Looking back at 10 years of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/24/2019 - 11:57
Vidyard Video

SAN FRANCISCO – Jay Pasricha, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Neurogastroenterology, in Baltimore, reminisced about the early days of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology in an interview at the AGA Tech Summit. “I was a founder,” he said, “along with Joel Brill and others.”

He goes back to when the idea was first pitched to the AGA Institute Council in 2009 as a technology center. He recalls that the first summit was held in Palo Alto, Calif., and that it was a “terrific success” because it filled a void. Dr. Pasricha said that the CGIT has fulfilled most if not all of its early expectations and – in some cases – went beyond expectations. Importantly, it transformed how people thought about GI as a specialty – GI was considered a risk-averse specialty previously. CGIT helped to develop relationships with many stakeholders, including the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pasricha predicts that CGIT will continue to do well because of its leadership and because AGA is completely invested in its success.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Vidyard Video

SAN FRANCISCO – Jay Pasricha, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Neurogastroenterology, in Baltimore, reminisced about the early days of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology in an interview at the AGA Tech Summit. “I was a founder,” he said, “along with Joel Brill and others.”

He goes back to when the idea was first pitched to the AGA Institute Council in 2009 as a technology center. He recalls that the first summit was held in Palo Alto, Calif., and that it was a “terrific success” because it filled a void. Dr. Pasricha said that the CGIT has fulfilled most if not all of its early expectations and – in some cases – went beyond expectations. Importantly, it transformed how people thought about GI as a specialty – GI was considered a risk-averse specialty previously. CGIT helped to develop relationships with many stakeholders, including the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pasricha predicts that CGIT will continue to do well because of its leadership and because AGA is completely invested in its success.

Vidyard Video

SAN FRANCISCO – Jay Pasricha, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Neurogastroenterology, in Baltimore, reminisced about the early days of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology in an interview at the AGA Tech Summit. “I was a founder,” he said, “along with Joel Brill and others.”

He goes back to when the idea was first pitched to the AGA Institute Council in 2009 as a technology center. He recalls that the first summit was held in Palo Alto, Calif., and that it was a “terrific success” because it filled a void. Dr. Pasricha said that the CGIT has fulfilled most if not all of its early expectations and – in some cases – went beyond expectations. Importantly, it transformed how people thought about GI as a specialty – GI was considered a risk-averse specialty previously. CGIT helped to develop relationships with many stakeholders, including the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pasricha predicts that CGIT will continue to do well because of its leadership and because AGA is completely invested in its success.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM 2019 AGA TECH SUMMIT

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Quality of life decrement with salvage ASCT is short-lived

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 16:35

 

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.

 

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Make your evaluations and progress notes sing

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 16:15

 

I was talking to a physical therapy (PT) colleague and she was lamenting how much she hated doing documentation on patients she was treating. I suggested to her that she make her evaluations and progress notes sing. This is a concept I would sometimes use with patients who might be depressed, for example, I would ask them if anything made their heart sing to get an idea how “depressed” they might be. If they were unhappy or sad, I would advise that they engage in “heart singing” activities and behaviors, as I believe it is the “simple pleasures” in life that keep us resilient and persistent.

Dr. Carl C. Bell

It is funny, when I was a resident and working in Jackson Park Hospital’s first psychiatric ward in 1972, one day in a note I wrote “I am going to give this acutely psychotic patient the big T – Thorazine to help them get some sleep at night,” I did not really think much about it until one of the nurses brought it to my attention because she thought it was unique – and a funny way of reporting plans in my progress notes.

My PT colleague told me that she remembered the first time she read one of my notes on a patient we were treating together (she needed to know the patient’s psychiatric status before she engaged them in physical therapy), and it struck her that I reported the patient was “befuddled,” and she wondered who would use befuddled in a note (lately, I have started using “flummoxed”). Another time, I was charting on a patient, and I used the word “flapdoodle” to describe the nonsense the patient was spewing (I recall this particular patient told me they graduated from grammar school at 5 years old). Another favorite word of mine that I use to describe nonsense is “claptrap.”

So, I have been making my evaluations and progress notes sing for a very long time, as doing so improves my writing skills, stimulates my thinking, turns the drudgery of charting into some fun, and creates an adventure in writing. This approach and skill has made my charting work easier for me to do – and colleagues actually read my notes.

I have also been a big user of mental status templates to cut down my time. The essential elements of a mental status are in the narrative template, and all I need to do is to edit the verbiage in the template to fit the patient’s presentation so that the mental status sings. Early on, I understood that, to be a good psychiatrist, you needed a good vocabulary so you can speak with as much precision as possible when describing a patient’s mental status.

I was seeing many Alzheimer’s patients at one point. So I developed a special mental status template for them (female and male), so all I had to do to it was cut and paste, and then edit the template to fit the patient like a glove. Template example: This is a xx-year-old female who was appropriately groomed and who was cooperative with the interview, but she could not give much information. She was not hyperactive or lethargic. Her mood was bland, and her affect was flat and bland. Her speech did not contain any relevant information. Thought processes were not evident, although she was awake. I could not get a history of delusions or current auditory or visual hallucinations. Her thought content was nondescript. She was attentive, and her recent and remote memory were poor. Clinical estimate of her intelligence could not be determined. Her judgment and insight were poor. I could not determine whether there was any suicidal or homicidal ideation.

 

 

Formulation: This is a xx-year-old female who has a major neurocognitive disorder (formerly known as dementia). She is not overtly psychotic, suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled, but her level of functioning leaves a lot to be desired, which is why she needs a sheltered living circumstance.

Dx: Major neurocognitive disorder (formerly known as dementia).

Here’s another example: This is a xx-year-old male who was appropriately groomed and who was cooperative with the interview. He was not hyperactive or lethargic. His mood was euthymic and he had a wide range of affect as he was able to smile, get serious, and be sad (about xxx). His speech was relevant, linear, and goal directed. Thought processes did not show any signs of loose associations, tangentiality, or circumstantiality. He denies any delusions or current auditory or visual hallucinations. His thought content was surrounding xxx. He was attentive, and his recent and remote memory were intact. Clinical estimate of his intelligence was xxx average. His judgment and insight were poor as xxx. No report of suicidal or homicidal ideation.

Formulation: xxx. He is not overtly psychotic, suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled so I will clear him for psychiatric discharge.

Dx: xxx.

Just me trying to make work a little easier for myself and everyone else.
 

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

I was talking to a physical therapy (PT) colleague and she was lamenting how much she hated doing documentation on patients she was treating. I suggested to her that she make her evaluations and progress notes sing. This is a concept I would sometimes use with patients who might be depressed, for example, I would ask them if anything made their heart sing to get an idea how “depressed” they might be. If they were unhappy or sad, I would advise that they engage in “heart singing” activities and behaviors, as I believe it is the “simple pleasures” in life that keep us resilient and persistent.

Dr. Carl C. Bell

It is funny, when I was a resident and working in Jackson Park Hospital’s first psychiatric ward in 1972, one day in a note I wrote “I am going to give this acutely psychotic patient the big T – Thorazine to help them get some sleep at night,” I did not really think much about it until one of the nurses brought it to my attention because she thought it was unique – and a funny way of reporting plans in my progress notes.

My PT colleague told me that she remembered the first time she read one of my notes on a patient we were treating together (she needed to know the patient’s psychiatric status before she engaged them in physical therapy), and it struck her that I reported the patient was “befuddled,” and she wondered who would use befuddled in a note (lately, I have started using “flummoxed”). Another time, I was charting on a patient, and I used the word “flapdoodle” to describe the nonsense the patient was spewing (I recall this particular patient told me they graduated from grammar school at 5 years old). Another favorite word of mine that I use to describe nonsense is “claptrap.”

So, I have been making my evaluations and progress notes sing for a very long time, as doing so improves my writing skills, stimulates my thinking, turns the drudgery of charting into some fun, and creates an adventure in writing. This approach and skill has made my charting work easier for me to do – and colleagues actually read my notes.

I have also been a big user of mental status templates to cut down my time. The essential elements of a mental status are in the narrative template, and all I need to do is to edit the verbiage in the template to fit the patient’s presentation so that the mental status sings. Early on, I understood that, to be a good psychiatrist, you needed a good vocabulary so you can speak with as much precision as possible when describing a patient’s mental status.

I was seeing many Alzheimer’s patients at one point. So I developed a special mental status template for them (female and male), so all I had to do to it was cut and paste, and then edit the template to fit the patient like a glove. Template example: This is a xx-year-old female who was appropriately groomed and who was cooperative with the interview, but she could not give much information. She was not hyperactive or lethargic. Her mood was bland, and her affect was flat and bland. Her speech did not contain any relevant information. Thought processes were not evident, although she was awake. I could not get a history of delusions or current auditory or visual hallucinations. Her thought content was nondescript. She was attentive, and her recent and remote memory were poor. Clinical estimate of her intelligence could not be determined. Her judgment and insight were poor. I could not determine whether there was any suicidal or homicidal ideation.

 

 

Formulation: This is a xx-year-old female who has a major neurocognitive disorder (formerly known as dementia). She is not overtly psychotic, suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled, but her level of functioning leaves a lot to be desired, which is why she needs a sheltered living circumstance.

Dx: Major neurocognitive disorder (formerly known as dementia).

Here’s another example: This is a xx-year-old male who was appropriately groomed and who was cooperative with the interview. He was not hyperactive or lethargic. His mood was euthymic and he had a wide range of affect as he was able to smile, get serious, and be sad (about xxx). His speech was relevant, linear, and goal directed. Thought processes did not show any signs of loose associations, tangentiality, or circumstantiality. He denies any delusions or current auditory or visual hallucinations. His thought content was surrounding xxx. He was attentive, and his recent and remote memory were intact. Clinical estimate of his intelligence was xxx average. His judgment and insight were poor as xxx. No report of suicidal or homicidal ideation.

Formulation: xxx. He is not overtly psychotic, suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled so I will clear him for psychiatric discharge.

Dx: xxx.

Just me trying to make work a little easier for myself and everyone else.
 

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago.

 

I was talking to a physical therapy (PT) colleague and she was lamenting how much she hated doing documentation on patients she was treating. I suggested to her that she make her evaluations and progress notes sing. This is a concept I would sometimes use with patients who might be depressed, for example, I would ask them if anything made their heart sing to get an idea how “depressed” they might be. If they were unhappy or sad, I would advise that they engage in “heart singing” activities and behaviors, as I believe it is the “simple pleasures” in life that keep us resilient and persistent.

