For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Dec. 10-11, 12-13, 2018; Jan. 16-17, 22-23, 23-24, 2019; Feb. 20-21, 2019
Two-Day, In-Depth Coding Seminar by McVey Associates, Inc
.Become a certified GI coder with a two-day, in-depth training course provided by McVey Associates, Inc.
Tampa, FL (12/10-11), Dallas, TX (12/12-13), Houston, TX (1/16-17), New Orleans, LA (1/22-23), Pittsburgh, PA (1/23-24), 2/20 (Hartford, CT)

Jan. 17-19, 2019
2019 GI Cancers Symposium
Join colleagues from across the globe in San Francisco to discover and share groundbreaking research in treating gastrointestinal cancers.
San Francisco, CA

Feb. 7–9, 2019
Crohn’s & Colitis Congress™ (A Partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and American Gastroenterological Association)
Expand your knowledge, network with IBD leaders, spark innovative research and get inspired to improve patient care.
Las Vegas, NV

March 8-9, 2019
2019 Women’s Leadership Conference
The conference is specifically designed for women looking to advance their careers, further professional goals, enhance personal growth and effectively network.
Bethesda, MD

March 8-10, 2019
FORWARD Program
AGA’s Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity (FORWARD) Program is a new initiative funded by NIH, supporting the career entry and development for underrepresented minority physician scientists in gastroenterology. The program provides concrete leadership and skill development that includes scientific manuscript and grant writing, research development, executive coaching and more.
Bethesda, MD

March 8-10, 2019
Future Leaders Program
The Future Leaders Program provides a pathway within the organization to network, connect with mentors, develop leadership skills and learn about AGA’s governance and operations while advancing your career and supporting the profession.
Bethesda, MD

March 23–24, 2019
2019 Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit
The 2019 program will present the latest evidence on the interaction between diet, nutrition and the gut microbiome. Learn how diet and nutrition are being used in concert with traditional therapies to manage GI disorders.
Miami, FL

May 18-21, 2019
Digestive Disease Week (DDW)®
DDW^® is the world’s leading educational forum for academicians, clinicians, researchers, students and trainees working in gastroenterology, hepatology, GI endoscopy, gastrointestinal surgery and related fields. Whether you work in patient care, research, education or administration, the DDW program offers something for you. DDW is co-sponsored by AGA, AASLD, ASGE and SSAT.
San Diego, CA

AWARDS APPLICATION DEADLINES

AGA-Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine Research Scholar Award in Pediatric Genomics
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (totaling $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in gastroenterology, hepatology or related areas. The proposed research may be basic, translational or clinical and must use genomics as an approach to enhance understanding of pediatric digestive diseases toward prevention, treatment and/or cure of such diseases. The funded research must be conducted full-time at the Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine in San Diego, California, or at Rady Children’s Hospital – San Diego.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA-Bern Schwartz Family Fund Research Scholar Award in Pancreatic Cancer
This award provides $100,000 per year for three years (total $300,000) to early career faculty (i.e., investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent) working toward an independent career in pancreatic cancer research.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA Research Scholar Award (RSA)
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (total $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in gastroenterology, hepatology or related areas.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (total $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in functional GI and motility disorders research.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA-Takeda Pharmaceuticals Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (total $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in inflammatory bowel disease research.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This travel award provides nine $500 and one $1,000 prize to recipients who are MD, PhD or equivalent fellows presenting posters/oral sessions at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 15, 2019

AGA Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This travel award provides two $750 prizes to recipients who are young basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America to support travel and related expenses to attend Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 15, 2019

AGA Student Abstract Award
This travel award provides nine $500 and one $1,000 prize to recipients who are high school, undergraduate, graduate, or medical students or residents (residents up to year three postgraduate) presenting posters/oral sessions at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 15, 2019

For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Dec. 10-11, 12-13, 2018; Jan. 16-17, 22-23, 23-24, 2019; Feb. 20-21, 2019
Two-Day, In-Depth Coding Seminar by McVey Associates, Inc
.Become a certified GI coder with a two-day, in-depth training course provided by McVey Associates, Inc.
Tampa, FL (12/10-11), Dallas, TX (12/12-13), Houston, TX (1/16-17), New Orleans, LA (1/22-23), Pittsburgh, PA (1/23-24), 2/20 (Hartford, CT)

