT, Dr. Jett said. With that level of exposure, annual low-dose CT imaging of currently smoking women aged 50 might cause an excess of 5 cancer deaths for every 10,000 people screened, compared with a background lung cancer mortality of 100 for every 10,000 people with no screening. Because screening could prevent 20% of these 100 deaths, it would avert more deaths that it might cause. For men, the risk: benefit ratio runs even higher because currently smoking men undergoing annual CT screening would have about 2 extra lung cancer deaths per 10,000 people due to the radiation exposure, compared with 110 per 10,000 without screening. Women face a higher risk from the radiation of screening than men because of the impact of chest radiation on breast cancer, Dr. Jett said.

Dr. Jett said that he has been an adviser to Genentech, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and that he has a research grant pending from Oncimmune.



LAS VEGAS – The results from the National Lung Screening Trial constitute a "game changer" for lung cancer screening, Dr. James R. Jett said at the annual meeting of the National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care.

The study results, reported in a press release by the National Cancer Institute last November, "changed the landscape" for screening by showing that lung imaging by low-dose helical CT done annually for 3 years in people with a smoking history of least 30 pack-years cut their mortality rate from lung cancer during follow-up by 20%, compared with people who underwent three annual chest x-rays. "This is the biggest advance in lung cancer in my career, an absolutely stunning result," said Dr. Jett, a pulmonologist and lung cancer specialist at National Jewish Health in Denver.

    Dr. James R. Jett

The researchers who ran the National Lung Screening Trial will likely publish their full results this spring, after which annual screening of people who match the profile of those in the study should become the standard of care, Dr. Jett predicted.

The screening trial enrolled 53,454 current or former cigarette smokers aged 55-74 years, who had each accumulated at least 30 pack-years of smoking history but had quit within the previous 15 years. The more than 75,000 total screening events by CT and more than 73,000 total screens by chest x-ray yielded 24% positive CT images and 7% positive x-ray images. During roughly 144,000 person-years of follow-up in each arm, the mortality due to lung cancer reached 246 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the CT group and 308 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the x-ray group, a 20% absolute mortality reduction with CT screening that was statistically significant, and which led the trial’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board to stop the study and release the results.

The people screened by CT also had a 7% reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with those screened by x-ray, also a statistically significant difference.

As about 160,000 Americans die from lung cancer annually, a 20% cut in mortality from low-dose helical CT screening could potentially save about 32,000 lives a year in the United States alone. "That’s almost like eliminating all 40,000 breast cancer deaths each year," Dr. Jett said.

The results did not directly address the question of how long annual screening should continue. In the trial, screening stopped after three annual examinations because of limited financial resources, although despite that the study cost about $200 million, he said. But his review of the results identified no suggestion that in routine practice screening should stop after 3 years. "There was no drop in the number of cancers" during each sequential year of screening. "I don’t see anything that tells me you can stop [screening] after 3 years," he said.

"The biggest question is, can we afford" to do annual CT screening on the scale needed to include all people who fit the profile included in the trial.

A second issue is the safety of annual CT imaging, but Dr. Jett presented a brief analysis suggesting that it is safe. A low-dose CT scan involves a radiation exposure of about 0.65 mSv, less than 10% of the dose of a conventional chest CT, Dr. Jett said. With that level of exposure, annual low-dose CT imaging of currently smoking women aged 50 might cause an excess of 5 cancer deaths for every 10,000 people screened, compared with a background lung cancer mortality of 100 for every 10,000 people with no screening. Because screening could prevent 20% of these 100 deaths, it would avert more deaths that it might cause. For men, the risk: benefit ratio runs even higher because currently smoking men undergoing annual CT screening would have about 2 extra lung cancer deaths per 10,000 people due to the radiation exposure, compared with 110 per 10,000 without screening. Women face a higher risk from the radiation of screening than men because of the impact of chest radiation on breast cancer, Dr. Jett said.

Dr. Jett said that he has been an adviser to Genentech, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and that he has a research grant pending from Oncimmune.



Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
CT Trial Results Change Lung Cancer Screening Landscape
Display Headline
CT Trial Results Change Lung Cancer Screening Landscape
Legacy Keywords
lung cancer, ct scan, National Lung Screening Trial,
Legacy Keywords
lung cancer, ct scan, National Lung Screening Trial,
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR MEDICAL DIRECTION OF RESPIRATORY CARE

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

SHM Honors Four Hospitalists

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 12:28
Display Headline
SHM Honors Four Hospitalists

SHM will induct its second class of Masters in Hospital Medicine (MHM) at HM11 in May, and while each of the four honorees says the title is a personal honor, they all emphasize that it is a professional point of pride to see just how far HM has come in the past 15 years.

"For the specialty, it brings identity and awareness of all that we do," Erin Stucky, MD, MHM, a pediatric hospitalist at Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego, wrote in an email. "We are QI in mortal form, acting and pressing on to deliver excellence in healthcare within our systems. Each of us, members of the society, those with FHM, SFHM, and MHM—we each deliver on this promise every day."

The other MHMs, each of whom spoke to The Hospitalist via email, are:

Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, chief medical officer for Cogent Healthcare and a member of SHM's Public Policy Committee. "I've had the privilege of working in hospital medicine for 18 years and, along with my colleagues at Cogent, have helped shape the field," Dr. Greeno says. "To be one of a handful of hospitalists to be named a Master in Hospital Medicine is truly exciting, but equally exciting is to see the growing leadership capabilities of a number of our younger colleagues who will become the future leaders of our specialty."

