I very much enjoyed your fascinating case report “Xenomelia: Profile of a man with intense desire to amputate a healthy limb” (Current Psychiatry, August 2018, p. 34-36, 41-43) and your hypotheses regarding neurodevelopmental correlates to xenomelia and related disorders such as apotemnophilia and body dysmorphia. However, you comment that because your patient’s desire to have a limb removed began in early childhood, before genital sexual maturation, the condition must be “…independent of sexuality.” This omits Sigmund Freud’s adumbration of infantile sexuality (oral, anal, phallic stages) with the phallic stage of infantile sexuality reaching a period of strong arousal between age 3 and 5, which is at the height of the Oedipus and Electra complexes.

Your patient traced the history of his desire to amputate his leg (as do other individuals with xenomelia) to age 4, when he saw a man with a missing limb, which made a vivid impression on him. As you discuss, this was probably a moment when he had an intensely psychosexual imprinting of this perception. However, the actual memory of the man with the amputation may well have been a screen memory for other more arousing and traumatic experiences that the patient experienced at this early age, such as castration anxiety with or without actual overstimulation of the physical body.

Nathan Szajnberg, MD, and I reported a case of a man who desired that his partner pretend to be an amputee in order to strengthen sexual arousal, an arousal that he recalled having as early as age 5 or 6.¹ The report traced this fetish back to research films of his upbringing, which indicated heightened physical stimulation in very early life.² As we wrote, “The case provides unusual information about the manner in which early childhood events interdigitate with intrapsychic processes and mental structuralisation.” This has led me to wonder if similar mental processes are at work in the current wave of young people who are convinced that they are a different gender than the one indicated by their anatomy.

I very much enjoyed your fascinating case report “Xenomelia: Profile of a man with intense desire to amputate a healthy limb” (Current Psychiatry, August 2018, p. 34-36, 41-43) and your hypotheses regarding neurodevelopmental correlates to xenomelia and related disorders such as apotemnophilia and body dysmorphia. However, you comment that because your patient’s desire to have a limb removed began in early childhood, before genital sexual maturation, the condition must be “…independent of sexuality.” This omits Sigmund Freud’s adumbration of infantile sexuality (oral, anal, phallic stages) with the phallic stage of infantile sexuality reaching a period of strong arousal between age 3 and 5, which is at the height of the Oedipus and Electra complexes.

Your patient traced the history of his desire to amputate his leg (as do other individuals with xenomelia) to age 4, when he saw a man with a missing limb, which made a vivid impression on him. As you discuss, this was probably a moment when he had an intensely psychosexual imprinting of this perception. However, the actual memory of the man with the amputation may well have been a screen memory for other more arousing and traumatic experiences that the patient experienced at this early age, such as castration anxiety with or without actual overstimulation of the physical body.

Nathan Szajnberg, MD, and I reported a case of a man who desired that his partner pretend to be an amputee in order to strengthen sexual arousal, an arousal that he recalled having as early as age 5 or 6.¹ The report traced this fetish back to research films of his upbringing, which indicated heightened physical stimulation in very early life.² As we wrote, “The case provides unusual information about the manner in which early childhood events interdigitate with intrapsychic processes and mental structuralisation.” This has led me to wonder if similar mental processes are at work in the current wave of young people who are convinced that they are a different gender than the one indicated by their anatomy.

I very much enjoyed your fascinating case report “Xenomelia: Profile of a man with intense desire to amputate a healthy limb” (Current Psychiatry, August 2018, p. 34-36, 41-43) and your hypotheses regarding neurodevelopmental correlates to xenomelia and related disorders such as apotemnophilia and body dysmorphia. However, you comment that because your patient’s desire to have a limb removed began in early childhood, before genital sexual maturation, the condition must be “…independent of sexuality.” This omits Sigmund Freud’s adumbration of infantile sexuality (oral, anal, phallic stages) with the phallic stage of infantile sexuality reaching a period of strong arousal between age 3 and 5, which is at the height of the Oedipus and Electra complexes.

Your patient traced the history of his desire to amputate his leg (as do other individuals with xenomelia) to age 4, when he saw a man with a missing limb, which made a vivid impression on him. As you discuss, this was probably a moment when he had an intensely psychosexual imprinting of this perception. However, the actual memory of the man with the amputation may well have been a screen memory for other more arousing and traumatic experiences that the patient experienced at this early age, such as castration anxiety with or without actual overstimulation of the physical body.

Nathan Szajnberg, MD, and I reported a case of a man who desired that his partner pretend to be an amputee in order to strengthen sexual arousal, an arousal that he recalled having as early as age 5 or 6.¹ The report traced this fetish back to research films of his upbringing, which indicated heightened physical stimulation in very early life.² As we wrote, “The case provides unusual information about the manner in which early childhood events interdigitate with intrapsychic processes and mental structuralisation.” This has led me to wonder if similar mental processes are at work in the current wave of young people who are convinced that they are a different gender than the one indicated by their anatomy.

CASE Somnolent, confused, and hungry

Mr. G, age 14, presents to the emergency department (ED) for acute-onset hypersomnia that has gradually worsened over the course of a few days. Mr. G now sleeps most of the day, has altered mental status, and is experiencing emotional dysregulation with no clear etiology. His mother, who accompanies him to the ED, says that prior to the onset of these symptoms her son had been healthy. She notes that he has been eating more than usual, which she assumes is due to a growth spurt.

Mr. G’s symptoms began 4 days ago when he became increasingly fatigued, sleeping for 11 to 12 hours per day, with intermittent episodes of staring and unresponsiveness from which he rapidly returned to baseline. During the next 3 days, he became more confused and somnolent, and began to display bizarre behavior, including eating food out of the trash and attempting to microwave a full metal pot. He exhibited unexplained crying spells, calling out for his “mommy,” and saying he was “afraid I’m dying.”

During the 2 days before he came to our ED, Mr. G was seen at 2 other hospitals. Following extensive imaging and laboratory work-up, clinicians at these facilities attributed his symptoms to intoxication from an unknown substance. Mr. G has a history of marijuana use, and his mother reports that his friends had recently been using synthetic marijuana. However, no intoxicant was identified on urine or gas chromatography drug screening.

Mr. G’s history includes oppositional behavior, and a brief psychiatric hospitalization at age 5 for aggression. He has otherwise been healthy. His family history is significant for maternal substance use and anxiety disorders. In addition to sporadic cannabis use, Mr. G’s social history includes multiple recent family losses, previous foster care placement, and recent declining academic performance.

[polldaddy:10148168]

EVALUATION No red flags

On admission, Mr. G appears somnolent and displays disorganized speech, impulsivity, frequent disorientation, and intermittent agitation/anxiety; he sleeps 16 to 18 hours per day. Mr. G is admitted with a presumptive diagnosis of substance intoxication and transferred to the general pediatric inpatient unit. Upon arrival, he is found to be bradycardic (42 beats per minute), although afebrile with otherwise age-appropriate vitals. On exam, he is somnolent but arousable and follows simple commands.

Continue to: Mr. G undergoes a Monospot test...

Mr. G undergoes a Monospot test, which is positive, with subsequent evidence of a prior, but not active, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection. He also has a mildly elevated CSF protein level, but subsequent CSF labs are negative for both infectious and non-infectious processes. An EEG reveals focal neuronal slowing.

During brief periods of wakefulness, Mr. G calls out to his mother and says, “I’m not going to make it to my birthday,” and “You’re going to have to let me go.” He occasionally becomes combative, pulling at IV lines and swearing at staff. His bradycardia resolves without intervention during his admission. On Day 8 of his hospitalization, Mr. G displays hypersexuality and makes sexually suggestive comments toward female staff members. He also experiences recurrence of hyperphagia.

On Day 10 of his stay on the pediatric unit, because of the emergence of hypersexuality and hyperphagia, along with a largely negative medical evaluation, Mr. G is transferred to the pediatric psychiatric unit for ongoing evaluation and management.

[polldaddy:10148172]

The authors’ observations

Given Mr. G’s rapid onset of confusion, hypersomnia, and emotional dysregulation, our differential diagnosis included delirium of unclear etiology, substance intoxication, autoimmune encephalitis, viral meningitis, heavy metal intoxication, primary psychotic disorder, and KLS. Mr. G underwent an extensive diagnostic evaluation, which was largely unremarkable (Table). He had a mildly elevated CSF protein level, but subsequent CSF labs were negative for both infectious and non-infectious processes. When Mr. G was transferred to the pediatric inpatient psychiatric unit on Day 10, the presumptive diagnosis was KLS.

KLS is a rare neurologic disorder, with an incidence of 1 to 5 in 1 million and a 4:1 male-to-female predominance.¹ It poses a diagnostic challenge due to its low prevalence and broad differential. The disorder typically presents in early adolescence and is characterized by episodes of severe hypersomnia with associated cognitive and/or behavioral disturbance² (Box^2-4). Bradycardia, as seen in Mr. G, and other forms of autonomic dysregulation have been reported in the literature, as has the focal neuronal slowing noted on Mr. G’s EEG.³

[polldaddy:10148174]

Continue to: TREATMENT Methylphenidate and a safety plan

 

 

TREATMENT Methylphenidate and a safety plan

On Day 11 of hospitalization, Mr. G is started on methylphenidate, 10 mg in the morning and 5 mg in the afternoon. After starting methylphenidate, he sustains more regular wakefulness, with improved thought organization, engagement, and fewer disruptive behaviors. He receives infrequent, as-needed doses of olanzapine, and by Day 14, he returns to his baseline behavior and cognition.

A safety plan is created for the family to address worsening symptoms or future episodes. The safety plan is developed with Mr. G and input from his family. It is to be administered in all settings and we particularly emphasized using it in the school setting, where staff may not be familiar with KLS. The safety plan involves a description of KLS, its symptoms, the risks for hypersomnolence, hypersexuality, and psychotic symptoms or behavioral dysregulation. It stresses close supervision of Mr. G, not allowing him to be unsupervised or unchaperoned on school trips or other outings, and lethal means restriction. It outlines a detailed plan if Mr. G’s behavior decompensates or escalates, including a step-wise approach to engaging psychological interventions and mental health resources, and securing crisis services as needed.

On Day 15, he is discharged to home in stable condition with outpatient mental health follow-up and continues to take the prescribed methylphenidate.