Jan. 17-19, 2019
2019 GI Cancers Symposium
Join colleagues from across the globe in San Francisco to discover and share groundbreaking research in treating gastrointestinal cancers.
San Francisco, CA

Feb. 7–9, 2019
Crohn’s & Colitis Congress™ (A Partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and American Gastroenterological Association)
Expand your knowledge, network with IBD leaders, spark innovative research and get inspired to improve patient care.
Las Vegas, NV

March 8-9, 2019
2019 Women’s Leadership Conference
The conference is specifically designed for women looking to advance their careers, further professional goals, enhance personal growth and effectively network.
Bethesda, MD

March 8-10, 2019
FORWARD Program
AGA’s Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity (FORWARD) Program is a new initiative funded by NIH, supporting the career entry and development for underrepresented minority physician scientists in gastroenterology. The program provides concrete leadership and skill development that includes scientific manuscript and grant writing, research development, executive coaching and more.
Bethesda, MD

March 8-10, 2019
Future Leaders Program
The Future Leaders Program provides a pathway within the organization to network, connect with mentors, develop leadership skills and learn about AGA’s governance and operations while advancing your career and supporting the profession.
Bethesda, MD

March 23–24, 2019
2019 Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit
The 2019 program will present the latest evidence on the interaction between diet, nutrition and the gut microbiome. Learn how diet and nutrition are being used in concert with traditional therapies to manage GI disorders.
Miami, FL

May 18-21, 2019
Digestive Disease Week (DDW)®
DDW^® is the world’s leading educational forum for academicians, clinicians, researchers, students and trainees working in gastroenterology, hepatology, GI endoscopy, gastrointestinal surgery and related fields. Whether you work in patient care, research, education or administration, the DDW program offers something for you. DDW is co-sponsored by AGA, AASLD, ASGE and SSAT.
San Diego, CA

AWARDS APPLICATION DEADLINES

AGA-Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine Research Scholar Award in Pediatric Genomics
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (totaling $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in gastroenterology, hepatology or related areas. The proposed research may be basic, translational or clinical and must use genomics as an approach to enhance understanding of pediatric digestive diseases toward prevention, treatment and/or cure of such diseases. The funded research must be conducted full-time at the Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine in San Diego, California, or at Rady Children’s Hospital – San Diego.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA-Bern Schwartz Family Fund Research Scholar Award in Pancreatic Cancer
This award provides $100,000 per year for three years (total $300,000) to early career faculty (i.e., investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent) working toward an independent career in pancreatic cancer research.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA Research Scholar Award (RSA)
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (total $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in gastroenterology, hepatology or related areas.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (total $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in functional GI and motility disorders research.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA-Takeda Pharmaceuticals Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (total $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in inflammatory bowel disease research.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This travel award provides nine $500 and one $1,000 prize to recipients who are MD, PhD or equivalent fellows presenting posters/oral sessions at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 15, 2019

AGA Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This travel award provides two $750 prizes to recipients who are young basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America to support travel and related expenses to attend Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 15, 2019

AGA Student Abstract Award
This travel award provides nine $500 and one $1,000 prize to recipients who are high school, undergraduate, graduate, or medical students or residents (residents up to year three postgraduate) presenting posters/oral sessions at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 15, 2019

For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Dec. 10-11, 12-13, 2018; Jan. 16-17, 22-23, 23-24, 2019; Feb. 20-21, 2019
Two-Day, In-Depth Coding Seminar by McVey Associates, Inc
.Become a certified GI coder with a two-day, in-depth training course provided by McVey Associates, Inc.
Tampa, FL (12/10-11), Dallas, TX (12/12-13), Houston, TX (1/16-17), New Orleans, LA (1/22-23), Pittsburgh, PA (1/23-24), 2/20 (Hartford, CT)