Dr. Carl C. Bell

It is funny, when I was a resident and working in Jackson Park Hospital’s first psychiatric ward in 1972, one day in a note I wrote “I am going to give this acutely psychotic patient the big T – Thorazine to help them get some sleep at night,” I did not really think much about it until one of the nurses brought it to my attention because she thought it was unique – and a funny way of reporting plans in my progress notes.

My PT colleague told me that she remembered the first time she read one of my notes on a patient we were treating together (she needed to know the patient’s psychiatric status before she engaged them in physical therapy), and it struck her that I reported the patient was “befuddled,” and she wondered who would use befuddled in a note (lately, I have started using “flummoxed”). Another time, I was charting on a patient, and I used the word “flapdoodle” to describe the nonsense the patient was spewing (I recall this particular patient told me they graduated from grammar school at 5 years old). Another favorite word of mine that I use to describe nonsense is “claptrap.”

So, I have been making my evaluations and progress notes sing for a very long time, as doing so improves my writing skills, stimulates my thinking, turns the drudgery of charting into some fun, and creates an adventure in writing. This approach and skill has made my charting work easier for me to do – and colleagues actually read my notes.

I have also been a big user of mental status templates to cut down my time. The essential elements of a mental status are in the narrative template, and all I need to do is to edit the verbiage in the template to fit the patient’s presentation so that the mental status sings. Early on, I understood that, to be a good psychiatrist, you needed a good vocabulary so you can speak with as much precision as possible when describing a patient’s mental status.

I was seeing many Alzheimer’s patients at one point. So I developed a special mental status template for them (female and male), so all I had to do to it was cut and paste, and then edit the template to fit the patient like a glove. Template example: This is a xx-year-old female who was appropriately groomed and who was cooperative with the interview, but she could not give much information. She was not hyperactive or lethargic. Her mood was bland, and her affect was flat and bland. Her speech did not contain any relevant information. Thought processes were not evident, although she was awake. I could not get a history of delusions or current auditory or visual hallucinations. Her thought content was nondescript. She was attentive, and her recent and remote memory were poor. Clinical estimate of her intelligence could not be determined. Her judgment and insight were poor. I could not determine whether there was any suicidal or homicidal ideation.

 

 

Formulation: This is a xx-year-old female who has a major neurocognitive disorder (formerly known as dementia). She is not overtly psychotic, suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled, but her level of functioning leaves a lot to be desired, which is why she needs a sheltered living circumstance.

Dx: Major neurocognitive disorder (formerly known as dementia).

Here’s another example: This is a xx-year-old male who was appropriately groomed and who was cooperative with the interview. He was not hyperactive or lethargic. His mood was euthymic and he had a wide range of affect as he was able to smile, get serious, and be sad (about xxx). His speech was relevant, linear, and goal directed. Thought processes did not show any signs of loose associations, tangentiality, or circumstantiality. He denies any delusions or current auditory or visual hallucinations. His thought content was surrounding xxx. He was attentive, and his recent and remote memory were intact. Clinical estimate of his intelligence was xxx average. His judgment and insight were poor as xxx. No report of suicidal or homicidal ideation.

Formulation: xxx. He is not overtly psychotic, suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled so I will clear him for psychiatric discharge.

Dx: xxx.

Just me trying to make work a little easier for myself and everyone else.
 

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Smartphone interventions benefit schizophrenia patients

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 16:12

Mobile devices viewed as a unique opportunity

 

ORLANDO – Smartphones offer a way to give people with schizophrenia access to immediate medical guidance in times of need and clinicians a convenient way to check in with patients, an expert said at the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.

Dr. Dror Ben-Zeev

Dror Ben-Zeev, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that, despite the many differences in the habits and experiences of people with schizophrenia, there do not appear to be many differences in the way they use mobile technology, compared with the general population.

Even as far back as 2012, when smartphone technology was much less widely adopted, and he and his colleagues conducted a survey of patients in the Chicago area, 63% of schizophrenia patients said they had a mobile device. Ninety percent of them said they used the device to talk, one-third used it for text messaging, and 13% used it to browse the Internet.

More recently, a meta-analysis of 15 studies, published in 2016, found that, among those with psychotic disorders who were surveyed since 2014, 81% owned a mobile device. A majority said they favored using mobile technology for contact with medical services and for supporting self-management (Schizophr Bull. 2016 Mar;42[2]:448-55).

“Do they own phones? Do they use phones? Absolutely, they do,” Dr. Ben-Zeev said. “And in a surprising way, it might be one of the areas where the gap between psychotic illness and the general population is close to nonexistent.”

FOCUS, a smartphone app designed for easy use by patients to allow them to quickly cope with symptoms and to allow clinicians to ask how they’re doing, has helped to improve patient symptoms, Dr. Ben-Zeev said. Patients receive three daily prompts to check in with the app, which offers a chance to report symptoms. It also offers “on-demand” resources 24 hours a day for help with handling voices, social challenges, medications, sleep issues, and mood difficulties.

When patients report hearing voices, for instance, they are asked to describe them in multiple choice fashion, including an option to supply their own description. If a patient reports that, for example, the voices “know everything,” the app asks them to think of a time when the voices were sure something would happen, but it didn’t. The app also offers videos in which therapists give advice to help patients with symptoms.

In a 30-day trial, participants used the FOCUS app an average of five times a day in the previous week, and 63% of the uses were participant initiated rather than app initiated. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores (77.6 vs. 71.5; P less than .001) and depression scores (19.7 vs. 13.9; P less than .01) were both significantly improved after the trial, compared with before (Schizophr Bull. 2014 Nov;40[6]:1244-53).

Meanwhile, a 3-month randomized, controlled trial comparing the FOCUS intervention with Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP), a clinic-based group intervention, had what Dr. Ben-Zeev referred in an interview as “very compelling findings” (Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Sep 1;69[9]:978-85). That study, lead by Dr. Ben-Zeev and his colleagues, found that participants with serious mental illness who were assigned to FOCUS were more likely than those assigned to WRAP to begin treatment (90% vs. 58%) and to remain fully engaged in care over an 8-week period.

Researchers are also exploring the benefits of a program called CrossCheck, in which patients’ use of smartphones relays information that could predict a psychosis relapse (Psychiatr Rehab J. 2017 Sep;40[3]:266-75). For instance, use in the middle of the night indicates sleeping difficulties, and location data could indicate a change in residence. Both are warning signs of a possible impending relapse.

“There is a unique opportunity,” Dr. Ben-Zeev said, “to leverage this status to try to improve what we do.”

Dr. Ben-Zeev also is codirector of the university’s Behavioral Research in Technology and Engineering Center and director of the mHealth for Mental Health Program, a research collaborative that focuses on developing, evaluating, and implementing mobile technologies. Dr. Ben-Zeev has a licensing and consulting agreement with Pear Therapeutics and a consulting agreement with eQuility.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

Mobile devices viewed as a unique opportunity

Mobile devices viewed as a unique opportunity

 

ORLANDO – Smartphones offer a way to give people with schizophrenia access to immediate medical guidance in times of need and clinicians a convenient way to check in with patients, an expert said at the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.

Dr. Dror Ben-Zeev

Dror Ben-Zeev, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that, despite the many differences in the habits and experiences of people with schizophrenia, there do not appear to be many differences in the way they use mobile technology, compared with the general population.

Even as far back as 2012, when smartphone technology was much less widely adopted, and he and his colleagues conducted a survey of patients in the Chicago area, 63% of schizophrenia patients said they had a mobile device. Ninety percent of them said they used the device to talk, one-third used it for text messaging, and 13% used it to browse the Internet.

More recently, a meta-analysis of 15 studies, published in 2016, found that, among those with psychotic disorders who were surveyed since 2014, 81% owned a mobile device. A majority said they favored using mobile technology for contact with medical services and for supporting self-management (Schizophr Bull. 2016 Mar;42[2]:448-55).

“Do they own phones? Do they use phones? Absolutely, they do,” Dr. Ben-Zeev said. “And in a surprising way, it might be one of the areas where the gap between psychotic illness and the general population is close to nonexistent.”

FOCUS, a smartphone app designed for easy use by patients to allow them to quickly cope with symptoms and to allow clinicians to ask how they’re doing, has helped to improve patient symptoms, Dr. Ben-Zeev said. Patients receive three daily prompts to check in with the app, which offers a chance to report symptoms. It also offers “on-demand” resources 24 hours a day for help with handling voices, social challenges, medications, sleep issues, and mood difficulties.

When patients report hearing voices, for instance, they are asked to describe them in multiple choice fashion, including an option to supply their own description. If a patient reports that, for example, the voices “know everything,” the app asks them to think of a time when the voices were sure something would happen, but it didn’t. The app also offers videos in which therapists give advice to help patients with symptoms.

In a 30-day trial, participants used the FOCUS app an average of five times a day in the previous week, and 63% of the uses were participant initiated rather than app initiated. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores (77.6 vs. 71.5; P less than .001) and depression scores (19.7 vs. 13.9; P less than .01) were both significantly improved after the trial, compared with before (Schizophr Bull. 2014 Nov;40[6]:1244-53).

Meanwhile, a 3-month randomized, controlled trial comparing the FOCUS intervention with Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP), a clinic-based group intervention, had what Dr. Ben-Zeev referred in an interview as “very compelling findings” (Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Sep 1;69[9]:978-85). That study, lead by Dr. Ben-Zeev and his colleagues, found that participants with serious mental illness who were assigned to FOCUS were more likely than those assigned to WRAP to begin treatment (90% vs. 58%) and to remain fully engaged in care over an 8-week period.

Researchers are also exploring the benefits of a program called CrossCheck, in which patients’ use of smartphones relays information that could predict a psychosis relapse (Psychiatr Rehab J. 2017 Sep;40[3]:266-75). For instance, use in the middle of the night indicates sleeping difficulties, and location data could indicate a change in residence. Both are warning signs of a possible impending relapse.

“There is a unique opportunity,” Dr. Ben-Zeev said, “to leverage this status to try to improve what we do.”