The authors’ observations

Management of KLS is primarily supportive. Stimulants may help reduce hypersomnia, impulsivity, and inattention early in the disease course.¹ However, in a systematic review, 89% of patients with KLS who received methylphenidate experienced worsening or no improvement, and 11% showed only partial improvement.² Amantadine was more promising, with 29% of patients with KLS showing partial benefit and 12% showing significant benefit.² Multiple other pharmacologic agents have been described with varying efficacy, including lithium, valproate, risperidone, bupropion, and immunoglobulins.² Furthermore, lithium and valproate have been suggested to be helpful in preventing recurrences in some cases.⁶

The circumstances surrounding Mr. G’s symptom onset are unclear and may have been multifactorial. It is possible that his prior EBV infection was a trigger for this KLS-associated episode, as EBV is a known precipitant for KLS episodes.³ Mr. G’s history of cannabis use may also have served as an early trigger for KLS.³

This case highlights the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration in a diagnostically challenging case. It emphasizes the need for a broad differential and the importance of challenging a previous diagnosis in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. In this case, the patient’s history of irritability, aggression, and cannabis use resulted in multiple clinicians misattributing his symptoms to substance use or a primary psychiatric disorder. However, given his symptom acuity, progression, and the lack of findings on diagnostic evaluation to explain his presentation, these initial diagnoses did not explain the severity, nature, or duration of his symptoms. Keeping KLS in the differential is particularly important for patients with a prior history of psychiatric illness or substance use, because these patients are at higher risk for misattribution of symptoms to pre-existing psychiatric illness. Evolution of symptoms, a negative diagnostic evaluation, and maintaining a broad differential resulted in eventually reaching the final diagnosis of KLS and development of a longitudinal management plan.

While further work must be done to clearly define the pharmacologic approach to acute management of KLS episodes, nonpharmacologic aspects of care must not be neglected. Behavioral planning, adjustment of the environment, engagement with schools/community supports, and family education are valuable tools for facilitating the patient’s de-escalation, avoiding unneeded polypharmacy, reducing anxieties, and safeguarding the patient from unnecessary harm.⁷ Clinicians can support their patients’ transitions back into the community by ensuring careful outpatient follow-up for symptom monitoring and by communicating with patients’ schools and employers.

OUTCOME Asymptomatic; no recurrence of symptoms

Forty-six days after his symptoms began and 31 days after hospital discharge, Mr. G is asymptomatic with no recurrence of symptoms.

Bottom Line

Kleine-Levin syndrome (KLS) is a rare, often-overlooked condition that should be considered in the differential diagnosis for patients who present with hypersomnolence and altered mental status without a clear etiology. Rapid recognition of KLS can prevent misattribution of symptoms, unnecessary treatment, and missed opportunities for care.

CASE Somnolent, confused, and hungry

Mr. G, age 14, presents to the emergency department (ED) for acute-onset hypersomnia that has gradually worsened over the course of a few days. Mr. G now sleeps most of the day, has altered mental status, and is experiencing emotional dysregulation with no clear etiology. His mother, who accompanies him to the ED, says that prior to the onset of these symptoms her son had been healthy. She notes that he has been eating more than usual, which she assumes is due to a growth spurt.

Mr. G’s symptoms began 4 days ago when he became increasingly fatigued, sleeping for 11 to 12 hours per day, with intermittent episodes of staring and unresponsiveness from which he rapidly returned to baseline. During the next 3 days, he became more confused and somnolent, and began to display bizarre behavior, including eating food out of the trash and attempting to microwave a full metal pot. He exhibited unexplained crying spells, calling out for his “mommy,” and saying he was “afraid I’m dying.”

During the 2 days before he came to our ED, Mr. G was seen at 2 other hospitals. Following extensive imaging and laboratory work-up, clinicians at these facilities attributed his symptoms to intoxication from an unknown substance. Mr. G has a history of marijuana use, and his mother reports that his friends had recently been using synthetic marijuana. However, no intoxicant was identified on urine or gas chromatography drug screening.

Mr. G’s history includes oppositional behavior, and a brief psychiatric hospitalization at age 5 for aggression. He has otherwise been healthy. His family history is significant for maternal substance use and anxiety disorders. In addition to sporadic cannabis use, Mr. G’s social history includes multiple recent family losses, previous foster care placement, and recent declining academic performance.

[polldaddy:10148168]

EVALUATION No red flags

On admission, Mr. G appears somnolent and displays disorganized speech, impulsivity, frequent disorientation, and intermittent agitation/anxiety; he sleeps 16 to 18 hours per day. Mr. G is admitted with a presumptive diagnosis of substance intoxication and transferred to the general pediatric inpatient unit. Upon arrival, he is found to be bradycardic (42 beats per minute), although afebrile with otherwise age-appropriate vitals. On exam, he is somnolent but arousable and follows simple commands.

Continue to: Mr. G undergoes a Monospot test...

Mr. G undergoes a Monospot test, which is positive, with subsequent evidence of a prior, but not active, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection. He also has a mildly elevated CSF protein level, but subsequent CSF labs are negative for both infectious and non-infectious processes. An EEG reveals focal neuronal slowing.

During brief periods of wakefulness, Mr. G calls out to his mother and says, “I’m not going to make it to my birthday,” and “You’re going to have to let me go.” He occasionally becomes combative, pulling at IV lines and swearing at staff. His bradycardia resolves without intervention during his admission. On Day 8 of his hospitalization, Mr. G displays hypersexuality and makes sexually suggestive comments toward female staff members. He also experiences recurrence of hyperphagia.

On Day 10 of his stay on the pediatric unit, because of the emergence of hypersexuality and hyperphagia, along with a largely negative medical evaluation, Mr. G is transferred to the pediatric psychiatric unit for ongoing evaluation and management.

[polldaddy:10148172]

The authors’ observations

Given Mr. G’s rapid onset of confusion, hypersomnia, and emotional dysregulation, our differential diagnosis included delirium of unclear etiology, substance intoxication, autoimmune encephalitis, viral meningitis, heavy metal intoxication, primary psychotic disorder, and KLS. Mr. G underwent an extensive diagnostic evaluation, which was largely unremarkable (Table). He had a mildly elevated CSF protein level, but subsequent CSF labs were negative for both infectious and non-infectious processes. When Mr. G was transferred to the pediatric inpatient psychiatric unit on Day 10, the presumptive diagnosis was KLS.

KLS is a rare neurologic disorder, with an incidence of 1 to 5 in 1 million and a 4:1 male-to-female predominance.¹ It poses a diagnostic challenge due to its low prevalence and broad differential. The disorder typically presents in early adolescence and is characterized by episodes of severe hypersomnia with associated cognitive and/or behavioral disturbance² (Box^2-4). Bradycardia, as seen in Mr. G, and other forms of autonomic dysregulation have been reported in the literature, as has the focal neuronal slowing noted on Mr. G’s EEG.³

[polldaddy:10148174]

Continue to: TREATMENT Methylphenidate and a safety plan

 

 

TREATMENT Methylphenidate and a safety plan

On Day 11 of hospitalization, Mr. G is started on methylphenidate, 10 mg in the morning and 5 mg in the afternoon. After starting methylphenidate, he sustains more regular wakefulness, with improved thought organization, engagement, and fewer disruptive behaviors. He receives infrequent, as-needed doses of olanzapine, and by Day 14, he returns to his baseline behavior and cognition.

A safety plan is created for the family to address worsening symptoms or future episodes. The safety plan is developed with Mr. G and input from his family. It is to be administered in all settings and we particularly emphasized using it in the school setting, where staff may not be familiar with KLS. The safety plan involves a description of KLS, its symptoms, the risks for hypersomnolence, hypersexuality, and psychotic symptoms or behavioral dysregulation. It stresses close supervision of Mr. G, not allowing him to be unsupervised or unchaperoned on school trips or other outings, and lethal means restriction. It outlines a detailed plan if Mr. G’s behavior decompensates or escalates, including a step-wise approach to engaging psychological interventions and mental health resources, and securing crisis services as needed.

On Day 15, he is discharged to home in stable condition with outpatient mental health follow-up and continues to take the prescribed methylphenidate.

The authors’ observations

Management of KLS is primarily supportive. Stimulants may help reduce hypersomnia, impulsivity, and inattention early in the disease course.¹ However, in a systematic review, 89% of patients with KLS who received methylphenidate experienced worsening or no improvement, and 11% showed only partial improvement.² Amantadine was more promising, with 29% of patients with KLS showing partial benefit and 12% showing significant benefit.² Multiple other pharmacologic agents have been described with varying efficacy, including lithium, valproate, risperidone, bupropion, and immunoglobulins.² Furthermore, lithium and valproate have been suggested to be helpful in preventing recurrences in some cases.⁶

The circumstances surrounding Mr. G’s symptom onset are unclear and may have been multifactorial. It is possible that his prior EBV infection was a trigger for this KLS-associated episode, as EBV is a known precipitant for KLS episodes.³ Mr. G’s history of cannabis use may also have served as an early trigger for KLS.³

This case highlights the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration in a diagnostically challenging case. It emphasizes the need for a broad differential and the importance of challenging a previous diagnosis in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. In this case, the patient’s history of irritability, aggression, and cannabis use resulted in multiple clinicians misattributing his symptoms to substance use or a primary psychiatric disorder. However, given his symptom acuity, progression, and the lack of findings on diagnostic evaluation to explain his presentation, these initial diagnoses did not explain the severity, nature, or duration of his symptoms. Keeping KLS in the differential is particularly important for patients with a prior history of psychiatric illness or substance use, because these patients are at higher risk for misattribution of symptoms to pre-existing psychiatric illness. Evolution of symptoms, a negative diagnostic evaluation, and maintaining a broad differential resulted in eventually reaching the final diagnosis of KLS and development of a longitudinal management plan.

While further work must be done to clearly define the pharmacologic approach to acute management of KLS episodes, nonpharmacologic aspects of care must not be neglected. Behavioral planning, adjustment of the environment, engagement with schools/community supports, and family education are valuable tools for facilitating the patient’s de-escalation, avoiding unneeded polypharmacy, reducing anxieties, and safeguarding the patient from unnecessary harm.⁷ Clinicians can support their patients’ transitions back into the community by ensuring careful outpatient follow-up for symptom monitoring and by communicating with patients’ schools and employers.

OUTCOME Asymptomatic; no recurrence of symptoms

Forty-six days after his symptoms began and 31 days after hospital discharge, Mr. G is asymptomatic with no recurrence of symptoms.

Bottom Line

Kleine-Levin syndrome (KLS) is a rare, often-overlooked condition that should be considered in the differential diagnosis for patients who present with hypersomnolence and altered mental status without a clear etiology. Rapid recognition of KLS can prevent misattribution of symptoms, unnecessary treatment, and missed opportunities for care.