Jan. 17-19, 2019
2019 GI Cancers Symposium
Join colleagues from across the globe in San Francisco to discover and share groundbreaking research in treating gastrointestinal cancers.
San Francisco, CA

Feb. 7–9, 2019
Crohn’s & Colitis Congress™ (A Partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and American Gastroenterological Association)
Expand your knowledge, network with IBD leaders, spark innovative research and get inspired to improve patient care.
Las Vegas, NV

March 8-9, 2019
2019 Women’s Leadership Conference
The conference is specifically designed for women looking to advance their careers, further professional goals, enhance personal growth and effectively network.
Bethesda, MD

March 8-10, 2019
FORWARD Program
AGA’s Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity (FORWARD) Program is a new initiative funded by NIH, supporting the career entry and development for underrepresented minority physician scientists in gastroenterology. The program provides concrete leadership and skill development that includes scientific manuscript and grant writing, research development, executive coaching and more.
Bethesda, MD

March 8-10, 2019
Future Leaders Program
The Future Leaders Program provides a pathway within the organization to network, connect with mentors, develop leadership skills and learn about AGA’s governance and operations while advancing your career and supporting the profession.
Bethesda, MD

March 23–24, 2019
2019 Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit
The 2019 program will present the latest evidence on the interaction between diet, nutrition and the gut microbiome. Learn how diet and nutrition are being used in concert with traditional therapies to manage GI disorders.
Miami, FL

May 18-21, 2019
Digestive Disease Week (DDW)®
DDW^® is the world’s leading educational forum for academicians, clinicians, researchers, students and trainees working in gastroenterology, hepatology, GI endoscopy, gastrointestinal surgery and related fields. Whether you work in patient care, research, education or administration, the DDW program offers something for you. DDW is co-sponsored by AGA, AASLD, ASGE and SSAT.
San Diego, CA

AWARDS APPLICATION DEADLINES

AGA-Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine Research Scholar Award in Pediatric Genomics
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (totaling $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in gastroenterology, hepatology or related areas. The proposed research may be basic, translational or clinical and must use genomics as an approach to enhance understanding of pediatric digestive diseases toward prevention, treatment and/or cure of such diseases. The funded research must be conducted full-time at the Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine in San Diego, California, or at Rady Children’s Hospital – San Diego.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA-Bern Schwartz Family Fund Research Scholar Award in Pancreatic Cancer
This award provides $100,000 per year for three years (total $300,000) to early career faculty (i.e., investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent) working toward an independent career in pancreatic cancer research.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA Research Scholar Award (RSA)
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (total $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in gastroenterology, hepatology or related areas.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (total $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in functional GI and motility disorders research.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA-Takeda Pharmaceuticals Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
This award provides $90,000 per year for three years (total $270,000) to a young investigator, instructor, research associate or equivalent working toward an independent career in inflammatory bowel disease research.
Application Deadline: Dec. 14, 2018

AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This travel award provides nine $500 and one $1,000 prize to recipients who are MD, PhD or equivalent fellows presenting posters/oral sessions at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 15, 2019

AGA Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This travel award provides two $750 prizes to recipients who are young basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America to support travel and related expenses to attend Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 15, 2019

AGA Student Abstract Award
This travel award provides nine $500 and one $1,000 prize to recipients who are high school, undergraduate, graduate, or medical students or residents (residents up to year three postgraduate) presenting posters/oral sessions at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
Application Deadline: Feb. 15, 2019

MUNICH – A combination of the selective phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor alpelisib and fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significantly better progression-free survival than placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with PIK3CA mutations, investigators in the SOLAR-1 trial reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The addition of alpelisib, an inhibitor of the alpha isoform of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), to fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor modifier, was associated with a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), reported Fabrice André, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

“Alpelisib plus fulvestrant is a potential new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutant, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who have progressed on prior endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK 4/6 [cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6] inhibitor,” he said in a podium presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Unlike other PI3K inhibitors which have activity spanning the alpha, beta, gamma, and delta isoforms of PI3K, alpelisib is specific for only the alpha isoform, giving it a safety profile that compares favorably with other agents in its class, Dr. André said.