Dr. Ben-Zeev also is codirector of the university’s Behavioral Research in Technology and Engineering Center and director of the mHealth for Mental Health Program, a research collaborative that focuses on developing, evaluating, and implementing mobile technologies. Dr. Ben-Zeev has a licensing and consulting agreement with Pear Therapeutics and a consulting agreement with eQuility.

 

ORLANDO – Smartphones offer a way to give people with schizophrenia access to immediate medical guidance in times of need and clinicians a convenient way to check in with patients, an expert said at the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.

Dr. Dror Ben-Zeev

Dror Ben-Zeev, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that, despite the many differences in the habits and experiences of people with schizophrenia, there do not appear to be many differences in the way they use mobile technology, compared with the general population.

Even as far back as 2012, when smartphone technology was much less widely adopted, and he and his colleagues conducted a survey of patients in the Chicago area, 63% of schizophrenia patients said they had a mobile device. Ninety percent of them said they used the device to talk, one-third used it for text messaging, and 13% used it to browse the Internet.

More recently, a meta-analysis of 15 studies, published in 2016, found that, among those with psychotic disorders who were surveyed since 2014, 81% owned a mobile device. A majority said they favored using mobile technology for contact with medical services and for supporting self-management (Schizophr Bull. 2016 Mar;42[2]:448-55).

“Do they own phones? Do they use phones? Absolutely, they do,” Dr. Ben-Zeev said. “And in a surprising way, it might be one of the areas where the gap between psychotic illness and the general population is close to nonexistent.”

FOCUS, a smartphone app designed for easy use by patients to allow them to quickly cope with symptoms and to allow clinicians to ask how they’re doing, has helped to improve patient symptoms, Dr. Ben-Zeev said. Patients receive three daily prompts to check in with the app, which offers a chance to report symptoms. It also offers “on-demand” resources 24 hours a day for help with handling voices, social challenges, medications, sleep issues, and mood difficulties.

When patients report hearing voices, for instance, they are asked to describe them in multiple choice fashion, including an option to supply their own description. If a patient reports that, for example, the voices “know everything,” the app asks them to think of a time when the voices were sure something would happen, but it didn’t. The app also offers videos in which therapists give advice to help patients with symptoms.

In a 30-day trial, participants used the FOCUS app an average of five times a day in the previous week, and 63% of the uses were participant initiated rather than app initiated. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores (77.6 vs. 71.5; P less than .001) and depression scores (19.7 vs. 13.9; P less than .01) were both significantly improved after the trial, compared with before (Schizophr Bull. 2014 Nov;40[6]:1244-53).

Meanwhile, a 3-month randomized, controlled trial comparing the FOCUS intervention with Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP), a clinic-based group intervention, had what Dr. Ben-Zeev referred in an interview as “very compelling findings” (Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Sep 1;69[9]:978-85). That study, lead by Dr. Ben-Zeev and his colleagues, found that participants with serious mental illness who were assigned to FOCUS were more likely than those assigned to WRAP to begin treatment (90% vs. 58%) and to remain fully engaged in care over an 8-week period.

Researchers are also exploring the benefits of a program called CrossCheck, in which patients’ use of smartphones relays information that could predict a psychosis relapse (Psychiatr Rehab J. 2017 Sep;40[3]:266-75). For instance, use in the middle of the night indicates sleeping difficulties, and location data could indicate a change in residence. Both are warning signs of a possible impending relapse.

“There is a unique opportunity,” Dr. Ben-Zeev said, “to leverage this status to try to improve what we do.”

Dr. Ben-Zeev also is codirector of the university’s Behavioral Research in Technology and Engineering Center and director of the mHealth for Mental Health Program, a research collaborative that focuses on developing, evaluating, and implementing mobile technologies. Dr. Ben-Zeev has a licensing and consulting agreement with Pear Therapeutics and a consulting agreement with eQuility.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM SIRS 2019

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Blunted cardiac reserve strongly predicts incident hepatorenal syndrome

Study raises questions about role of CV dysfunction, risk of hepatorenal syndrome
Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 14:18

 

– Patients with cirrhosis and undergoing work-up for a possible liver transplant who had low cardiac reserve had a nearly fourfold increased rate of developing hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) during an average 17 months of follow-up, compared with patients with normal cardiac reserve, in a review of 560 Australian patients assessed for a possible liver transplant.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Anoop N. Koshy

The findings suggest that patients with advanced liver disease should routinely undergo assessment for low cardiac reserve, Anoop N. Koshy, MBBS, said at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

“Low cardiac reserve may improve clinical risk prediction algorithms for hepatorenal syndrome, and identify patients who may benefit from intensified surveillance and treatment,” said Dr. Koshy, a cardiologist with Austin Health in Melbourne. “We propose that it’s not low cardiac output that leads to HRS, but an inability of patients to increase their cardiac output” in response to usual stimuli.

The findings also add to the concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis because of the potential of these drugs to further blunt increases in cardiac output; they also suggest that noninvasive measurement of cardiac reserve could identify patients with low cardiac reserve who could benefit from closer monitoring and new approaches to treatment, he suggested. About 10%-30% of patients with cirrhosis develop HRS, and the new finding suggests a noninvasive way to identify patients with the highest risk for this complication.



The study included 560 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease who were awaiting a liver transplant at the Victoria Liver Transplant Unit in Melbourne and underwent assessment by stress echocardiography using low-dose dobutamine (10 mcg/kg per min) during 2010-2017 as part of their standard pretransplant work-up. Exclusion of patients with known cardiac disease prior to their stress echo examination or incomplete measurement left 488 patients, of whom 424 were free from HRS at baseline. Patients with HRS at the time of their stress echo assessment had on average a cardiac output that was about 25% higher than patients without HRS, a statistically significant difference driven by both a significantly increased heart rate and stroke volume.

Among the 424 patients free from HRS at baseline, 85 developed HRS during an average 17-month follow-up. Patients with low cardiac reserve after dobutamine challenge, defined as an increase in cardiac output of less than 25%, had a 3.9-fold increased rate of incident HRS during follow-up, compared with patients who had a larger rise in their cardiac output after adjustment for several clinical and echocardiographic baseline variables, Dr. Koshy reported. In this analysis low cardiac reserve was the strongest predictor of subsequent HRS, he said.

Dr. Koshy had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Koshy AN et al. J Hepatol. 2019 April;70(1):e56.

Body

Cardiovascular abnormalities develop in patients with advanced chronic liver disease to produce a hyperdynamic systemic circulation with splanchnic vasodilation, decreased systemic vascular resistance, and increased cardiac output (J Hepatol. 2018;69[4]:958-60). The term cirrhotic cardiomyopathy has also been used for the changes of systolic dysfunction with impaired cardiac contractile response to stress and altered diastolic relaxation that develops in patients with cirrhosis (J Hepatol. 2010;53[1]:179-90).

Dr. Rowen K. Zetterman

In this study by Dr. Koshy and colleagues, the inability to increase cardiac output during dobutamine stress echo (DSE) was associated with a greater subsequent risk for hepatorenal syndrome (J Hepatol. 2019;70:e56).

All patients in the study were undergoing pretransplant liver evaluation. Those who developed hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) in follow-up had a higher mean cardiac output with a reduction of the increase in cardiac output that follows dobutamine administration when compared with those who did not develop HRS. A multivariate analysis that adjusted for age, gender, MELD score, and Child-Pugh score found that “impaired contractile response was the strongest predictor of hepatorenal syndrome” as defined by a less than 22% increase in cardiac output following dobutamine. Overall, 40% of those with impaired contractile reserve developed hepatorenal syndrome, compared with 25% of those with normal contractile reserve following dobutamine (P = .006). It is of interest that cirrhotic patients with HRS at the time of initial dobutamine stress echo had a 25% higher average cardiac output than those without HRS. Patients who subsequently developed hepatorenal syndrome also had higher average cardiac output at initial evaluation than those who did not.

This study continues to raise important questions about the role of cardiovascular dysfunction and the risk of hepatorenal syndrome. Additional studies seem warranted to evaluate progression of cardiac changes and dobutamine response throughout follow-up of end-stage liver disease patients, including at the development of hepatorenal syndrome. Studies of HRS patients with specific associations such as sepsis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and gastrointestinal bleeding may also provide information on the role of systolic and diastolic dysfunction during such events.

This article also draws attention to “concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis.” Current data indicate that nonselective beta-blockers reduce all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal hemorrhage in patients with advanced liver disease (Hepatology. 2019;69[4]:1657-75). Until we have studies that reveal a clear association between beta-blockers and development of hepatorenal syndrome, I will continue to recommend the use of beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients at risk for first variceal hemorrhage.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, is dean emeritus of the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb. He serves as the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Planning at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. Dr. Zetterman, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist, is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Body

Cardiovascular abnormalities develop in patients with advanced chronic liver disease to produce a hyperdynamic systemic circulation with splanchnic vasodilation, decreased systemic vascular resistance, and increased cardiac output (J Hepatol. 2018;69[4]:958-60). The term cirrhotic cardiomyopathy has also been used for the changes of systolic dysfunction with impaired cardiac contractile response to stress and altered diastolic relaxation that develops in patients with cirrhosis (J Hepatol. 2010;53[1]:179-90).

Dr. Rowen K. Zetterman

In this study by Dr. Koshy and colleagues, the inability to increase cardiac output during dobutamine stress echo (DSE) was associated with a greater subsequent risk for hepatorenal syndrome (J Hepatol. 2019;70:e56).

All patients in the study were undergoing pretransplant liver evaluation. Those who developed hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) in follow-up had a higher mean cardiac output with a reduction of the increase in cardiac output that follows dobutamine administration when compared with those who did not develop HRS. A multivariate analysis that adjusted for age, gender, MELD score, and Child-Pugh score found that “impaired contractile response was the strongest predictor of hepatorenal syndrome” as defined by a less than 22% increase in cardiac output following dobutamine. Overall, 40% of those with impaired contractile reserve developed hepatorenal syndrome, compared with 25% of those with normal contractile reserve following dobutamine (P = .006). It is of interest that cirrhotic patients with HRS at the time of initial dobutamine stress echo had a 25% higher average cardiac output than those without HRS. Patients who subsequently developed hepatorenal syndrome also had higher average cardiac output at initial evaluation than those who did not.