CASE Somnolent, confused, and hungry

Mr. G, age 14, presents to the emergency department (ED) for acute-onset hypersomnia that has gradually worsened over the course of a few days. Mr. G now sleeps most of the day, has altered mental status, and is experiencing emotional dysregulation with no clear etiology. His mother, who accompanies him to the ED, says that prior to the onset of these symptoms her son had been healthy. She notes that he has been eating more than usual, which she assumes is due to a growth spurt.

Mr. G’s symptoms began 4 days ago when he became increasingly fatigued, sleeping for 11 to 12 hours per day, with intermittent episodes of staring and unresponsiveness from which he rapidly returned to baseline. During the next 3 days, he became more confused and somnolent, and began to display bizarre behavior, including eating food out of the trash and attempting to microwave a full metal pot. He exhibited unexplained crying spells, calling out for his “mommy,” and saying he was “afraid I’m dying.”

During the 2 days before he came to our ED, Mr. G was seen at 2 other hospitals. Following extensive imaging and laboratory work-up, clinicians at these facilities attributed his symptoms to intoxication from an unknown substance. Mr. G has a history of marijuana use, and his mother reports that his friends had recently been using synthetic marijuana. However, no intoxicant was identified on urine or gas chromatography drug screening.

Mr. G’s history includes oppositional behavior, and a brief psychiatric hospitalization at age 5 for aggression. He has otherwise been healthy. His family history is significant for maternal substance use and anxiety disorders. In addition to sporadic cannabis use, Mr. G’s social history includes multiple recent family losses, previous foster care placement, and recent declining academic performance.

[polldaddy:10148168]

EVALUATION No red flags

On admission, Mr. G appears somnolent and displays disorganized speech, impulsivity, frequent disorientation, and intermittent agitation/anxiety; he sleeps 16 to 18 hours per day. Mr. G is admitted with a presumptive diagnosis of substance intoxication and transferred to the general pediatric inpatient unit. Upon arrival, he is found to be bradycardic (42 beats per minute), although afebrile with otherwise age-appropriate vitals. On exam, he is somnolent but arousable and follows simple commands.

Continue to: Mr. G undergoes a Monospot test...

Mr. G undergoes a Monospot test, which is positive, with subsequent evidence of a prior, but not active, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection. He also has a mildly elevated CSF protein level, but subsequent CSF labs are negative for both infectious and non-infectious processes. An EEG reveals focal neuronal slowing.

During brief periods of wakefulness, Mr. G calls out to his mother and says, “I’m not going to make it to my birthday,” and “You’re going to have to let me go.” He occasionally becomes combative, pulling at IV lines and swearing at staff. His bradycardia resolves without intervention during his admission. On Day 8 of his hospitalization, Mr. G displays hypersexuality and makes sexually suggestive comments toward female staff members. He also experiences recurrence of hyperphagia.

On Day 10 of his stay on the pediatric unit, because of the emergence of hypersexuality and hyperphagia, along with a largely negative medical evaluation, Mr. G is transferred to the pediatric psychiatric unit for ongoing evaluation and management.

[polldaddy:10148172]

The authors’ observations

Given Mr. G’s rapid onset of confusion, hypersomnia, and emotional dysregulation, our differential diagnosis included delirium of unclear etiology, substance intoxication, autoimmune encephalitis, viral meningitis, heavy metal intoxication, primary psychotic disorder, and KLS. Mr. G underwent an extensive diagnostic evaluation, which was largely unremarkable (Table). He had a mildly elevated CSF protein level, but subsequent CSF labs were negative for both infectious and non-infectious processes. When Mr. G was transferred to the pediatric inpatient psychiatric unit on Day 10, the presumptive diagnosis was KLS.

KLS is a rare neurologic disorder, with an incidence of 1 to 5 in 1 million and a 4:1 male-to-female predominance.¹ It poses a diagnostic challenge due to its low prevalence and broad differential. The disorder typically presents in early adolescence and is characterized by episodes of severe hypersomnia with associated cognitive and/or behavioral disturbance² (Box^2-4). Bradycardia, as seen in Mr. G, and other forms of autonomic dysregulation have been reported in the literature, as has the focal neuronal slowing noted on Mr. G’s EEG.³

[polldaddy:10148174]

Continue to: TREATMENT Methylphenidate and a safety plan

 

 

TREATMENT Methylphenidate and a safety plan

On Day 11 of hospitalization, Mr. G is started on methylphenidate, 10 mg in the morning and 5 mg in the afternoon. After starting methylphenidate, he sustains more regular wakefulness, with improved thought organization, engagement, and fewer disruptive behaviors. He receives infrequent, as-needed doses of olanzapine, and by Day 14, he returns to his baseline behavior and cognition.

A safety plan is created for the family to address worsening symptoms or future episodes. The safety plan is developed with Mr. G and input from his family. It is to be administered in all settings and we particularly emphasized using it in the school setting, where staff may not be familiar with KLS. The safety plan involves a description of KLS, its symptoms, the risks for hypersomnolence, hypersexuality, and psychotic symptoms or behavioral dysregulation. It stresses close supervision of Mr. G, not allowing him to be unsupervised or unchaperoned on school trips or other outings, and lethal means restriction. It outlines a detailed plan if Mr. G’s behavior decompensates or escalates, including a step-wise approach to engaging psychological interventions and mental health resources, and securing crisis services as needed.

On Day 15, he is discharged to home in stable condition with outpatient mental health follow-up and continues to take the prescribed methylphenidate.

The authors’ observations

Management of KLS is primarily supportive. Stimulants may help reduce hypersomnia, impulsivity, and inattention early in the disease course.¹ However, in a systematic review, 89% of patients with KLS who received methylphenidate experienced worsening or no improvement, and 11% showed only partial improvement.² Amantadine was more promising, with 29% of patients with KLS showing partial benefit and 12% showing significant benefit.² Multiple other pharmacologic agents have been described with varying efficacy, including lithium, valproate, risperidone, bupropion, and immunoglobulins.² Furthermore, lithium and valproate have been suggested to be helpful in preventing recurrences in some cases.⁶

The circumstances surrounding Mr. G’s symptom onset are unclear and may have been multifactorial. It is possible that his prior EBV infection was a trigger for this KLS-associated episode, as EBV is a known precipitant for KLS episodes.³ Mr. G’s history of cannabis use may also have served as an early trigger for KLS.³

This case highlights the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration in a diagnostically challenging case. It emphasizes the need for a broad differential and the importance of challenging a previous diagnosis in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. In this case, the patient’s history of irritability, aggression, and cannabis use resulted in multiple clinicians misattributing his symptoms to substance use or a primary psychiatric disorder. However, given his symptom acuity, progression, and the lack of findings on diagnostic evaluation to explain his presentation, these initial diagnoses did not explain the severity, nature, or duration of his symptoms. Keeping KLS in the differential is particularly important for patients with a prior history of psychiatric illness or substance use, because these patients are at higher risk for misattribution of symptoms to pre-existing psychiatric illness. Evolution of symptoms, a negative diagnostic evaluation, and maintaining a broad differential resulted in eventually reaching the final diagnosis of KLS and development of a longitudinal management plan.

While further work must be done to clearly define the pharmacologic approach to acute management of KLS episodes, nonpharmacologic aspects of care must not be neglected. Behavioral planning, adjustment of the environment, engagement with schools/community supports, and family education are valuable tools for facilitating the patient’s de-escalation, avoiding unneeded polypharmacy, reducing anxieties, and safeguarding the patient from unnecessary harm.⁷ Clinicians can support their patients’ transitions back into the community by ensuring careful outpatient follow-up for symptom monitoring and by communicating with patients’ schools and employers.

OUTCOME Asymptomatic; no recurrence of symptoms

Forty-six days after his symptoms began and 31 days after hospital discharge, Mr. G is asymptomatic with no recurrence of symptoms.

Bottom Line

Kleine-Levin syndrome (KLS) is a rare, often-overlooked condition that should be considered in the differential diagnosis for patients who present with hypersomnolence and altered mental status without a clear etiology. Rapid recognition of KLS can prevent misattribution of symptoms, unnecessary treatment, and missed opportunities for care.

Clinical errors are common during shift changes in a hospital setting.^1-3 Clinicians on the outgoing shift may forget to communicate important details, such as medication dosages, critical laboratory orders, or other interventions, to the clinicians in the next shift. To help myself formally structure the sign-out process for each patient during a shift change in a psychiatric emergency room, I came up with the acronym COMPRESS for key questions to ask the outgoing provider:

Communicate. Did you communicate with this patient in any way at any time during your shift?

Orders. Did you write any orders for this patient? If not, had another clinician already written orders for this patient?

Medications. Did you review and reconcile the medication list for this patient? If not, had another clinician already reviewed and reconciled the medication list for this patient?

PRogrESs. Did you write a progress note for this patient? If not, had the attending clinician written a progress note for this patient within the last 24 hours?

Sign. Did you sign all of your orders and progress notes for this patient?

In my experience in the psychiatric emergency room, COMPRESS has helped me efficiently structure the outgoing clinicians’ reports about my patients by having them provide vital clinical sign-out information before they leave. I hope that other clinicians working in this setting also find these questions useful.

Clinical errors are common during shift changes in a hospital setting.^1-3 Clinicians on the outgoing shift may forget to communicate important details, such as medication dosages, critical laboratory orders, or other interventions, to the clinicians in the next shift. To help myself formally structure the sign-out process for each patient during a shift change in a psychiatric emergency room, I came up with the acronym COMPRESS for key questions to ask the outgoing provider:

Communicate. Did you communicate with this patient in any way at any time during your shift?

Orders. Did you write any orders for this patient? If not, had another clinician already written orders for this patient?

Medications. Did you review and reconcile the medication list for this patient? If not, had another clinician already reviewed and reconciled the medication list for this patient?

PRogrESs. Did you write a progress note for this patient? If not, had the attending clinician written a progress note for this patient within the last 24 hours?

Sign. Did you sign all of your orders and progress notes for this patient?

In my experience in the psychiatric emergency room, COMPRESS has helped me efficiently structure the outgoing clinicians’ reports about my patients by having them provide vital clinical sign-out information before they leave. I hope that other clinicians working in this setting also find these questions useful.

Clinical errors are common during shift changes in a hospital setting.^1-3 Clinicians on the outgoing shift may forget to communicate important details, such as medication dosages, critical laboratory orders, or other interventions, to the clinicians in the next shift. To help myself formally structure the sign-out process for each patient during a shift change in a psychiatric emergency room, I came up with the acronym COMPRESS for key questions to ask the outgoing provider:

Communicate. Did you communicate with this patient in any way at any time during your shift?