Russell L. Holman, MD, MHM, Cogent's COO and past president of SHM. "Our specialty is constantly evolving; there is no paved road before us," Dr. Holman says. "We are cutting the path, and are part of an historical transformation of the way care is provided in this country. Twenty years from now we will reflect on an enduring legacy of dramatically improving the quality, safety, and sustainability of care for hospitalized patients. The privilege of being part of this movement is rewarding and inspirational for me."

Mary Jo Gorman, MD, MBA, MHM, former SHM president and CEO of St. Louis-based Advanced ICU Care. "It is a terrific honor to be recognized by SHM in this way," Dr. Gorman says. "The group that is included has accomplished many things and it's gratifying to be recognized with them. It’s hard to believe that SHM has come so far that we have fellows and masters in the society! Those early days seem a long way away!"

SHM has now recognized seven MHMs. Last year's class consisted of Winthrop F. Whitcomb, MD, MHM, Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, and John Nelson, MD, MHM. Each is recognized for what SHM says is the "utmost demonstration of dedication to the field of hospital medicine through significant contributions to the development and maturation of the profession."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(03)
Publications
Sections

SHM will induct its second class of Masters in Hospital Medicine (MHM) at HM11 in May, and while each of the four honorees says the title is a personal honor, they all emphasize that it is a professional point of pride to see just how far HM has come in the past 15 years.

"For the specialty, it brings identity and awareness of all that we do," Erin Stucky, MD, MHM, a pediatric hospitalist at Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego, wrote in an email. "We are QI in mortal form, acting and pressing on to deliver excellence in healthcare within our systems. Each of us, members of the society, those with FHM, SFHM, and MHM—we each deliver on this promise every day."

The other MHMs, each of whom spoke to The Hospitalist via email, are:

Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, chief medical officer for Cogent Healthcare and a member of SHM's Public Policy Committee. "I've had the privilege of working in hospital medicine for 18 years and, along with my colleagues at Cogent, have helped shape the field," Dr. Greeno says. "To be one of a handful of hospitalists to be named a Master in Hospital Medicine is truly exciting, but equally exciting is to see the growing leadership capabilities of a number of our younger colleagues who will become the future leaders of our specialty."

Russell L. Holman, MD, MHM, Cogent's COO and past president of SHM. "Our specialty is constantly evolving; there is no paved road before us," Dr. Holman says. "We are cutting the path, and are part of an historical transformation of the way care is provided in this country. Twenty years from now we will reflect on an enduring legacy of dramatically improving the quality, safety, and sustainability of care for hospitalized patients. The privilege of being part of this movement is rewarding and inspirational for me."

Mary Jo Gorman, MD, MBA, MHM, former SHM president and CEO of St. Louis-based Advanced ICU Care. "It is a terrific honor to be recognized by SHM in this way," Dr. Gorman says. "The group that is included has accomplished many things and it's gratifying to be recognized with them. It’s hard to believe that SHM has come so far that we have fellows and masters in the society! Those early days seem a long way away!"

SHM has now recognized seven MHMs. Last year's class consisted of Winthrop F. Whitcomb, MD, MHM, Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, and John Nelson, MD, MHM. Each is recognized for what SHM says is the "utmost demonstration of dedication to the field of hospital medicine through significant contributions to the development and maturation of the profession."

SHM will induct its second class of Masters in Hospital Medicine (MHM) at HM11 in May, and while each of the four honorees says the title is a personal honor, they all emphasize that it is a professional point of pride to see just how far HM has come in the past 15 years.

"For the specialty, it brings identity and awareness of all that we do," Erin Stucky, MD, MHM, a pediatric hospitalist at Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego, wrote in an email. "We are QI in mortal form, acting and pressing on to deliver excellence in healthcare within our systems. Each of us, members of the society, those with FHM, SFHM, and MHM—we each deliver on this promise every day."

The other MHMs, each of whom spoke to The Hospitalist via email, are:

Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, chief medical officer for Cogent Healthcare and a member of SHM's Public Policy Committee. "I've had the privilege of working in hospital medicine for 18 years and, along with my colleagues at Cogent, have helped shape the field," Dr. Greeno says. "To be one of a handful of hospitalists to be named a Master in Hospital Medicine is truly exciting, but equally exciting is to see the growing leadership capabilities of a number of our younger colleagues who will become the future leaders of our specialty."

Russell L. Holman, MD, MHM, Cogent's COO and past president of SHM. "Our specialty is constantly evolving; there is no paved road before us," Dr. Holman says. "We are cutting the path, and are part of an historical transformation of the way care is provided in this country. Twenty years from now we will reflect on an enduring legacy of dramatically improving the quality, safety, and sustainability of care for hospitalized patients. The privilege of being part of this movement is rewarding and inspirational for me."

Mary Jo Gorman, MD, MBA, MHM, former SHM president and CEO of St. Louis-based Advanced ICU Care. "It is a terrific honor to be recognized by SHM in this way," Dr. Gorman says. "The group that is included has accomplished many things and it's gratifying to be recognized with them. It’s hard to believe that SHM has come so far that we have fellows and masters in the society! Those early days seem a long way away!"

SHM has now recognized seven MHMs. Last year's class consisted of Winthrop F. Whitcomb, MD, MHM, Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, and John Nelson, MD, MHM. Each is recognized for what SHM says is the "utmost demonstration of dedication to the field of hospital medicine through significant contributions to the development and maturation of the profession."

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(03)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2011(03)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
SHM Honors Four Hospitalists
Display Headline
SHM Honors Four Hospitalists
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)