This study continues to raise important questions about the role of cardiovascular dysfunction and the risk of hepatorenal syndrome. Additional studies seem warranted to evaluate progression of cardiac changes and dobutamine response throughout follow-up of end-stage liver disease patients, including at the development of hepatorenal syndrome. Studies of HRS patients with specific associations such as sepsis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and gastrointestinal bleeding may also provide information on the role of systolic and diastolic dysfunction during such events.

This article also draws attention to “concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis.” Current data indicate that nonselective beta-blockers reduce all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal hemorrhage in patients with advanced liver disease (Hepatology. 2019;69[4]:1657-75). Until we have studies that reveal a clear association between beta-blockers and development of hepatorenal syndrome, I will continue to recommend the use of beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients at risk for first variceal hemorrhage.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, is dean emeritus of the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb. He serves as the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Planning at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. Dr. Zetterman, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist, is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Body

Cardiovascular abnormalities develop in patients with advanced chronic liver disease to produce a hyperdynamic systemic circulation with splanchnic vasodilation, decreased systemic vascular resistance, and increased cardiac output (J Hepatol. 2018;69[4]:958-60). The term cirrhotic cardiomyopathy has also been used for the changes of systolic dysfunction with impaired cardiac contractile response to stress and altered diastolic relaxation that develops in patients with cirrhosis (J Hepatol. 2010;53[1]:179-90).

Dr. Rowen K. Zetterman

In this study by Dr. Koshy and colleagues, the inability to increase cardiac output during dobutamine stress echo (DSE) was associated with a greater subsequent risk for hepatorenal syndrome (J Hepatol. 2019;70:e56).

All patients in the study were undergoing pretransplant liver evaluation. Those who developed hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) in follow-up had a higher mean cardiac output with a reduction of the increase in cardiac output that follows dobutamine administration when compared with those who did not develop HRS. A multivariate analysis that adjusted for age, gender, MELD score, and Child-Pugh score found that “impaired contractile response was the strongest predictor of hepatorenal syndrome” as defined by a less than 22% increase in cardiac output following dobutamine. Overall, 40% of those with impaired contractile reserve developed hepatorenal syndrome, compared with 25% of those with normal contractile reserve following dobutamine (P = .006). It is of interest that cirrhotic patients with HRS at the time of initial dobutamine stress echo had a 25% higher average cardiac output than those without HRS. Patients who subsequently developed hepatorenal syndrome also had higher average cardiac output at initial evaluation than those who did not.

This study continues to raise important questions about the role of cardiovascular dysfunction and the risk of hepatorenal syndrome. Additional studies seem warranted to evaluate progression of cardiac changes and dobutamine response throughout follow-up of end-stage liver disease patients, including at the development of hepatorenal syndrome. Studies of HRS patients with specific associations such as sepsis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and gastrointestinal bleeding may also provide information on the role of systolic and diastolic dysfunction during such events.

This article also draws attention to “concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis.” Current data indicate that nonselective beta-blockers reduce all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal hemorrhage in patients with advanced liver disease (Hepatology. 2019;69[4]:1657-75). Until we have studies that reveal a clear association between beta-blockers and development of hepatorenal syndrome, I will continue to recommend the use of beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients at risk for first variceal hemorrhage.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, is dean emeritus of the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb. He serves as the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Planning at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. Dr. Zetterman, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist, is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Title
Study raises questions about role of CV dysfunction, risk of hepatorenal syndrome
Study raises questions about role of CV dysfunction, risk of hepatorenal syndrome

 

– Patients with cirrhosis and undergoing work-up for a possible liver transplant who had low cardiac reserve had a nearly fourfold increased rate of developing hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) during an average 17 months of follow-up, compared with patients with normal cardiac reserve, in a review of 560 Australian patients assessed for a possible liver transplant.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Anoop N. Koshy

The findings suggest that patients with advanced liver disease should routinely undergo assessment for low cardiac reserve, Anoop N. Koshy, MBBS, said at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

“Low cardiac reserve may improve clinical risk prediction algorithms for hepatorenal syndrome, and identify patients who may benefit from intensified surveillance and treatment,” said Dr. Koshy, a cardiologist with Austin Health in Melbourne. “We propose that it’s not low cardiac output that leads to HRS, but an inability of patients to increase their cardiac output” in response to usual stimuli.

The findings also add to the concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis because of the potential of these drugs to further blunt increases in cardiac output; they also suggest that noninvasive measurement of cardiac reserve could identify patients with low cardiac reserve who could benefit from closer monitoring and new approaches to treatment, he suggested. About 10%-30% of patients with cirrhosis develop HRS, and the new finding suggests a noninvasive way to identify patients with the highest risk for this complication.



The study included 560 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease who were awaiting a liver transplant at the Victoria Liver Transplant Unit in Melbourne and underwent assessment by stress echocardiography using low-dose dobutamine (10 mcg/kg per min) during 2010-2017 as part of their standard pretransplant work-up. Exclusion of patients with known cardiac disease prior to their stress echo examination or incomplete measurement left 488 patients, of whom 424 were free from HRS at baseline. Patients with HRS at the time of their stress echo assessment had on average a cardiac output that was about 25% higher than patients without HRS, a statistically significant difference driven by both a significantly increased heart rate and stroke volume.

Among the 424 patients free from HRS at baseline, 85 developed HRS during an average 17-month follow-up. Patients with low cardiac reserve after dobutamine challenge, defined as an increase in cardiac output of less than 25%, had a 3.9-fold increased rate of incident HRS during follow-up, compared with patients who had a larger rise in their cardiac output after adjustment for several clinical and echocardiographic baseline variables, Dr. Koshy reported. In this analysis low cardiac reserve was the strongest predictor of subsequent HRS, he said.

Dr. Koshy had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Koshy AN et al. J Hepatol. 2019 April;70(1):e56.

 

– Patients with cirrhosis and undergoing work-up for a possible liver transplant who had low cardiac reserve had a nearly fourfold increased rate of developing hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) during an average 17 months of follow-up, compared with patients with normal cardiac reserve, in a review of 560 Australian patients assessed for a possible liver transplant.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Anoop N. Koshy

The findings suggest that patients with advanced liver disease should routinely undergo assessment for low cardiac reserve, Anoop N. Koshy, MBBS, said at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

“Low cardiac reserve may improve clinical risk prediction algorithms for hepatorenal syndrome, and identify patients who may benefit from intensified surveillance and treatment,” said Dr. Koshy, a cardiologist with Austin Health in Melbourne. “We propose that it’s not low cardiac output that leads to HRS, but an inability of patients to increase their cardiac output” in response to usual stimuli.

The findings also add to the concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis because of the potential of these drugs to further blunt increases in cardiac output; they also suggest that noninvasive measurement of cardiac reserve could identify patients with low cardiac reserve who could benefit from closer monitoring and new approaches to treatment, he suggested. About 10%-30% of patients with cirrhosis develop HRS, and the new finding suggests a noninvasive way to identify patients with the highest risk for this complication.



The study included 560 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease who were awaiting a liver transplant at the Victoria Liver Transplant Unit in Melbourne and underwent assessment by stress echocardiography using low-dose dobutamine (10 mcg/kg per min) during 2010-2017 as part of their standard pretransplant work-up. Exclusion of patients with known cardiac disease prior to their stress echo examination or incomplete measurement left 488 patients, of whom 424 were free from HRS at baseline. Patients with HRS at the time of their stress echo assessment had on average a cardiac output that was about 25% higher than patients without HRS, a statistically significant difference driven by both a significantly increased heart rate and stroke volume.

Among the 424 patients free from HRS at baseline, 85 developed HRS during an average 17-month follow-up. Patients with low cardiac reserve after dobutamine challenge, defined as an increase in cardiac output of less than 25%, had a 3.9-fold increased rate of incident HRS during follow-up, compared with patients who had a larger rise in their cardiac output after adjustment for several clinical and echocardiographic baseline variables, Dr. Koshy reported. In this analysis low cardiac reserve was the strongest predictor of subsequent HRS, he said.

Dr. Koshy had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Koshy AN et al. J Hepatol. 2019 April;70(1):e56.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ILC 2019

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Are you offering vaccines to adults for these 5 conditions?

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 05/01/2019 - 08:56
Display Headline
Are you offering vaccines to adults for these 5 conditions?

References

1. Grohskopf LA, Sokolow LZ, Broder KR, et al. Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—United States, 2018-19 influenza season. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-20.  
2. Liang JL, Tiwari T, Moro P, et al. Prevention of pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria with vaccines in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-44.
3. Dooling KL, Guo A, Patel M, et al. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for use of herpes zoster vaccines. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67:103-108.
4. Kobayashi M, Bennett NM, Gierke R, et al. Intervals between PCV13 and PPSV23 vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64;944-947.
5. Meites E, Kempe A, Markowitz LE. Use of a 2-dose schedule for human papillomavirus vaccination—updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65:1405-1408.
6. Adult immunization schedule. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html. Reviewed February 5, 2019. Accessed April 23, 2019.

Author and Disclosure Information

Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, is a member of the US Community Preventive Services Task Force, a clinical professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, and a senior lecturer with the University of Arizona College of Public Health. He’s also an assistant editor at The Journal of Family Practice.

Dr. Campos-Outcalt served on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for 9 years—5 years as a liaison for the American Academy of Family Physicians and 4 years as a voting member.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 68(4)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
audio
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, is a member of the US Community Preventive Services Task Force, a clinical professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, and a senior lecturer with the University of Arizona College of Public Health. He’s also an assistant editor at The Journal of Family Practice.

Dr. Campos-Outcalt served on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for 9 years—5 years as a liaison for the American Academy of Family Physicians and 4 years as a voting member.

Author and Disclosure Information

Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA, is a member of the US Community Preventive Services Task Force, a clinical professor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, and a senior lecturer with the University of Arizona College of Public Health. He’s also an assistant editor at The Journal of Family Practice.

Dr. Campos-Outcalt served on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for 9 years—5 years as a liaison for the American Academy of Family Physicians and 4 years as a voting member.

References

1. Grohskopf LA, Sokolow LZ, Broder KR, et al. Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—United States, 2018-19 influenza season. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-20.  
2. Liang JL, Tiwari T, Moro P, et al. Prevention of pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria with vaccines in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-44.
3. Dooling KL, Guo A, Patel M, et al. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for use of herpes zoster vaccines. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67:103-108.
4. Kobayashi M, Bennett NM, Gierke R, et al. Intervals between PCV13 and PPSV23 vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64;944-947.
5. Meites E, Kempe A, Markowitz LE. Use of a 2-dose schedule for human papillomavirus vaccination—updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65:1405-1408.
6. Adult immunization schedule. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html. Reviewed February 5, 2019. Accessed April 23, 2019.