Orders. Did you write any orders for this patient? If not, had another clinician already written orders for this patient?

Medications. Did you review and reconcile the medication list for this patient? If not, had another clinician already reviewed and reconciled the medication list for this patient?

PRogrESs. Did you write a progress note for this patient? If not, had the attending clinician written a progress note for this patient within the last 24 hours?

Sign. Did you sign all of your orders and progress notes for this patient?

In my experience in the psychiatric emergency room, COMPRESS has helped me efficiently structure the outgoing clinicians’ reports about my patients by having them provide vital clinical sign-out information before they leave. I hope that other clinicians working in this setting also find these questions useful.

The rate of burnout among physicians is disturbingly high, and wellness promotion is needed at all levels of training. While rigorous clinical training is necessary to build competence for making life-or-death decisions, training should not cause an indifference toward life or death. Because many physicians experience burnout during residency, we all must commit to wellness, which directly leads to healthier professionals and improved patient care.

Ey et al¹ evaluated the feasibility and application of a wellness program for residents/fellows and faculty in an academic health center over 10 years. They concluded that a comprehensive model of care was viable and well-valued, based on high levels of physician satisfaction with the program. This model, which involves educational outreach, direct care, and consultation, inspired me to reflect on the resident burnout prevention strategies employed by the residency program in which I am currently training.

Even in situations where a formal wellness program does not exist, measures that promote resident well-being can be embedded and easily adapted:

• Education on recognizing the early signs of burnout or establishing a “buddy system” can promote a help-seeking culture and ease the transition into residency.
• Faculty who provide feedback in the “sandwich method” (praise followed by corrective feedback followed by more praise) can help promote self-confidence among residents.
• Process groups and monthly meetings with chief residents present opportunities for professional development and for residents to express concerns.
• Social gatherings that encourage team building and regular interaction among residents, attendings, and family members help build a comforting sense of community.
• A residency program director and faculty who adopt open-door policies and foster personal attention and guidance are also essential.

A recent cross-sectional analysis found that building competence, autonomy, coping mechanisms, adequate sleep, and social relatedness were associated with resident well-being.² Hence, these factors should be integrated within residency training programs.

Residency should be approached as an engagement between colleagues where autonomy and confidence are promoted while residents acquire clinical skills within a wellness-promoting, learning environment. Demanding schedules may limit access to a dedicated wellness program; however, it is essential that a system be established to quickly identify and mitigate burnout. We all strive to be the best in our respective fields, and we must re-evaluate how we achieve excellent training while developing proper skills for future success. As physicians, we are not machines; our humanity connects us with our patients, explains life-changing news, or consoles the bereaved when there is loss of life. We must embrace our humanity and be mindful that physicians experiencing burnout cannot deliver high-quality care. Early detection and prevention strategies during residency training are key.

The rate of burnout among physicians is disturbingly high, and wellness promotion is needed at all levels of training. While rigorous clinical training is necessary to build competence for making life-or-death decisions, training should not cause an indifference toward life or death. Because many physicians experience burnout during residency, we all must commit to wellness, which directly leads to healthier professionals and improved patient care.

Ey et al¹ evaluated the feasibility and application of a wellness program for residents/fellows and faculty in an academic health center over 10 years. They concluded that a comprehensive model of care was viable and well-valued, based on high levels of physician satisfaction with the program. This model, which involves educational outreach, direct care, and consultation, inspired me to reflect on the resident burnout prevention strategies employed by the residency program in which I am currently training.

Even in situations where a formal wellness program does not exist, measures that promote resident well-being can be embedded and easily adapted:

• Education on recognizing the early signs of burnout or establishing a “buddy system” can promote a help-seeking culture and ease the transition into residency.
• Faculty who provide feedback in the “sandwich method” (praise followed by corrective feedback followed by more praise) can help promote self-confidence among residents.
• Process groups and monthly meetings with chief residents present opportunities for professional development and for residents to express concerns.
• Social gatherings that encourage team building and regular interaction among residents, attendings, and family members help build a comforting sense of community.
• A residency program director and faculty who adopt open-door policies and foster personal attention and guidance are also essential.

A recent cross-sectional analysis found that building competence, autonomy, coping mechanisms, adequate sleep, and social relatedness were associated with resident well-being.² Hence, these factors should be integrated within residency training programs.

Residency should be approached as an engagement between colleagues where autonomy and confidence are promoted while residents acquire clinical skills within a wellness-promoting, learning environment. Demanding schedules may limit access to a dedicated wellness program; however, it is essential that a system be established to quickly identify and mitigate burnout. We all strive to be the best in our respective fields, and we must re-evaluate how we achieve excellent training while developing proper skills for future success. As physicians, we are not machines; our humanity connects us with our patients, explains life-changing news, or consoles the bereaved when there is loss of life. We must embrace our humanity and be mindful that physicians experiencing burnout cannot deliver high-quality care. Early detection and prevention strategies during residency training are key.

The rate of burnout among physicians is disturbingly high, and wellness promotion is needed at all levels of training. While rigorous clinical training is necessary to build competence for making life-or-death decisions, training should not cause an indifference toward life or death. Because many physicians experience burnout during residency, we all must commit to wellness, which directly leads to healthier professionals and improved patient care.

Ey et al¹ evaluated the feasibility and application of a wellness program for residents/fellows and faculty in an academic health center over 10 years. They concluded that a comprehensive model of care was viable and well-valued, based on high levels of physician satisfaction with the program. This model, which involves educational outreach, direct care, and consultation, inspired me to reflect on the resident burnout prevention strategies employed by the residency program in which I am currently training.

Even in situations where a formal wellness program does not exist, measures that promote resident well-being can be embedded and easily adapted:

• Education on recognizing the early signs of burnout or establishing a “buddy system” can promote a help-seeking culture and ease the transition into residency.
• Faculty who provide feedback in the “sandwich method” (praise followed by corrective feedback followed by more praise) can help promote self-confidence among residents.
• Process groups and monthly meetings with chief residents present opportunities for professional development and for residents to express concerns.
• Social gatherings that encourage team building and regular interaction among residents, attendings, and family members help build a comforting sense of community.
• A residency program director and faculty who adopt open-door policies and foster personal attention and guidance are also essential.

A recent cross-sectional analysis found that building competence, autonomy, coping mechanisms, adequate sleep, and social relatedness were associated with resident well-being.² Hence, these factors should be integrated within residency training programs.

Residency should be approached as an engagement between colleagues where autonomy and confidence are promoted while residents acquire clinical skills within a wellness-promoting, learning environment. Demanding schedules may limit access to a dedicated wellness program; however, it is essential that a system be established to quickly identify and mitigate burnout. We all strive to be the best in our respective fields, and we must re-evaluate how we achieve excellent training while developing proper skills for future success. As physicians, we are not machines; our humanity connects us with our patients, explains life-changing news, or consoles the bereaved when there is loss of life. We must embrace our humanity and be mindful that physicians experiencing burnout cannot deliver high-quality care. Early detection and prevention strategies during residency training are key.

Searching for someone on the Internet and viewing his or her social media profile is an effective way to obtain information about people, including patients. Following our patients’ “digital footprint” may help us understand the context of their lives, reconcile discrepancies in what they have told us, or allow us to confront denial and address incomplete reporting.¹ However, perusing our patients’ online profiles could negatively impact treatment and adherence. Consider these factors before looking up your patients’ online profiles^1-3:

Inaccurate information. Information on the Internet, especially what you can find on user-generated forums, is largely unregulated; as a result, the veracity of that information cannot be guaranteed.¹ Patients may choose to portray themselves inaccurately on their online profiles, and their identities often cannot be confirmed. Even if some information is accurate, you might discover things that you did not expect to learn about your patients, including important information that they did not share, or even something they lied about. This can create the conundrums of what to do with such information and how to discuss it at the next visit.

Impact on treatment. Despite patients’ online activities being displayed for the world to see, many patients do not expect their clinicians to access their online information. They might perceive such perusal as a breach of trust, which might lead some to view the doctor–patient relationship as adversarial. Accessing this information also could create a more intimate relationship than intended. Even if a clinician acquires consent to perform a search, patients may still feel coerced into allowing it because they might feel that declining to grant permission would make the clinician suspect that they have something to hide, or that the clinician would search without consent.²

In addition, if patients are aware that their psychiatrists are monitoring them, they might change their behavior. For example, they may delete certain data, add additional information that may not be accurate, or censor future social media posts. Knowing that their clinicians could be paying attention to them around the clock also might motivate certain patients to act out more or become withdrawn.

Possible medicolegal repercussions. If clinicians are able to access their patients’ electronic profiles, are they then legally obligated to monitor them? For example, if a patient who posts a picture with a noose around his neck later completes suicide, does the clinician who intermittently monitored this patient’s online profile face legal ramifications for not seeing the post? Do clinicians have to call 911 for vaguely suicidal tweets? What responsibilities does a clinician have at the first sign of an innocuous “sad” emoji? The sheer volume of online content that patients can create over different outlets is staggering. It can be overwhelming and ineffective to attempt to monitor patients’ online activities in addition to attending to one’s usual clinical duties, and the medicolegal repercussions of doing so are largely unknown.

Before searching the Internet to learn more about your patients, first consider the ramifications of doing so. While such searches could be helpful, they may lead to poor adherence, a lack of trust, or legal quagmires.

Searching for someone on the Internet and viewing his or her social media profile is an effective way to obtain information about people, including patients. Following our patients’ “digital footprint” may help us understand the context of their lives, reconcile discrepancies in what they have told us, or allow us to confront denial and address incomplete reporting.¹ However, perusing our patients’ online profiles could negatively impact treatment and adherence. Consider these factors before looking up your patients’ online profiles^1-3:

Inaccurate information. Information on the Internet, especially what you can find on user-generated forums, is largely unregulated; as a result, the veracity of that information cannot be guaranteed.¹ Patients may choose to portray themselves inaccurately on their online profiles, and their identities often cannot be confirmed. Even if some information is accurate, you might discover things that you did not expect to learn about your patients, including important information that they did not share, or even something they lied about. This can create the conundrums of what to do with such information and how to discuss it at the next visit.