References

1. Grohskopf LA, Sokolow LZ, Broder KR, et al. Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—United States, 2018-19 influenza season. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-20.  
2. Liang JL, Tiwari T, Moro P, et al. Prevention of pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria with vaccines in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-44.
3. Dooling KL, Guo A, Patel M, et al. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for use of herpes zoster vaccines. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67:103-108.
4. Kobayashi M, Bennett NM, Gierke R, et al. Intervals between PCV13 and PPSV23 vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64;944-947.
5. Meites E, Kempe A, Markowitz LE. Use of a 2-dose schedule for human papillomavirus vaccination—updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65:1405-1408.
6. Adult immunization schedule. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html. Reviewed February 5, 2019. Accessed April 23, 2019.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 68(4)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 68(4)
Page Number
audio
Page Number
audio
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Are you offering vaccines to adults for these 5 conditions?
Display Headline
Are you offering vaccines to adults for these 5 conditions?
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
PRACTICE ALERT PODCAST
Gate On Date
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 15:30
Un-Gate On Date
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 15:30
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 15:30
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Gene therapy restored immunity in newly diagnosed SCID-X1

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 06/03/2019 - 11:09

 

For infants with newly diagnosed X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID-X1), lentiviral gene therapy and targeted busulfan conditioning successfully induced multilineage engraftment of transduced cells, researchers reported.

Pogonic/Getty Images

By 3-4 months after infusion, seven of eight patients had normal numbers of CD3+, CD4+, and naive CD4+ T cells; normal counts of natural killer (NK) cells; and vector marking of T cells, B cells, NK cells, myeloid cells, and bone marrow progenitors, Ewelina Mamcarz, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, and her associates reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The eighth infant at first lacked a sufficient T-cell response but responded to a boost of gene-corrected cells without busulfan conditioning.

By 6-12 months after infusion, IgM levels also had normalized in seven of the eight infants and showed polyclonal patterns without clonal dominance, according to the investigators. Among four infants who were able to stop intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, three responded to vaccinations with tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, and pneumococcal polysaccharide. Such restoration of humoral immunity “has not been achieved in previously reported trials of gene therapy for infants with newly diagnosed SCID-X1,” wrote the investigators of this dual-center, phase 1/2 study.

X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency – “bubble boy disease” – is characterized by a lack of T cells, NK cells, and B cells, and is caused by mutations in IL2RG. Some 80% of affected infants have no matched sibling donor for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and transplantation from other donors can produce an inadequate response and graft-versus-host disease. Prior attempts at gene therapy with gamma-retroviral vectors had led to vector-induced leukemia or had failed to induce humoral immunity or normal NK cell production.



“Our new lentiviral vector gene therapy combined with nonmyeloablative busulfan conditioning has been successful in restoring immunity in five patients 7-23 years of age in whom a previous allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for SCID-X1 had failed,” the investigators wrote. “We hypothesized that the combination of this lentiviral vector and low-exposure busulfan administered by means of pharmacokinetic dose targeting would be safe and effective as the primary treatment in infants with newly diagnosed SCID-X1.”

Their protocol included one to two daily intravenous doses of busulfan, targeting a cumulative area under the curve of 22 mg per hr/L. They calculated the first dose by weight and age using a population-based pharmacokinetic model and adjusted the second dose based on first-dose pharmacokinetics.

After a median of 16.4 months, all infants continued to grow normally and cleared previous infections, and there were no unanticipated side effects from bone marrow harvest, busulfan conditioning, or cell infusion.

“It is hoped that durable, complete adaptive immunity will be achieved in the majority of the patients over time,” the researchers wrote.

They continue to follow the patients to assess therapeutic safety, immune durability, and persistence of the transferred gene in hematopoietic and immune cells.

Study funders included the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, the National Institutes of Health, the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, and the Assisi Foundation of Memphis. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital has licensed the gene therapy and partnered with Mustang Bio to develop and commercialize it. Dr. Mamcarz reported receiving grant support from the study funders.

SOURCE: Mamcarz E et al. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:1525-34.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

For infants with newly diagnosed X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID-X1), lentiviral gene therapy and targeted busulfan conditioning successfully induced multilineage engraftment of transduced cells, researchers reported.

Pogonic/Getty Images

By 3-4 months after infusion, seven of eight patients had normal numbers of CD3+, CD4+, and naive CD4+ T cells; normal counts of natural killer (NK) cells; and vector marking of T cells, B cells, NK cells, myeloid cells, and bone marrow progenitors, Ewelina Mamcarz, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, and her associates reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The eighth infant at first lacked a sufficient T-cell response but responded to a boost of gene-corrected cells without busulfan conditioning.

By 6-12 months after infusion, IgM levels also had normalized in seven of the eight infants and showed polyclonal patterns without clonal dominance, according to the investigators. Among four infants who were able to stop intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, three responded to vaccinations with tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, and pneumococcal polysaccharide. Such restoration of humoral immunity “has not been achieved in previously reported trials of gene therapy for infants with newly diagnosed SCID-X1,” wrote the investigators of this dual-center, phase 1/2 study.

X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency – “bubble boy disease” – is characterized by a lack of T cells, NK cells, and B cells, and is caused by mutations in IL2RG. Some 80% of affected infants have no matched sibling donor for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and transplantation from other donors can produce an inadequate response and graft-versus-host disease. Prior attempts at gene therapy with gamma-retroviral vectors had led to vector-induced leukemia or had failed to induce humoral immunity or normal NK cell production.



“Our new lentiviral vector gene therapy combined with nonmyeloablative busulfan conditioning has been successful in restoring immunity in five patients 7-23 years of age in whom a previous allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for SCID-X1 had failed,” the investigators wrote. “We hypothesized that the combination of this lentiviral vector and low-exposure busulfan administered by means of pharmacokinetic dose targeting would be safe and effective as the primary treatment in infants with newly diagnosed SCID-X1.”

Their protocol included one to two daily intravenous doses of busulfan, targeting a cumulative area under the curve of 22 mg per hr/L. They calculated the first dose by weight and age using a population-based pharmacokinetic model and adjusted the second dose based on first-dose pharmacokinetics.

After a median of 16.4 months, all infants continued to grow normally and cleared previous infections, and there were no unanticipated side effects from bone marrow harvest, busulfan conditioning, or cell infusion.

“It is hoped that durable, complete adaptive immunity will be achieved in the majority of the patients over time,” the researchers wrote.

They continue to follow the patients to assess therapeutic safety, immune durability, and persistence of the transferred gene in hematopoietic and immune cells.

Study funders included the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, the National Institutes of Health, the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, and the Assisi Foundation of Memphis. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital has licensed the gene therapy and partnered with Mustang Bio to develop and commercialize it. Dr. Mamcarz reported receiving grant support from the study funders.

SOURCE: Mamcarz E et al. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:1525-34.

 

For infants with newly diagnosed X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID-X1), lentiviral gene therapy and targeted busulfan conditioning successfully induced multilineage engraftment of transduced cells, researchers reported.

Pogonic/Getty Images

By 3-4 months after infusion, seven of eight patients had normal numbers of CD3+, CD4+, and naive CD4+ T cells; normal counts of natural killer (NK) cells; and vector marking of T cells, B cells, NK cells, myeloid cells, and bone marrow progenitors, Ewelina Mamcarz, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, and her associates reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The eighth infant at first lacked a sufficient T-cell response but responded to a boost of gene-corrected cells without busulfan conditioning.

By 6-12 months after infusion, IgM levels also had normalized in seven of the eight infants and showed polyclonal patterns without clonal dominance, according to the investigators. Among four infants who were able to stop intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, three responded to vaccinations with tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, and pneumococcal polysaccharide. Such restoration of humoral immunity “has not been achieved in previously reported trials of gene therapy for infants with newly diagnosed SCID-X1,” wrote the investigators of this dual-center, phase 1/2 study.

X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency – “bubble boy disease” – is characterized by a lack of T cells, NK cells, and B cells, and is caused by mutations in IL2RG. Some 80% of affected infants have no matched sibling donor for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and transplantation from other donors can produce an inadequate response and graft-versus-host disease. Prior attempts at gene therapy with gamma-retroviral vectors had led to vector-induced leukemia or had failed to induce humoral immunity or normal NK cell production.



“Our new lentiviral vector gene therapy combined with nonmyeloablative busulfan conditioning has been successful in restoring immunity in five patients 7-23 years of age in whom a previous allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for SCID-X1 had failed,” the investigators wrote. “We hypothesized that the combination of this lentiviral vector and low-exposure busulfan administered by means of pharmacokinetic dose targeting would be safe and effective as the primary treatment in infants with newly diagnosed SCID-X1.”

Their protocol included one to two daily intravenous doses of busulfan, targeting a cumulative area under the curve of 22 mg per hr/L. They calculated the first dose by weight and age using a population-based pharmacokinetic model and adjusted the second dose based on first-dose pharmacokinetics.

After a median of 16.4 months, all infants continued to grow normally and cleared previous infections, and there were no unanticipated side effects from bone marrow harvest, busulfan conditioning, or cell infusion.

“It is hoped that durable, complete adaptive immunity will be achieved in the majority of the patients over time,” the researchers wrote.

They continue to follow the patients to assess therapeutic safety, immune durability, and persistence of the transferred gene in hematopoietic and immune cells.

Study funders included the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, the National Institutes of Health, the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, and the Assisi Foundation of Memphis. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital has licensed the gene therapy and partnered with Mustang Bio to develop and commercialize it. Dr. Mamcarz reported receiving grant support from the study funders.

SOURCE: Mamcarz E et al. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380:1525-34.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

TMS is associated with improved recollection in older adults

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 15:46

 

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) appears to improve recollection memory in cognitively normal older adults, according to a small pilot study published online ahead of print April 17 in Neurology. Stimulation also increased functional MRI signals associated with recollection throughout the hippocampal-cortical network.