Impact on treatment. Despite patients’ online activities being displayed for the world to see, many patients do not expect their clinicians to access their online information. They might perceive such perusal as a breach of trust, which might lead some to view the doctor–patient relationship as adversarial. Accessing this information also could create a more intimate relationship than intended. Even if a clinician acquires consent to perform a search, patients may still feel coerced into allowing it because they might feel that declining to grant permission would make the clinician suspect that they have something to hide, or that the clinician would search without consent.²

In addition, if patients are aware that their psychiatrists are monitoring them, they might change their behavior. For example, they may delete certain data, add additional information that may not be accurate, or censor future social media posts. Knowing that their clinicians could be paying attention to them around the clock also might motivate certain patients to act out more or become withdrawn.

Possible medicolegal repercussions. If clinicians are able to access their patients’ electronic profiles, are they then legally obligated to monitor them? For example, if a patient who posts a picture with a noose around his neck later completes suicide, does the clinician who intermittently monitored this patient’s online profile face legal ramifications for not seeing the post? Do clinicians have to call 911 for vaguely suicidal tweets? What responsibilities does a clinician have at the first sign of an innocuous “sad” emoji? The sheer volume of online content that patients can create over different outlets is staggering. It can be overwhelming and ineffective to attempt to monitor patients’ online activities in addition to attending to one’s usual clinical duties, and the medicolegal repercussions of doing so are largely unknown.

Before searching the Internet to learn more about your patients, first consider the ramifications of doing so. While such searches could be helpful, they may lead to poor adherence, a lack of trust, or legal quagmires.

Searching for someone on the Internet and viewing his or her social media profile is an effective way to obtain information about people, including patients. Following our patients’ “digital footprint” may help us understand the context of their lives, reconcile discrepancies in what they have told us, or allow us to confront denial and address incomplete reporting.¹ However, perusing our patients’ online profiles could negatively impact treatment and adherence. Consider these factors before looking up your patients’ online profiles^1-3:

Inaccurate information. Information on the Internet, especially what you can find on user-generated forums, is largely unregulated; as a result, the veracity of that information cannot be guaranteed.¹ Patients may choose to portray themselves inaccurately on their online profiles, and their identities often cannot be confirmed. Even if some information is accurate, you might discover things that you did not expect to learn about your patients, including important information that they did not share, or even something they lied about. This can create the conundrums of what to do with such information and how to discuss it at the next visit.

Impact on treatment. Despite patients’ online activities being displayed for the world to see, many patients do not expect their clinicians to access their online information. They might perceive such perusal as a breach of trust, which might lead some to view the doctor–patient relationship as adversarial. Accessing this information also could create a more intimate relationship than intended. Even if a clinician acquires consent to perform a search, patients may still feel coerced into allowing it because they might feel that declining to grant permission would make the clinician suspect that they have something to hide, or that the clinician would search without consent.²

In addition, if patients are aware that their psychiatrists are monitoring them, they might change their behavior. For example, they may delete certain data, add additional information that may not be accurate, or censor future social media posts. Knowing that their clinicians could be paying attention to them around the clock also might motivate certain patients to act out more or become withdrawn.

Possible medicolegal repercussions. If clinicians are able to access their patients’ electronic profiles, are they then legally obligated to monitor them? For example, if a patient who posts a picture with a noose around his neck later completes suicide, does the clinician who intermittently monitored this patient’s online profile face legal ramifications for not seeing the post? Do clinicians have to call 911 for vaguely suicidal tweets? What responsibilities does a clinician have at the first sign of an innocuous “sad” emoji? The sheer volume of online content that patients can create over different outlets is staggering. It can be overwhelming and ineffective to attempt to monitor patients’ online activities in addition to attending to one’s usual clinical duties, and the medicolegal repercussions of doing so are largely unknown.

Before searching the Internet to learn more about your patients, first consider the ramifications of doing so. While such searches could be helpful, they may lead to poor adherence, a lack of trust, or legal quagmires.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A retrospective study has revealed new potential risk factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with solid tumors and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Researchers found the timing and duration of corticosteroid use were both associated with FN.

The team also observed “marginal” associations between FN and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions as well as the use of intravenous (IV) antibiotics before chemotherapy.

On the other hand, there was no association between oral antibiotic use and FN or between radiation therapy (RT) and FN.

Chun Rebecca Chao, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California in Pasadena, and her colleagues reported these findings in JNCCN.

“Febrile neutropenia is life-threatening and often requires hospitalization,” Dr. Chao noted. “Furthermore, FN can lead to chemotherapy dose delay and dose reduction, which, in turn, negatively impacts antitumor efficacy. However, it can be prevented if high-risk individuals are identified and treated prophylactically.”

With this in mind, Dr. Chao and her colleagues set out to identify novel risk factors for FN by analyzing 15,971 patients who were treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy at Kaiser Permanente Southern California between 2000 and 2009.

Patients had been diagnosed with NHL (n=1,617) or breast (n=6,323), lung (n=3,584), colorectal (n=3,062), ovarian (n=924), or gastric (n=461) cancers.

In all, 4.3% of patients developed FN during their first cycle of chemotherapy.

Corticosteroid use

The researchers found corticosteroid use was associated with an increased risk of FN in a propensity score-adjusted (PSA) model (adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, etc.). The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.17-1.98; P<0.01) for patients who received corticosteroids.

A longer duration of corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN. The adjusted HR (compared to no corticosteroid use) was:

• 1.78 for corticosteroid treatment lasting less than 15 days (P<0.01)
• 1.84 for treatment lasting 15 to 29 days (P<0.01)
• 2.27 for treatment lasting 30 to 44 days (P<0.01)
• 2.86 for treatment lasting 45 to 90 days (P<0.01).

More recent corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN as well. The adjusted HR was:

• 1.88 for corticosteroid treatment less than 15 days before chemotherapy (P<0.01)
• 1.13 for treatment 15 to 29 days before chemotherapy (P=0.72)
• 1.22 for treatment 30 to 44 days before chemotherapy (P=0.66)
• 1.41 for treatment 45 to 90 days before chemotherapy (P=0.32).

“One way to reduce the incidence rate for FN could be to schedule prior corticosteroid use and subsequent chemotherapy with at least 2 weeks between them, given the magnitude of the risk increase and prevalence of this risk factor,” Dr. Chao said.

Other potential risk factors

The researchers found a “marginally” increased risk of FN in patients with certain dermatologic conditions (dermatitis, psoriasis, pruritus, etc.) and mucosal conditions (gastritis, stomatitis, mucositis, etc.).

In the PSA model, the HR was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.98-1.93; P=0.05) for patients with these conditions.

IV antibiotic use was also found to be marginally associated with an increased risk of FN in a restricted analysis covering patients treated in 2008 and 2009. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.97-1.87; P=0.08).

On the other hand, there was no association between FN and oral antibiotic use in the restricted analysis. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.77-1.48; P=0.70) for patients who received oral antibiotics.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest IV antibiotics may have a more profound impact than oral antibiotics on the balance of bacterial flora and other immune functions. Another possible explanation is that patients who received IV antibiotics were generally sicker and more prone to severe infection than patients who received oral antibiotics.

As with oral antibiotics, the researchers found no association between FN and the following factors (with the PSA model):

• Prior surgery (HR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.72-1.11; P=0.30)
• Prior RT (HR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.64-1.27; P=0.61)
• Concurrent RT (HR=1.32; 95% CI, 0.69-2.37; P=0.37).

The researchers noted that they did not account for radiation field or dose in this study, so additional evaluation of RT as a risk factor is needed.

In closing, Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest cor­ticosteroid use, IV antibiotics, and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions should be tak­en into consideration when monitoring patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and when evaluating the need for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or chemotherapy dose reduction.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues received funding from Amgen, Inc., to perform this study.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A retrospective study has revealed new potential risk factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with solid tumors and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Researchers found the timing and duration of corticosteroid use were both associated with FN.

The team also observed “marginal” associations between FN and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions as well as the use of intravenous (IV) antibiotics before chemotherapy.

On the other hand, there was no association between oral antibiotic use and FN or between radiation therapy (RT) and FN.

Chun Rebecca Chao, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California in Pasadena, and her colleagues reported these findings in JNCCN.

“Febrile neutropenia is life-threatening and often requires hospitalization,” Dr. Chao noted. “Furthermore, FN can lead to chemotherapy dose delay and dose reduction, which, in turn, negatively impacts antitumor efficacy. However, it can be prevented if high-risk individuals are identified and treated prophylactically.”

With this in mind, Dr. Chao and her colleagues set out to identify novel risk factors for FN by analyzing 15,971 patients who were treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy at Kaiser Permanente Southern California between 2000 and 2009.

Patients had been diagnosed with NHL (n=1,617) or breast (n=6,323), lung (n=3,584), colorectal (n=3,062), ovarian (n=924), or gastric (n=461) cancers.

In all, 4.3% of patients developed FN during their first cycle of chemotherapy.

Corticosteroid use

The researchers found corticosteroid use was associated with an increased risk of FN in a propensity score-adjusted (PSA) model (adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, etc.). The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.17-1.98; P<0.01) for patients who received corticosteroids.

A longer duration of corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN. The adjusted HR (compared to no corticosteroid use) was:

• 1.78 for corticosteroid treatment lasting less than 15 days (P<0.01)
• 1.84 for treatment lasting 15 to 29 days (P<0.01)
• 2.27 for treatment lasting 30 to 44 days (P<0.01)
• 2.86 for treatment lasting 45 to 90 days (P<0.01).

More recent corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN as well. The adjusted HR was:

• 1.88 for corticosteroid treatment less than 15 days before chemotherapy (P<0.01)
• 1.13 for treatment 15 to 29 days before chemotherapy (P=0.72)
• 1.22 for treatment 30 to 44 days before chemotherapy (P=0.66)
• 1.41 for treatment 45 to 90 days before chemotherapy (P=0.32).

“One way to reduce the incidence rate for FN could be to schedule prior corticosteroid use and subsequent chemotherapy with at least 2 weeks between them, given the magnitude of the risk increase and prevalence of this risk factor,” Dr. Chao said.

Other potential risk factors

The researchers found a “marginally” increased risk of FN in patients with certain dermatologic conditions (dermatitis, psoriasis, pruritus, etc.) and mucosal conditions (gastritis, stomatitis, mucositis, etc.).

In the PSA model, the HR was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.98-1.93; P=0.05) for patients with these conditions.

IV antibiotic use was also found to be marginally associated with an increased risk of FN in a restricted analysis covering patients treated in 2008 and 2009. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.97-1.87; P=0.08).

On the other hand, there was no association between FN and oral antibiotic use in the restricted analysis. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.77-1.48; P=0.70) for patients who received oral antibiotics.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest IV antibiotics may have a more profound impact than oral antibiotics on the balance of bacterial flora and other immune functions. Another possible explanation is that patients who received IV antibiotics were generally sicker and more prone to severe infection than patients who received oral antibiotics.

As with oral antibiotics, the researchers found no association between FN and the following factors (with the PSA model):

• Prior surgery (HR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.72-1.11; P=0.30)
• Prior RT (HR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.64-1.27; P=0.61)
• Concurrent RT (HR=1.32; 95% CI, 0.69-2.37; P=0.37).

The researchers noted that they did not account for radiation field or dose in this study, so additional evaluation of RT as a risk factor is needed.

In closing, Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest cor­ticosteroid use, IV antibiotics, and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions should be tak­en into consideration when monitoring patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and when evaluating the need for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or chemotherapy dose reduction.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues received funding from Amgen, Inc., to perform this study.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A retrospective study has revealed new potential risk factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with solid tumors and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Researchers found the timing and duration of corticosteroid use were both associated with FN.

The team also observed “marginal” associations between FN and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions as well as the use of intravenous (IV) antibiotics before chemotherapy.

On the other hand, there was no association between oral antibiotic use and FN or between radiation therapy (RT) and FN.

Chun Rebecca Chao, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California in Pasadena, and her colleagues reported these findings in JNCCN.

“Febrile neutropenia is life-threatening and often requires hospitalization,” Dr. Chao noted. “Furthermore, FN can lead to chemotherapy dose delay and dose reduction, which, in turn, negatively impacts antitumor efficacy. However, it can be prevented if high-risk individuals are identified and treated prophylactically.”

With this in mind, Dr. Chao and her colleagues set out to identify novel risk factors for FN by analyzing 15,971 patients who were treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy at Kaiser Permanente Southern California between 2000 and 2009.

Patients had been diagnosed with NHL (n=1,617) or breast (n=6,323), lung (n=3,584), colorectal (n=3,062), ovarian (n=924), or gastric (n=461) cancers.

In all, 4.3% of patients developed FN during their first cycle of chemotherapy.

Corticosteroid use

The researchers found corticosteroid use was associated with an increased risk of FN in a propensity score-adjusted (PSA) model (adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, etc.). The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.17-1.98; P<0.01) for patients who received corticosteroids.

A longer duration of corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN. The adjusted HR (compared to no corticosteroid use) was:

• 1.78 for corticosteroid treatment lasting less than 15 days (P<0.01)
• 1.84 for treatment lasting 15 to 29 days (P<0.01)
• 2.27 for treatment lasting 30 to 44 days (P<0.01)
• 2.86 for treatment lasting 45 to 90 days (P<0.01).

More recent corticosteroid use was associated with a greater risk of FN as well. The adjusted HR was:

• 1.88 for corticosteroid treatment less than 15 days before chemotherapy (P<0.01)
• 1.13 for treatment 15 to 29 days before chemotherapy (P=0.72)
• 1.22 for treatment 30 to 44 days before chemotherapy (P=0.66)
• 1.41 for treatment 45 to 90 days before chemotherapy (P=0.32).

“One way to reduce the incidence rate for FN could be to schedule prior corticosteroid use and subsequent chemotherapy with at least 2 weeks between them, given the magnitude of the risk increase and prevalence of this risk factor,” Dr. Chao said.

Other potential risk factors

The researchers found a “marginally” increased risk of FN in patients with certain dermatologic conditions (dermatitis, psoriasis, pruritus, etc.) and mucosal conditions (gastritis, stomatitis, mucositis, etc.).

In the PSA model, the HR was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.98-1.93; P=0.05) for patients with these conditions.

IV antibiotic use was also found to be marginally associated with an increased risk of FN in a restricted analysis covering patients treated in 2008 and 2009. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.97-1.87; P=0.08).

On the other hand, there was no association between FN and oral antibiotic use in the restricted analysis. In the PSA model, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.77-1.48; P=0.70) for patients who received oral antibiotics.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest IV antibiotics may have a more profound impact than oral antibiotics on the balance of bacterial flora and other immune functions. Another possible explanation is that patients who received IV antibiotics were generally sicker and more prone to severe infection than patients who received oral antibiotics.

As with oral antibiotics, the researchers found no association between FN and the following factors (with the PSA model):

• Prior surgery (HR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.72-1.11; P=0.30)
• Prior RT (HR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.64-1.27; P=0.61)
• Concurrent RT (HR=1.32; 95% CI, 0.69-2.37; P=0.37).

The researchers noted that they did not account for radiation field or dose in this study, so additional evaluation of RT as a risk factor is needed.

In closing, Dr. Chao and her colleagues said these results suggest cor­ticosteroid use, IV antibiotics, and certain dermatologic and mucosal conditions should be tak­en into consideration when monitoring patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and when evaluating the need for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or chemotherapy dose reduction.

Dr. Chao and her colleagues received funding from Amgen, Inc., to perform this study.

Image by Lance Liotta

Preclinical research suggests the oncoprotein EVI1 can promote leukemogenesis by suppressing erythropoiesis and lymphopoiesis while shifting differentiation toward the expansion of myeloid cells.

Researchers developed a new mouse model that mimics chromosomal rearrangements at 3q26, which are associated with poor-prognosis acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndromes, and myeloproliferative neoplasms.

Using the mouse model, the team demonstrated that EVI1 overexpression distorts hematopoiesis and markedly expands premalignant myelopoiesis that eventually results in leukemic transformation.

Archibald Perkins, MD, PhD, of the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, and his colleagues published these findings in Nature Communications.

The team demonstrated that the “myeloid-skewed phenotype” is dependent upon EVI1-binding DNA. This upregulates Spi1 and encodes the master myeloid regulator PU.1.

When the researchers knocked down Spi1, the myeloid skewing diminished.

“It’s not so pie-in-the-sky anymore,” Dr. Perkins said, “to think we can interrupt the process within the genome that leads to leukemia.”

The researchers first created a mouse model of 3q26 AML with a tetracycline-inducible allele of EVI1 by inserting tetracycline operons within the first exon. This allowed the induction of all three isoforms of EVI1.

These mice were viable and fertile but had no phenotype, which indicated that the allele functioned normally unless induced.

To assess the effect of EVI1 overexpression, the researchers transplanted oncogene-expressing bone marrow mixed 1:1 with wild-type bone marrow into recipient mice.

After confirming successful engraftment, the researchers fed the mice doxycycline-treated food to induce EVI1. The team analyzed cells in the peripheral blood and bone marrow at 10 weeks post-induction.

The researchers observed a more than two-fold expansion of the EVI1-overexpressing compartment in the mouse model.

Suppression of erythropoiesis

The researchers analyzed erythroid lineage in the transplanted mice at 2, 6, and 10 weeks post-induction and found the EVI1-overexpressing cells did not contribute effectively to erythropoiesis.

Using flow cytometry, the researchers quantitated apoptosis and proliferation in erythroid progenitors. They observed a six-fold increase in apoptosis within the erythroblasts compared to wild-type cells.

They also observed a drop in the proliferation of proerythroblasts and erythroblasts compared to wild-type.

Suppression of lymphopoiesis

The researchers observed significantly lower numbers of EVI1-overexpressing B-lineage cells within the bone marrow at 6 and 10 weeks.

And at 10 weeks post-induction, the team observed a decrease in peripheral T cells from approximately 1,800 cells/µL to approximately 750 cells/µL.

EVI1 nearly eliminated the peripheral B cells completely, they noted.

Expansion of myelopoiesis

The team reported that, at 2 weeks post-induction, the EVI1-overexpressing bone marrow and control bone marrow showed the same number of myeloid cells.

But at 6 and 10 weeks post-induction, the EVI1-overexpressing myeloid compartment expanded markedly.

The researchers aged a cohort of five mice transplanted with the 1:1 mix of wild-type and EVI1 bone marrow cells to determine if chronic overexpression of EVI1 results in leukemia.

All five mice died at 90 to 119 days of doxycycline treatment. Analysis revealed AML in all mice. Bone marrows were replete with blasts, and the peripheral blood revealed severe anemia.

The researchers then proceeded to establish the relationship between EVI1 and Spi1/PU.1 transcriptional regulation.

They documented binding of EVI1 to the regulatory element -14kbURE, which, together with EVI1., induced upregulation of PU.1.

When the team knocked down PU.1, myeloid skewing diminished. This, they say, indicates PU.1 is necessary for EVI1-induced myeloid expansion.

Funding for this research was provided by the National Institutes of Health, New York State Stem Cell Science, the Wilmot Cancer Institute, and the Clinical and Translational Science Institute at the University of Rochester.

The authors had no competing interests to disclose. 

Image by Lance Liotta

Preclinical research suggests the oncoprotein EVI1 can promote leukemogenesis by suppressing erythropoiesis and lymphopoiesis while shifting differentiation toward the expansion of myeloid cells.

Researchers developed a new mouse model that mimics chromosomal rearrangements at 3q26, which are associated with poor-prognosis acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndromes, and myeloproliferative neoplasms.

Using the mouse model, the team demonstrated that EVI1 overexpression distorts hematopoiesis and markedly expands premalignant myelopoiesis that eventually results in leukemic transformation.

Archibald Perkins, MD, PhD, of the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, and his colleagues published these findings in Nature Communications.

The team demonstrated that the “myeloid-skewed phenotype” is dependent upon EVI1-binding DNA. This upregulates Spi1 and encodes the master myeloid regulator PU.1.

When the researchers knocked down Spi1, the myeloid skewing diminished.

“It’s not so pie-in-the-sky anymore,” Dr. Perkins said, “to think we can interrupt the process within the genome that leads to leukemia.”

The researchers first created a mouse model of 3q26 AML with a tetracycline-inducible allele of EVI1 by inserting tetracycline operons within the first exon. This allowed the induction of all three isoforms of EVI1.

These mice were viable and fertile but had no phenotype, which indicated that the allele functioned normally unless induced.

To assess the effect of EVI1 overexpression, the researchers transplanted oncogene-expressing bone marrow mixed 1:1 with wild-type bone marrow into recipient mice.

After confirming successful engraftment, the researchers fed the mice doxycycline-treated food to induce EVI1. The team analyzed cells in the peripheral blood and bone marrow at 10 weeks post-induction.

The researchers observed a more than two-fold expansion of the EVI1-overexpressing compartment in the mouse model.

Suppression of erythropoiesis

The researchers analyzed erythroid lineage in the transplanted mice at 2, 6, and 10 weeks post-induction and found the EVI1-overexpressing cells did not contribute effectively to erythropoiesis.