“Disruption and abnormal functioning of the hippocampal-cortical network, the region of the brain involved in memory formation, has been linked to age-related memory decline, so it’s exciting to see that, by targeting this region, magnetic stimulation may help improve memory in older adults,” said Joel L. Voss, PhD, of Northwestern University in Chicago. “These results may help us better understand how this network supports memory.”

Recollection is the type of memory most impaired during normal aging. Other types of memory, such as recognition, are relatively spared. Research indicates that multiple sessions of TMS improve recollection and hippocampal-cortical network function in young adults.

Dr. Voss and colleagues performed a pilot study to evaluate whether TMS could improve recollection in older adults. They enrolled 15 cognitively normal older adults (mean age, 72.46 years) into a sham-controlled, single-blind, counterbalanced experiment. Eleven subjects were women. Participants underwent fMRI while learning objects paired with scenes and locations. Investigators administered TMS to lateral parietal locations that were based on each participant’s fMRI connectivity with the hippocampus. Using a within-subjects crossover design, Dr. Voss’s group assessed participants’ recollection and recognition memory at baseline and 24 hours and also 1 week after five consecutive daily sessions of full-intensity stimulation, compared with low-intensity sham stimulation.

At baseline, participants had impaired recollection, but not impaired recognition, compared with a historical sample of younger adults. At 24 hours, TMS provided robust recollection improvement and weak recognition improvement, compared with sham. TMS improved recollection by 31.1% from baseline, and sham yielded a nonsignificant change of −3.1%. Recollection improvements after TMS were consistent across participants. Recognition changed by a nonsignificant 2.8% following TMS and by a nonsignificant −2.9% following sham.

The investigators also found a significant and consistent increase in fMRI recollection activity for the targeted hippocampal-cortical network, but not for the control frontal-parietal network. They observed no increased fMRI activity for recognition.

“These findings demonstrate a causal link between recollection and the hippocampal-cortical network in older adults,” said Dr. Voss. “While our small study examined age-related memory loss, it did not examine this stimulation in people with memory loss from more serious conditions such as mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease.” Furthermore, the study was designed to test for neural and behavioral target engagement, but not clinical efficacy, he added.

The study’s limitations included its small sample size, its single-site design, and its lack of active control stimulation. Nevertheless, it identified specific and consistent effects of stimulation across participants that were consistent with previous findings in younger adults. “These findings motivate future studies to optimize the effectiveness of noninvasive stimulation for treatment of age-related memory impairment and to improve mechanistic understanding of the hippocampal-cortical networks that support episodic memory across the lifespan,” said Dr. Voss.

The National Institute on Aging, as well as the Northwestern University Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer’s Disease Center, supported the study.

SOURCE: Nilakantan AS et al. Neurology. 2019 Apr 17 doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007502.

Issue
Neurology Reviews-27(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
26, 27
Sections

 

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) appears to improve recollection memory in cognitively normal older adults, according to a small pilot study published online ahead of print April 17 in Neurology. Stimulation also increased functional MRI signals associated with recollection throughout the hippocampal-cortical network.

“Disruption and abnormal functioning of the hippocampal-cortical network, the region of the brain involved in memory formation, has been linked to age-related memory decline, so it’s exciting to see that, by targeting this region, magnetic stimulation may help improve memory in older adults,” said Joel L. Voss, PhD, of Northwestern University in Chicago. “These results may help us better understand how this network supports memory.”

Recollection is the type of memory most impaired during normal aging. Other types of memory, such as recognition, are relatively spared. Research indicates that multiple sessions of TMS improve recollection and hippocampal-cortical network function in young adults.

Dr. Voss and colleagues performed a pilot study to evaluate whether TMS could improve recollection in older adults. They enrolled 15 cognitively normal older adults (mean age, 72.46 years) into a sham-controlled, single-blind, counterbalanced experiment. Eleven subjects were women. Participants underwent fMRI while learning objects paired with scenes and locations. Investigators administered TMS to lateral parietal locations that were based on each participant’s fMRI connectivity with the hippocampus. Using a within-subjects crossover design, Dr. Voss’s group assessed participants’ recollection and recognition memory at baseline and 24 hours and also 1 week after five consecutive daily sessions of full-intensity stimulation, compared with low-intensity sham stimulation.

At baseline, participants had impaired recollection, but not impaired recognition, compared with a historical sample of younger adults. At 24 hours, TMS provided robust recollection improvement and weak recognition improvement, compared with sham. TMS improved recollection by 31.1% from baseline, and sham yielded a nonsignificant change of −3.1%. Recollection improvements after TMS were consistent across participants. Recognition changed by a nonsignificant 2.8% following TMS and by a nonsignificant −2.9% following sham.

The investigators also found a significant and consistent increase in fMRI recollection activity for the targeted hippocampal-cortical network, but not for the control frontal-parietal network. They observed no increased fMRI activity for recognition.

“These findings demonstrate a causal link between recollection and the hippocampal-cortical network in older adults,” said Dr. Voss. “While our small study examined age-related memory loss, it did not examine this stimulation in people with memory loss from more serious conditions such as mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease.” Furthermore, the study was designed to test for neural and behavioral target engagement, but not clinical efficacy, he added.

The study’s limitations included its small sample size, its single-site design, and its lack of active control stimulation. Nevertheless, it identified specific and consistent effects of stimulation across participants that were consistent with previous findings in younger adults. “These findings motivate future studies to optimize the effectiveness of noninvasive stimulation for treatment of age-related memory impairment and to improve mechanistic understanding of the hippocampal-cortical networks that support episodic memory across the lifespan,” said Dr. Voss.

The National Institute on Aging, as well as the Northwestern University Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer’s Disease Center, supported the study.

SOURCE: Nilakantan AS et al. Neurology. 2019 Apr 17 doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007502.

 

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) appears to improve recollection memory in cognitively normal older adults, according to a small pilot study published online ahead of print April 17 in Neurology. Stimulation also increased functional MRI signals associated with recollection throughout the hippocampal-cortical network.

“Disruption and abnormal functioning of the hippocampal-cortical network, the region of the brain involved in memory formation, has been linked to age-related memory decline, so it’s exciting to see that, by targeting this region, magnetic stimulation may help improve memory in older adults,” said Joel L. Voss, PhD, of Northwestern University in Chicago. “These results may help us better understand how this network supports memory.”

Recollection is the type of memory most impaired during normal aging. Other types of memory, such as recognition, are relatively spared. Research indicates that multiple sessions of TMS improve recollection and hippocampal-cortical network function in young adults.

Dr. Voss and colleagues performed a pilot study to evaluate whether TMS could improve recollection in older adults. They enrolled 15 cognitively normal older adults (mean age, 72.46 years) into a sham-controlled, single-blind, counterbalanced experiment. Eleven subjects were women. Participants underwent fMRI while learning objects paired with scenes and locations. Investigators administered TMS to lateral parietal locations that were based on each participant’s fMRI connectivity with the hippocampus. Using a within-subjects crossover design, Dr. Voss’s group assessed participants’ recollection and recognition memory at baseline and 24 hours and also 1 week after five consecutive daily sessions of full-intensity stimulation, compared with low-intensity sham stimulation.

At baseline, participants had impaired recollection, but not impaired recognition, compared with a historical sample of younger adults. At 24 hours, TMS provided robust recollection improvement and weak recognition improvement, compared with sham. TMS improved recollection by 31.1% from baseline, and sham yielded a nonsignificant change of −3.1%. Recollection improvements after TMS were consistent across participants. Recognition changed by a nonsignificant 2.8% following TMS and by a nonsignificant −2.9% following sham.

The investigators also found a significant and consistent increase in fMRI recollection activity for the targeted hippocampal-cortical network, but not for the control frontal-parietal network. They observed no increased fMRI activity for recognition.

“These findings demonstrate a causal link between recollection and the hippocampal-cortical network in older adults,” said Dr. Voss. “While our small study examined age-related memory loss, it did not examine this stimulation in people with memory loss from more serious conditions such as mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease.” Furthermore, the study was designed to test for neural and behavioral target engagement, but not clinical efficacy, he added.

The study’s limitations included its small sample size, its single-site design, and its lack of active control stimulation. Nevertheless, it identified specific and consistent effects of stimulation across participants that were consistent with previous findings in younger adults. “These findings motivate future studies to optimize the effectiveness of noninvasive stimulation for treatment of age-related memory impairment and to improve mechanistic understanding of the hippocampal-cortical networks that support episodic memory across the lifespan,” said Dr. Voss.

The National Institute on Aging, as well as the Northwestern University Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer’s Disease Center, supported the study.

SOURCE: Nilakantan AS et al. Neurology. 2019 Apr 17 doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007502.

Issue
Neurology Reviews-27(6)
Issue
Neurology Reviews-27(6)
Page Number
26, 27
Page Number
26, 27
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM NEUROLOGY

Citation Override
Publish date: April 23, 2019
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

CMS pushing primary care with two new payment models

Dream come true, with some caveats 
Article Type
Changed
Thu, 05/02/2019 - 14:38

 

Medicare officials aim to shift the program’s focus from sickness to wellness with the introduction of two new primary care value-based payment care models.

Wikimedia Commons/WWsgConnect/CC-SA 4.0
Alex M. Azar II

“We’re launching CMS Primary Cares, an initiative of two new payment models that will enroll a quarter or more of traditional Medicare beneficiaries and a quarter of providers in arrangements that pay for keeping patients healthy, rather than ordering procedures,” Alex Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, said April 22 during a press conference.

“Today’s announcement creates innovation in primary care that has the potential to entirely transform our fee-for-service system – which is about 65% of the Medicare program – into one that drives value,” Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said during the press conference.

The voluntary models are an array of “new payment options that are all designed to reward [physicians] for keeping people healthy, improving quality of life and delivering positive health outcomes,” Ms. Verma said. “These models are intended to allow clinicians to focus on patient care, not billing, and to do what they’ve been trained to do.”

One option, the Primary Care First model, is aimed at small and solo primary care practices.

The model will “provide participating practices with a predictable payment stream, including a partial cap and some fee-for-service spend,” Ms. Verma said, adding that payments will be adjusted for performance in reducing hospitalizations.

Seema Verma


Under Primary Care First, practices will receive a flat payment per beneficiary, allowing clinicians to focus more on care than on revenue cycle management, according to CMS. Practices will be able to receive bonuses of up to 50% or penalties of up to 10%, based on performance, as an incentive to reduce costs and improve quality. Performance will be assessed and paid quarterly. Specifics on the per-beneficiary payment were not released.