Using flow cytometry, the researchers quantitated apoptosis and proliferation in erythroid progenitors. They observed a six-fold increase in apoptosis within the erythroblasts compared to wild-type cells.

They also observed a drop in the proliferation of proerythroblasts and erythroblasts compared to wild-type.

Suppression of lymphopoiesis

The researchers observed significantly lower numbers of EVI1-overexpressing B-lineage cells within the bone marrow at 6 and 10 weeks.

And at 10 weeks post-induction, the team observed a decrease in peripheral T cells from approximately 1,800 cells/µL to approximately 750 cells/µL.

EVI1 nearly eliminated the peripheral B cells completely, they noted.

Expansion of myelopoiesis

The team reported that, at 2 weeks post-induction, the EVI1-overexpressing bone marrow and control bone marrow showed the same number of myeloid cells.

But at 6 and 10 weeks post-induction, the EVI1-overexpressing myeloid compartment expanded markedly.

The researchers aged a cohort of five mice transplanted with the 1:1 mix of wild-type and EVI1 bone marrow cells to determine if chronic overexpression of EVI1 results in leukemia.

All five mice died at 90 to 119 days of doxycycline treatment. Analysis revealed AML in all mice. Bone marrows were replete with blasts, and the peripheral blood revealed severe anemia.

The researchers then proceeded to establish the relationship between EVI1 and Spi1/PU.1 transcriptional regulation.

They documented binding of EVI1 to the regulatory element -14kbURE, which, together with EVI1., induced upregulation of PU.1.

When the team knocked down PU.1, myeloid skewing diminished. This, they say, indicates PU.1 is necessary for EVI1-induced myeloid expansion.

Funding for this research was provided by the National Institutes of Health, New York State Stem Cell Science, the Wilmot Cancer Institute, and the Clinical and Translational Science Institute at the University of Rochester.

The authors had no competing interests to disclose. 

Image by Lance Liotta

Preclinical research suggests the oncoprotein EVI1 can promote leukemogenesis by suppressing erythropoiesis and lymphopoiesis while shifting differentiation toward the expansion of myeloid cells.

Researchers developed a new mouse model that mimics chromosomal rearrangements at 3q26, which are associated with poor-prognosis acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndromes, and myeloproliferative neoplasms.

Using the mouse model, the team demonstrated that EVI1 overexpression distorts hematopoiesis and markedly expands premalignant myelopoiesis that eventually results in leukemic transformation.

Archibald Perkins, MD, PhD, of the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, and his colleagues published these findings in Nature Communications.

The team demonstrated that the “myeloid-skewed phenotype” is dependent upon EVI1-binding DNA. This upregulates Spi1 and encodes the master myeloid regulator PU.1.

When the researchers knocked down Spi1, the myeloid skewing diminished.

“It’s not so pie-in-the-sky anymore,” Dr. Perkins said, “to think we can interrupt the process within the genome that leads to leukemia.”

The researchers first created a mouse model of 3q26 AML with a tetracycline-inducible allele of EVI1 by inserting tetracycline operons within the first exon. This allowed the induction of all three isoforms of EVI1.

These mice were viable and fertile but had no phenotype, which indicated that the allele functioned normally unless induced.

To assess the effect of EVI1 overexpression, the researchers transplanted oncogene-expressing bone marrow mixed 1:1 with wild-type bone marrow into recipient mice.

After confirming successful engraftment, the researchers fed the mice doxycycline-treated food to induce EVI1. The team analyzed cells in the peripheral blood and bone marrow at 10 weeks post-induction.

The researchers observed a more than two-fold expansion of the EVI1-overexpressing compartment in the mouse model.

Suppression of erythropoiesis

The researchers analyzed erythroid lineage in the transplanted mice at 2, 6, and 10 weeks post-induction and found the EVI1-overexpressing cells did not contribute effectively to erythropoiesis.

Using flow cytometry, the researchers quantitated apoptosis and proliferation in erythroid progenitors. They observed a six-fold increase in apoptosis within the erythroblasts compared to wild-type cells.

They also observed a drop in the proliferation of proerythroblasts and erythroblasts compared to wild-type.

Suppression of lymphopoiesis

The researchers observed significantly lower numbers of EVI1-overexpressing B-lineage cells within the bone marrow at 6 and 10 weeks.

And at 10 weeks post-induction, the team observed a decrease in peripheral T cells from approximately 1,800 cells/µL to approximately 750 cells/µL.

EVI1 nearly eliminated the peripheral B cells completely, they noted.

Expansion of myelopoiesis

The team reported that, at 2 weeks post-induction, the EVI1-overexpressing bone marrow and control bone marrow showed the same number of myeloid cells.

But at 6 and 10 weeks post-induction, the EVI1-overexpressing myeloid compartment expanded markedly.

The researchers aged a cohort of five mice transplanted with the 1:1 mix of wild-type and EVI1 bone marrow cells to determine if chronic overexpression of EVI1 results in leukemia.

All five mice died at 90 to 119 days of doxycycline treatment. Analysis revealed AML in all mice. Bone marrows were replete with blasts, and the peripheral blood revealed severe anemia.

The researchers then proceeded to establish the relationship between EVI1 and Spi1/PU.1 transcriptional regulation.

They documented binding of EVI1 to the regulatory element -14kbURE, which, together with EVI1., induced upregulation of PU.1.

When the team knocked down PU.1, myeloid skewing diminished. This, they say, indicates PU.1 is necessary for EVI1-induced myeloid expansion.

Funding for this research was provided by the National Institutes of Health, New York State Stem Cell Science, the Wilmot Cancer Institute, and the Clinical and Translational Science Institute at the University of Rochester.

The authors had no competing interests to disclose. 

Photo from Pexels

The latest edition of the national palliative care guidelines provides new clinical strategies relevant to hematology practice in the United States, according to a physician-researcher specializing in hematology.

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th edition, represents a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, a physician-researcher at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

However, unlike previous editions, this update to the guidelines emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by both primary care and specialty care clinicians.

“Part of this report is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

The latest edition helps establish a foundation for gold standard palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to The National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology.

One key reason for the update, according to NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s healthcare system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on clinicians who don’t practice palliative care to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

That differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, in which specially trained doctors, nurses, and other specialists provide that support.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who really needs us the most and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in the latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, Dr. LeBlanc added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Photo from Pexels

The latest edition of the national palliative care guidelines provides new clinical strategies relevant to hematology practice in the United States, according to a physician-researcher specializing in hematology.

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th edition, represents a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, a physician-researcher at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

However, unlike previous editions, this update to the guidelines emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by both primary care and specialty care clinicians.

“Part of this report is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

The latest edition helps establish a foundation for gold standard palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to The National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology.

One key reason for the update, according to NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s healthcare system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on clinicians who don’t practice palliative care to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

That differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, in which specially trained doctors, nurses, and other specialists provide that support.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who really needs us the most and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in the latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, Dr. LeBlanc added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Photo from Pexels

The latest edition of the national palliative care guidelines provides new clinical strategies relevant to hematology practice in the United States, according to a physician-researcher specializing in hematology.

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th edition, represents a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, a physician-researcher at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

However, unlike previous editions, this update to the guidelines emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by both primary care and specialty care clinicians.

“Part of this report is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

The latest edition helps establish a foundation for gold standard palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to The National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology.

One key reason for the update, according to NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s healthcare system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on clinicians who don’t practice palliative care to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

That differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, in which specially trained doctors, nurses, and other specialists provide that support.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who really needs us the most and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in the latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, Dr. LeBlanc added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Although I look forward to receiving JFP each month, I was initially disappointed in Dr. Jonathon M. Firnhaber’s article, “Newer cholesterol-lowering agents: What you must know” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:339-341,344,345), because of what appeared to be a superficial discussion of the medication ezetimibe. The potential role of PCSK9 inhibitors in extremely high-risk individuals was well discussed, but my first read left me with the impression that ezetimibe should be used more widely.

It seemed that in the section for ezetimibe, the author was suggesting using it for primary prevention. The line, “Consider adding ezetimibe to maximally tolerated statin therapy for patients not meeting LDL-C goals with a statin alone” left me a bit confused, as the most widely used guideline (that by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines) states that there is no goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level for primary prevention in patients without known cardiovascular disease (CVD) because studies have not been done to support this concept.¹

But upon rereading the article, I realized the statement was placed at the end of a section that discussed secondary prevention based on the IMPROVE-IT study.² This trial included only patients with previous acute coronary syndrome, one of the populations at highest risk.

I write just to reinforce the importance of considering what evidence we have for primary prevention. Although there is a value to rechecking LDL-C levels to assess compliance, there really is no convincing evidence that we should treat to a goal LDL-C level in someone who does not already have CVD. So the addition of ezetimibe to a statin in these patients is not recommended. Thus, the often-quoted strategy: “Start them on the right statin, and don’t look back.”

Bill Crump, MD
Madisonville, Ky

1. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129(suppl 2):S1-S45.

2. Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2387-2397.

Continue to: Authors' response

Author’s response:

Thank you, Dr. Crump, for your feedback. I suspect that most clinicians would welcome more robust outcomes data on ezetimibe, but to date none have been published.

The IMPROVE-IT trial¹ offers the best supportive evidence for the use of ezetimibe, but still finds only a 2% absolute risk reduction (ARR) in a composite endpoint (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ≥30 days after randomization, or nonfatal stroke), equating to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 50.

Most clinicians would welcome more robust outcomes data on ezetimibe, but to date none have been published.

The largest meta-analysis of ezetimibe trials—published prior to IMPROVE-IT—combined 31,048 patients to find an ARR for myocardial infarction of 1.1% (NNT=91) and an ARR for stroke of 0.6% (NNT=167), with no difference in cardiovascular death.²

Because of its limited outcomes data, ezetimibe is best reserved for patients unable to tolerate statin therapy, for those in whom statin therapy is contraindicated, or for those not meeting LDL-C reduction goals with a statin alone. This position is also supported by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).³

Finally, you are correct that the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk does not advocate a number-driven LDL-C goal, but rather recommends a risk-based moderate (30%-50%) or high-intensity (>50%) LDL-C reduction goal.⁴

Jonathon Firnhaber, MD
Greenville, NC

1. Cannon C, Blazing M, Giugliano R, et al. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2387-2397.

2. Savarese G, Ferrari G, Rosano G, et al. Safety and efficacy of ezetimibe: a meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2015;201:247-252.