Participation in Primary Care First is limited to primary care professionals certified in internal medicine, general medicine, geriatric medicine, family medicine, and hospice and palliative medicine. Practices must provide services to at least 125 Medicare beneficiaries and primary care services must account for at least 70% of billing revenue. Practices also must have experience in value-based payments.

There also will be an option for enhanced payment for caring for patients with chronic illnesses.

“When a patient stays healthy and out of the hospital, these practices will get paid a bonus,” Secretary Azar said. “But if the patient ends up sicker than expected, these practices will bear responsibility for the extra spending up to a certain share of their practices’ revenue.”

More information about participating in the Primary Care First model will be available later in the spring of 2019, with the model launching in 2020.

A second option, the Direct Contracting model is “more ambitious and aimed at larger practices,” Mr. Azar said – those that serve at least 5,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

“Just like in Primary Care First, when patients have a better experience and stay healthier, these practices will make more money,” he continued. “But if patients end up sicker, Direct Contracting Practices will bear the risk for the extra health spending, not just at their own practice, but throughout the system.”

Options under the Direct Contracting model are designed for organizations ready to take on full financial risk that have experience managing large populations with accountable care organizations or working with Medicare Advantage plans, Ms. Verma explained.

The Direct Contracting model will start with two options. The Professional population-based payment (PBP) model offers a lower risk-sharing arrangement (50% savings/losses), while the Global PBP offers a 100% savings/losses risk-sharing arrangement.

CMS also is requesting information on a third payment model, the Geographic PBP model, which would have a similar risk-sharing arrangement as the Global PBP, but participants would assume responsibility for the total cost of care for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in a defined region.

This model also will launch in 2020.

The new Medicare primary care options were commended by quarters not always supportive of the current government.

Andy Slavitt, CMS administrator under President Obama, voiced his support for the new models.

“There are several watershed moments in the history of the Medicare program, like the coverage of prescription drugs and the shift to paying for better care,” he tweeted April 22. This announcement is “another one as it eases the connection of Medicare beneficiaries to a primary care physician and gives doctors the freedom, rewards, and tools to keep people healthy.”

He continued: “With this great starting point, even as CMS listens to input, physicians and patient groups should be considering who this helps move ... to a healthier country with a more sustainable system.”

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The American Medical Association also voiced its support.

“Providing adequate financial support for high-quality primary care must be an essential element of any strategy to improve the quality and affordability of our country’s health care system, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, immediate past chair of the AMA Board of Trustees, said in a statement. “Many primary care physicians have been struggling to deliver the care their patients need and to financially sustain their practices under current Medicare payments. The new primary care payment models announced today will provide practices with more resources and more flexibility to deliver the highest-quality care to their patients.”

The American College of Physicians also noted their support of the new models.

“ACP is optimistic that the new models will emphasize the important role primary care plays in value-based care delivery, that models are voluntary and have a range of risk options, and that practices should use population health management data to reap potential benefits, Robert McLean, MD, ACP president, said in a statement. “ACP is supportive of the fact that the new models aim to reduce administrative burdens – potentially allowing physicians to spend more time with their patients.

“The success and viability of these models will depend on the extent that they are supported by payers in addition to Medicare and Medicaid, are adequately adjusted for differences in the risk and health status of patients seen by each practice, are provided predictable and adequate payments to support and sustain practices (especially smaller independent ones), are appropriately scaled for the financial risk expected of a practice, are provided meaningful and timely data to support improvement, and are truly able to reduce administrative tasks and costs, among other things,” he noted.

Body

As a primary care physician, these new payment models proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sound like a dream come true. Professional organizations and advocacy groups seem to unanimously agree this is a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, there are a few caveats for primary care docs wondering how much champagne to pop: These models apply to Medicare and some Medicaid contracts. As with any payment reform, the hope is that, if successful, these precedents set by CMS will be adopted by other payers throughout the market and extend to other patients’ plans. It is unclear how this care will be integrated into practices that serve patients with a large payer mix, though it seems to be a natural progression of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model practices. 

The plans are currently available only in select regions of the United States and in practices that already have the capacity to perform some less traditional care delivery models, which may include home visits, coordination of hospital discharges, telehealth, and group visits.  

Dr. Sarah Candler

The measurement of value-based care will likely rely on checkboxes like hemoglobin A1c targets and prescription of statins for secondary prevention of heart disease - measures we already know may be disproportionately more difficult to achieve in the presence of  unfavorable “Social Determinants of Health.” The plans account for this by allowing for additional benefit payments for practices caring for “Seriously Ill Patients” or those with “Complex Chronic” conditions. However, it looks like these patients need to be proactively identified when the plans are contracted, and it is unclear who is responsible for determining these designations and how.  

Lastly, and most significantly, like the CPC+ models and other similar direct-payment models of care, the practices must agree to carry most - or all - of the financial risk of these patients. Plain and simple, for some, the cost may still be too high. 
 
Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, FACP is a primary care physician in Houston.
 

Publications
Topics
Sections
Body

As a primary care physician, these new payment models proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sound like a dream come true. Professional organizations and advocacy groups seem to unanimously agree this is a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, there are a few caveats for primary care docs wondering how much champagne to pop: These models apply to Medicare and some Medicaid contracts. As with any payment reform, the hope is that, if successful, these precedents set by CMS will be adopted by other payers throughout the market and extend to other patients’ plans. It is unclear how this care will be integrated into practices that serve patients with a large payer mix, though it seems to be a natural progression of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model practices. 

The plans are currently available only in select regions of the United States and in practices that already have the capacity to perform some less traditional care delivery models, which may include home visits, coordination of hospital discharges, telehealth, and group visits.  

Dr. Sarah Candler

The measurement of value-based care will likely rely on checkboxes like hemoglobin A1c targets and prescription of statins for secondary prevention of heart disease - measures we already know may be disproportionately more difficult to achieve in the presence of  unfavorable “Social Determinants of Health.” The plans account for this by allowing for additional benefit payments for practices caring for “Seriously Ill Patients” or those with “Complex Chronic” conditions. However, it looks like these patients need to be proactively identified when the plans are contracted, and it is unclear who is responsible for determining these designations and how.  

Lastly, and most significantly, like the CPC+ models and other similar direct-payment models of care, the practices must agree to carry most - or all - of the financial risk of these patients. Plain and simple, for some, the cost may still be too high. 
 
Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, FACP is a primary care physician in Houston.
 

Body

As a primary care physician, these new payment models proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sound like a dream come true. Professional organizations and advocacy groups seem to unanimously agree this is a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, there are a few caveats for primary care docs wondering how much champagne to pop: These models apply to Medicare and some Medicaid contracts. As with any payment reform, the hope is that, if successful, these precedents set by CMS will be adopted by other payers throughout the market and extend to other patients’ plans. It is unclear how this care will be integrated into practices that serve patients with a large payer mix, though it seems to be a natural progression of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model practices. 

The plans are currently available only in select regions of the United States and in practices that already have the capacity to perform some less traditional care delivery models, which may include home visits, coordination of hospital discharges, telehealth, and group visits.  

Dr. Sarah Candler

The measurement of value-based care will likely rely on checkboxes like hemoglobin A1c targets and prescription of statins for secondary prevention of heart disease - measures we already know may be disproportionately more difficult to achieve in the presence of  unfavorable “Social Determinants of Health.” The plans account for this by allowing for additional benefit payments for practices caring for “Seriously Ill Patients” or those with “Complex Chronic” conditions. However, it looks like these patients need to be proactively identified when the plans are contracted, and it is unclear who is responsible for determining these designations and how.  

Lastly, and most significantly, like the CPC+ models and other similar direct-payment models of care, the practices must agree to carry most - or all - of the financial risk of these patients. Plain and simple, for some, the cost may still be too high. 
 
Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, FACP is a primary care physician in Houston.
 

Title
Dream come true, with some caveats 
Dream come true, with some caveats 

 

Medicare officials aim to shift the program’s focus from sickness to wellness with the introduction of two new primary care value-based payment care models.

Wikimedia Commons/WWsgConnect/CC-SA 4.0
Alex M. Azar II

“We’re launching CMS Primary Cares, an initiative of two new payment models that will enroll a quarter or more of traditional Medicare beneficiaries and a quarter of providers in arrangements that pay for keeping patients healthy, rather than ordering procedures,” Alex Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, said April 22 during a press conference.

“Today’s announcement creates innovation in primary care that has the potential to entirely transform our fee-for-service system – which is about 65% of the Medicare program – into one that drives value,” Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said during the press conference.

The voluntary models are an array of “new payment options that are all designed to reward [physicians] for keeping people healthy, improving quality of life and delivering positive health outcomes,” Ms. Verma said. “These models are intended to allow clinicians to focus on patient care, not billing, and to do what they’ve been trained to do.”

One option, the Primary Care First model, is aimed at small and solo primary care practices.

The model will “provide participating practices with a predictable payment stream, including a partial cap and some fee-for-service spend,” Ms. Verma said, adding that payments will be adjusted for performance in reducing hospitalizations.

Seema Verma


Under Primary Care First, practices will receive a flat payment per beneficiary, allowing clinicians to focus more on care than on revenue cycle management, according to CMS. Practices will be able to receive bonuses of up to 50% or penalties of up to 10%, based on performance, as an incentive to reduce costs and improve quality. Performance will be assessed and paid quarterly. Specifics on the per-beneficiary payment were not released.

Participation in Primary Care First is limited to primary care professionals certified in internal medicine, general medicine, geriatric medicine, family medicine, and hospice and palliative medicine. Practices must provide services to at least 125 Medicare beneficiaries and primary care services must account for at least 70% of billing revenue. Practices also must have experience in value-based payments.

There also will be an option for enhanced payment for caring for patients with chronic illnesses.

“When a patient stays healthy and out of the hospital, these practices will get paid a bonus,” Secretary Azar said. “But if the patient ends up sicker than expected, these practices will bear responsibility for the extra spending up to a certain share of their practices’ revenue.”

More information about participating in the Primary Care First model will be available later in the spring of 2019, with the model launching in 2020.