3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ezetimibe for treating primary heterozygous-familial and non-familial hypercholesterolaemia. Technology appraisal guidance [TA385]. February 24, 2016. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta385. Accessed September 12, 2018.

4. Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2935-2959. 

Although I look forward to receiving JFP each month, I was initially disappointed in Dr. Jonathon M. Firnhaber’s article, “Newer cholesterol-lowering agents: What you must know” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:339-341,344,345), because of what appeared to be a superficial discussion of the medication ezetimibe. The potential role of PCSK9 inhibitors in extremely high-risk individuals was well discussed, but my first read left me with the impression that ezetimibe should be used more widely.

It seemed that in the section for ezetimibe, the author was suggesting using it for primary prevention. The line, “Consider adding ezetimibe to maximally tolerated statin therapy for patients not meeting LDL-C goals with a statin alone” left me a bit confused, as the most widely used guideline (that by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines) states that there is no goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level for primary prevention in patients without known cardiovascular disease (CVD) because studies have not been done to support this concept.¹

But upon rereading the article, I realized the statement was placed at the end of a section that discussed secondary prevention based on the IMPROVE-IT study.² This trial included only patients with previous acute coronary syndrome, one of the populations at highest risk.

I write just to reinforce the importance of considering what evidence we have for primary prevention. Although there is a value to rechecking LDL-C levels to assess compliance, there really is no convincing evidence that we should treat to a goal LDL-C level in someone who does not already have CVD. So the addition of ezetimibe to a statin in these patients is not recommended. Thus, the often-quoted strategy: “Start them on the right statin, and don’t look back.”

Bill Crump, MD
Madisonville, Ky

1. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129(suppl 2):S1-S45.

2. Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2387-2397.

Continue to: Authors' response

Author’s response:

Thank you, Dr. Crump, for your feedback. I suspect that most clinicians would welcome more robust outcomes data on ezetimibe, but to date none have been published.

The IMPROVE-IT trial¹ offers the best supportive evidence for the use of ezetimibe, but still finds only a 2% absolute risk reduction (ARR) in a composite endpoint (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ≥30 days after randomization, or nonfatal stroke), equating to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 50.

Most clinicians would welcome more robust outcomes data on ezetimibe, but to date none have been published.

The largest meta-analysis of ezetimibe trials—published prior to IMPROVE-IT—combined 31,048 patients to find an ARR for myocardial infarction of 1.1% (NNT=91) and an ARR for stroke of 0.6% (NNT=167), with no difference in cardiovascular death.²

Because of its limited outcomes data, ezetimibe is best reserved for patients unable to tolerate statin therapy, for those in whom statin therapy is contraindicated, or for those not meeting LDL-C reduction goals with a statin alone. This position is also supported by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).³

Finally, you are correct that the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk does not advocate a number-driven LDL-C goal, but rather recommends a risk-based moderate (30%-50%) or high-intensity (>50%) LDL-C reduction goal.⁴

Jonathon Firnhaber, MD
Greenville, NC

1. Cannon C, Blazing M, Giugliano R, et al. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2387-2397.

2. Savarese G, Ferrari G, Rosano G, et al. Safety and efficacy of ezetimibe: a meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2015;201:247-252.

3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ezetimibe for treating primary heterozygous-familial and non-familial hypercholesterolaemia. Technology appraisal guidance [TA385]. February 24, 2016. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta385. Accessed September 12, 2018.

4. Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2935-2959. 

Although I look forward to receiving JFP each month, I was initially disappointed in Dr. Jonathon M. Firnhaber’s article, “Newer cholesterol-lowering agents: What you must know” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:339-341,344,345), because of what appeared to be a superficial discussion of the medication ezetimibe. The potential role of PCSK9 inhibitors in extremely high-risk individuals was well discussed, but my first read left me with the impression that ezetimibe should be used more widely.

It seemed that in the section for ezetimibe, the author was suggesting using it for primary prevention. The line, “Consider adding ezetimibe to maximally tolerated statin therapy for patients not meeting LDL-C goals with a statin alone” left me a bit confused, as the most widely used guideline (that by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines) states that there is no goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level for primary prevention in patients without known cardiovascular disease (CVD) because studies have not been done to support this concept.¹

But upon rereading the article, I realized the statement was placed at the end of a section that discussed secondary prevention based on the IMPROVE-IT study.² This trial included only patients with previous acute coronary syndrome, one of the populations at highest risk.

I write just to reinforce the importance of considering what evidence we have for primary prevention. Although there is a value to rechecking LDL-C levels to assess compliance, there really is no convincing evidence that we should treat to a goal LDL-C level in someone who does not already have CVD. So the addition of ezetimibe to a statin in these patients is not recommended. Thus, the often-quoted strategy: “Start them on the right statin, and don’t look back.”

Bill Crump, MD
Madisonville, Ky

1. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129(suppl 2):S1-S45.

2. Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2387-2397.

Continue to: Authors' response

Author’s response:

Thank you, Dr. Crump, for your feedback. I suspect that most clinicians would welcome more robust outcomes data on ezetimibe, but to date none have been published.

The IMPROVE-IT trial¹ offers the best supportive evidence for the use of ezetimibe, but still finds only a 2% absolute risk reduction (ARR) in a composite endpoint (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ≥30 days after randomization, or nonfatal stroke), equating to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 50.

Most clinicians would welcome more robust outcomes data on ezetimibe, but to date none have been published.

The largest meta-analysis of ezetimibe trials—published prior to IMPROVE-IT—combined 31,048 patients to find an ARR for myocardial infarction of 1.1% (NNT=91) and an ARR for stroke of 0.6% (NNT=167), with no difference in cardiovascular death.²

Because of its limited outcomes data, ezetimibe is best reserved for patients unable to tolerate statin therapy, for those in whom statin therapy is contraindicated, or for those not meeting LDL-C reduction goals with a statin alone. This position is also supported by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).³

Finally, you are correct that the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk does not advocate a number-driven LDL-C goal, but rather recommends a risk-based moderate (30%-50%) or high-intensity (>50%) LDL-C reduction goal.⁴

Jonathon Firnhaber, MD
Greenville, NC

1. Cannon C, Blazing M, Giugliano R, et al. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2387-2397.

2. Savarese G, Ferrari G, Rosano G, et al. Safety and efficacy of ezetimibe: a meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2015;201:247-252.

3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ezetimibe for treating primary heterozygous-familial and non-familial hypercholesterolaemia. Technology appraisal guidance [TA385]. February 24, 2016. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta385. Accessed September 12, 2018.

4. Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2935-2959. 

Based on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans presented in the Case Report, “Bilateral wrist pain • limited range of motion • tenderness to palpation • Dx?” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:160-162), I disagree with the diagnosis.

Contrary to the assertion by Drs. Shehata and Hizon that the patient had “fractures extending through the scaphoid waist,” this young girl actually had bilateral osseous contusions (ie, microtrabecular fractures) of the radial aspect of the scaphoid and did not have complete scaphoid waist fractures. Also, the MRI scans demonstrate intact ulnar cortices bilaterally, indicating that there is no complete scaphoid waist fracture.

These are typical “FOOSH” (fall on outstretched hand) injuries and would be expected to have an exceedingly good prognosis with immobilization. As to whether or not this affects medical management, such as how long the cast remains on the arm, I would have to defer to an orthopedic surgeon’s judgment.

David R. Pennes, MD
Grand Rapids, Mich

Continue to: Author's response

Author’s response:

Thank you for your comments. You are correct that the MRI scans shown do not demonstrate a complete fracture through the scaphoid, but rather a microtrabecular fracture. We did not intend to make the distinction between the 2 entities because management for both is similar. The teaching point of this case was to impress upon clinicians that these types of fractures may be subtle even on MRI, and that if they are not treated appropriately, they can progress to complete fracture or result in non-union and long-term pain and disability.

Jerry Hizon, MD
Riverside, Calif

Based on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans presented in the Case Report, “Bilateral wrist pain • limited range of motion • tenderness to palpation • Dx?” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:160-162), I disagree with the diagnosis.

Contrary to the assertion by Drs. Shehata and Hizon that the patient had “fractures extending through the scaphoid waist,” this young girl actually had bilateral osseous contusions (ie, microtrabecular fractures) of the radial aspect of the scaphoid and did not have complete scaphoid waist fractures. Also, the MRI scans demonstrate intact ulnar cortices bilaterally, indicating that there is no complete scaphoid waist fracture.

These are typical “FOOSH” (fall on outstretched hand) injuries and would be expected to have an exceedingly good prognosis with immobilization. As to whether or not this affects medical management, such as how long the cast remains on the arm, I would have to defer to an orthopedic surgeon’s judgment.

David R. Pennes, MD
Grand Rapids, Mich

Continue to: Author's response

Author’s response:

Thank you for your comments. You are correct that the MRI scans shown do not demonstrate a complete fracture through the scaphoid, but rather a microtrabecular fracture. We did not intend to make the distinction between the 2 entities because management for both is similar. The teaching point of this case was to impress upon clinicians that these types of fractures may be subtle even on MRI, and that if they are not treated appropriately, they can progress to complete fracture or result in non-union and long-term pain and disability.

Jerry Hizon, MD
Riverside, Calif

Based on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans presented in the Case Report, “Bilateral wrist pain • limited range of motion • tenderness to palpation • Dx?” (J Fam Pract. 2018;67:160-162), I disagree with the diagnosis.

Contrary to the assertion by Drs. Shehata and Hizon that the patient had “fractures extending through the scaphoid waist,” this young girl actually had bilateral osseous contusions (ie, microtrabecular fractures) of the radial aspect of the scaphoid and did not have complete scaphoid waist fractures. Also, the MRI scans demonstrate intact ulnar cortices bilaterally, indicating that there is no complete scaphoid waist fracture.

These are typical “FOOSH” (fall on outstretched hand) injuries and would be expected to have an exceedingly good prognosis with immobilization. As to whether or not this affects medical management, such as how long the cast remains on the arm, I would have to defer to an orthopedic surgeon’s judgment.

David R. Pennes, MD
Grand Rapids, Mich

Continue to: Author's response

Author’s response:

Thank you for your comments. You are correct that the MRI scans shown do not demonstrate a complete fracture through the scaphoid, but rather a microtrabecular fracture. We did not intend to make the distinction between the 2 entities because management for both is similar. The teaching point of this case was to impress upon clinicians that these types of fractures may be subtle even on MRI, and that if they are not treated appropriately, they can progress to complete fracture or result in non-union and long-term pain and disability.

Jerry Hizon, MD
Riverside, Calif