A second option, the Direct Contracting model is “more ambitious and aimed at larger practices,” Mr. Azar said – those that serve at least 5,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

“Just like in Primary Care First, when patients have a better experience and stay healthier, these practices will make more money,” he continued. “But if patients end up sicker, Direct Contracting Practices will bear the risk for the extra health spending, not just at their own practice, but throughout the system.”

Options under the Direct Contracting model are designed for organizations ready to take on full financial risk that have experience managing large populations with accountable care organizations or working with Medicare Advantage plans, Ms. Verma explained.

The Direct Contracting model will start with two options. The Professional population-based payment (PBP) model offers a lower risk-sharing arrangement (50% savings/losses), while the Global PBP offers a 100% savings/losses risk-sharing arrangement.

CMS also is requesting information on a third payment model, the Geographic PBP model, which would have a similar risk-sharing arrangement as the Global PBP, but participants would assume responsibility for the total cost of care for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in a defined region.

This model also will launch in 2020.

The new Medicare primary care options were commended by quarters not always supportive of the current government.

Andy Slavitt, CMS administrator under President Obama, voiced his support for the new models.

“There are several watershed moments in the history of the Medicare program, like the coverage of prescription drugs and the shift to paying for better care,” he tweeted April 22. This announcement is “another one as it eases the connection of Medicare beneficiaries to a primary care physician and gives doctors the freedom, rewards, and tools to keep people healthy.”

He continued: “With this great starting point, even as CMS listens to input, physicians and patient groups should be considering who this helps move ... to a healthier country with a more sustainable system.”

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The American Medical Association also voiced its support.

“Providing adequate financial support for high-quality primary care must be an essential element of any strategy to improve the quality and affordability of our country’s health care system, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, immediate past chair of the AMA Board of Trustees, said in a statement. “Many primary care physicians have been struggling to deliver the care their patients need and to financially sustain their practices under current Medicare payments. The new primary care payment models announced today will provide practices with more resources and more flexibility to deliver the highest-quality care to their patients.”

The American College of Physicians also noted their support of the new models.

“ACP is optimistic that the new models will emphasize the important role primary care plays in value-based care delivery, that models are voluntary and have a range of risk options, and that practices should use population health management data to reap potential benefits, Robert McLean, MD, ACP president, said in a statement. “ACP is supportive of the fact that the new models aim to reduce administrative burdens – potentially allowing physicians to spend more time with their patients.

“The success and viability of these models will depend on the extent that they are supported by payers in addition to Medicare and Medicaid, are adequately adjusted for differences in the risk and health status of patients seen by each practice, are provided predictable and adequate payments to support and sustain practices (especially smaller independent ones), are appropriately scaled for the financial risk expected of a practice, are provided meaningful and timely data to support improvement, and are truly able to reduce administrative tasks and costs, among other things,” he noted.

 

Medicare officials aim to shift the program’s focus from sickness to wellness with the introduction of two new primary care value-based payment care models.

Wikimedia Commons/WWsgConnect/CC-SA 4.0
Alex M. Azar II

“We’re launching CMS Primary Cares, an initiative of two new payment models that will enroll a quarter or more of traditional Medicare beneficiaries and a quarter of providers in arrangements that pay for keeping patients healthy, rather than ordering procedures,” Alex Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, said April 22 during a press conference.

“Today’s announcement creates innovation in primary care that has the potential to entirely transform our fee-for-service system – which is about 65% of the Medicare program – into one that drives value,” Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said during the press conference.

The voluntary models are an array of “new payment options that are all designed to reward [physicians] for keeping people healthy, improving quality of life and delivering positive health outcomes,” Ms. Verma said. “These models are intended to allow clinicians to focus on patient care, not billing, and to do what they’ve been trained to do.”

One option, the Primary Care First model, is aimed at small and solo primary care practices.

The model will “provide participating practices with a predictable payment stream, including a partial cap and some fee-for-service spend,” Ms. Verma said, adding that payments will be adjusted for performance in reducing hospitalizations.

Seema Verma


Under Primary Care First, practices will receive a flat payment per beneficiary, allowing clinicians to focus more on care than on revenue cycle management, according to CMS. Practices will be able to receive bonuses of up to 50% or penalties of up to 10%, based on performance, as an incentive to reduce costs and improve quality. Performance will be assessed and paid quarterly. Specifics on the per-beneficiary payment were not released.

Participation in Primary Care First is limited to primary care professionals certified in internal medicine, general medicine, geriatric medicine, family medicine, and hospice and palliative medicine. Practices must provide services to at least 125 Medicare beneficiaries and primary care services must account for at least 70% of billing revenue. Practices also must have experience in value-based payments.

There also will be an option for enhanced payment for caring for patients with chronic illnesses.

“When a patient stays healthy and out of the hospital, these practices will get paid a bonus,” Secretary Azar said. “But if the patient ends up sicker than expected, these practices will bear responsibility for the extra spending up to a certain share of their practices’ revenue.”

More information about participating in the Primary Care First model will be available later in the spring of 2019, with the model launching in 2020.

A second option, the Direct Contracting model is “more ambitious and aimed at larger practices,” Mr. Azar said – those that serve at least 5,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

“Just like in Primary Care First, when patients have a better experience and stay healthier, these practices will make more money,” he continued. “But if patients end up sicker, Direct Contracting Practices will bear the risk for the extra health spending, not just at their own practice, but throughout the system.”

Options under the Direct Contracting model are designed for organizations ready to take on full financial risk that have experience managing large populations with accountable care organizations or working with Medicare Advantage plans, Ms. Verma explained.

The Direct Contracting model will start with two options. The Professional population-based payment (PBP) model offers a lower risk-sharing arrangement (50% savings/losses), while the Global PBP offers a 100% savings/losses risk-sharing arrangement.

CMS also is requesting information on a third payment model, the Geographic PBP model, which would have a similar risk-sharing arrangement as the Global PBP, but participants would assume responsibility for the total cost of care for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in a defined region.

This model also will launch in 2020.

The new Medicare primary care options were commended by quarters not always supportive of the current government.

Andy Slavitt, CMS administrator under President Obama, voiced his support for the new models.

“There are several watershed moments in the history of the Medicare program, like the coverage of prescription drugs and the shift to paying for better care,” he tweeted April 22. This announcement is “another one as it eases the connection of Medicare beneficiaries to a primary care physician and gives doctors the freedom, rewards, and tools to keep people healthy.”

He continued: “With this great starting point, even as CMS listens to input, physicians and patient groups should be considering who this helps move ... to a healthier country with a more sustainable system.”

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The American Medical Association also voiced its support.

“Providing adequate financial support for high-quality primary care must be an essential element of any strategy to improve the quality and affordability of our country’s health care system, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, immediate past chair of the AMA Board of Trustees, said in a statement. “Many primary care physicians have been struggling to deliver the care their patients need and to financially sustain their practices under current Medicare payments. The new primary care payment models announced today will provide practices with more resources and more flexibility to deliver the highest-quality care to their patients.”

The American College of Physicians also noted their support of the new models.

“ACP is optimistic that the new models will emphasize the important role primary care plays in value-based care delivery, that models are voluntary and have a range of risk options, and that practices should use population health management data to reap potential benefits, Robert McLean, MD, ACP president, said in a statement. “ACP is supportive of the fact that the new models aim to reduce administrative burdens – potentially allowing physicians to spend more time with their patients.

“The success and viability of these models will depend on the extent that they are supported by payers in addition to Medicare and Medicaid, are adequately adjusted for differences in the risk and health status of patients seen by each practice, are provided predictable and adequate payments to support and sustain practices (especially smaller independent ones), are appropriately scaled for the financial risk expected of a practice, are provided meaningful and timely data to support improvement, and are truly able to reduce administrative tasks and costs, among other things,” he noted.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Alvogen issues recall for mislabeled fentanyl patches

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 04/23/2019 - 16:14

 

Alvogen has issued a voluntary recall of two lots of its Fentanyl Transdermal System 12-mcg/h transdermal patches because of a product mislabeling, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The recall was issued because a small number of cartons labeled as containing 12-mcg/h patches contained 50-mcg/h patches. The 50-mcg/h patches were labeled as such within the package. The cartons were distributed to pharmacies nationwide.

Application of a 50-mcg/h patch instead of a 12-mcg/h patch could result in serious, life-threatening, or fatal respiratory depression. Groups at potential risk for such adverse events include first-time users of the patch, children, and the elderly. No reports of serious adverse events have yet been reported.

“Pharmacies are requested not to dispense any product subject to this recall,” the FDA said in a press release. Patients who “have product subject to this recall should immediately remove any patch currently in use and contact their health care provider. Patients with unused product should return it to point of purchase for replacement.”

Find more information on the recall at the FDA website.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Alvogen has issued a voluntary recall of two lots of its Fentanyl Transdermal System 12-mcg/h transdermal patches because of a product mislabeling, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The recall was issued because a small number of cartons labeled as containing 12-mcg/h patches contained 50-mcg/h patches. The 50-mcg/h patches were labeled as such within the package. The cartons were distributed to pharmacies nationwide.

Application of a 50-mcg/h patch instead of a 12-mcg/h patch could result in serious, life-threatening, or fatal respiratory depression. Groups at potential risk for such adverse events include first-time users of the patch, children, and the elderly. No reports of serious adverse events have yet been reported.

“Pharmacies are requested not to dispense any product subject to this recall,” the FDA said in a press release. Patients who “have product subject to this recall should immediately remove any patch currently in use and contact their health care provider. Patients with unused product should return it to point of purchase for replacement.”

Find more information on the recall at the FDA website.

 

Alvogen has issued a voluntary recall of two lots of its Fentanyl Transdermal System 12-mcg/h transdermal patches because of a product mislabeling, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The recall was issued because a small number of cartons labeled as containing 12-mcg/h patches contained 50-mcg/h patches. The 50-mcg/h patches were labeled as such within the package. The cartons were distributed to pharmacies nationwide.

Application of a 50-mcg/h patch instead of a 12-mcg/h patch could result in serious, life-threatening, or fatal respiratory depression. Groups at potential risk for such adverse events include first-time users of the patch, children, and the elderly. No reports of serious adverse events have yet been reported.

“Pharmacies are requested not to dispense any product subject to this recall,” the FDA said in a press release. Patients who “have product subject to this recall should immediately remove any patch currently in use and contact their health care provider. Patients with unused product should return it to point of purchase for replacement.”

Find more information on the recall at the FDA website.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.