Results of other studies combining PI3K inhibition with endocrine therapy have not borne especially sweet fruit. For example, the SANDPIPER trial, a study of the combination of fulvestrant and the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib (Zydelig) presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, showed a benefit of 2 months more PFS, compared with fulvestrant alone, but at the cost of serious toxicities in half of all patients treated with the combination.

In the SOLAR-1 trial, investigators randomized 572 postmenopausal women, or men (sex of patients not shown), with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Of the 572 patients, 341 were determined to have PIK3CA mutations.

To be eligible for the study, patients had to have good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (1 or less) and have received one or more prior lines of endocrine therapy but no chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

Patients who had previously received fulvestrant, any PI3K inhibitor, Akt inhibitor, or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were excluded.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of treatment cycle 1 and then every 28 days, plus either oral alpelisib (300 mg daily) or placebo.

Locally assessed PFS in patients with PIK3CA mutations, the primary endpoint, favored alpelisib. At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS with alpelisib was 11 months, versus 5.7 months for placebo. The hazard ratio for progression with alpelisib was 0.65 (P = .00065).

A blinded independent review committee assessment of 50% of patients in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort supported the investigator-assessed findings, with a median PFS of 11.1 months with alpelisib, versus 3.7 months with placebo.

In contrast, a proof-of-concept analysis of the 231 patients without PIK3CA mutations could not show a benefit for alpelisib over placebo.

In the PIK3CA-mutant cohort, the overall response rates among patients with measurable disease were 35.7% with alpelisib versus 16.2% with placebo (P = .0002). Respective response rates among all patients were 26.6% and 12.8% (P = .0006).

Adverse events in the entire trial population included hyperglycemia leading to discontinuation of alpelisib in 6.3% of patients and rash leading to discontinuation of the drug in 3.2% of patients. There were no discontinuations for either hyperglycemia or rash in the placebo arm.

The hyperglycemia can be managed with metformin, Dr. André said.

At a briefing prior to presentation of the SOLAR-1 data in a symposium, briefing discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, of the University of Munich Medical Center said that the trial represents a significant advance.

“We have numerous talks, also phase 3 trials, with PI3-kinase inhibitors where we saw marginal benefit, and the drugs weren’t usable in clinical practice because the tolerability was so bad. So this is now the first phase 3 data proving that if you have a targeted drug and the tumor has the target, you can actually almost double progression-free survival, and I think this will change the way we practice,” she said.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Rebecca Dent, MD, a senior consultant at the National Cancer Centre Singapore, the invited discussant at the symposium, complimented the SOLAR-1 investigators for conducting a “clinically homogeneous, biomarker-driven clinical trial reflecting new pathways to registration.”

She suggested that the significant clinical toxicities seen with PI3K inhibitors might be ameliorated with different dosing schedules, pharmacodynamic endpoints such as hyperglycemia, or potential prophylaxis.

The trial demonstrated a clinically meaningful absolute PFS benefit, the best in class, but updated data, including overall survival data, are still needed, Dr. Dent said. “We also need to see the quality-of-life data; this is what’s important for our patients. Is this improving progression-free survival, is it improving quality of life, and is it improving overall survival? Only the future will tell.”

SOLAR-1 was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. André disclosed research grants from Novartis and others. Dr. Dent disclosed advisory board, honoraria, or travel support from Novartis and others. Dr. Harbeck disclosed honoraria for consulting and lecturing for Pfizer and others.

SOURCE: Andre F et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract LBA3_PR.

MUNICH – A combination of the selective phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor alpelisib and fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significantly better progression-free survival than placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with PIK3CA mutations, investigators in the SOLAR-1 trial reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The addition of alpelisib, an inhibitor of the alpha isoform of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), to fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor modifier, was associated with a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), reported Fabrice André, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

“Alpelisib plus fulvestrant is a potential new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutant, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who have progressed on prior endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK 4/6 [cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6] inhibitor,” he said in a podium presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Unlike other PI3K inhibitors which have activity spanning the alpha, beta, gamma, and delta isoforms of PI3K, alpelisib is specific for only the alpha isoform, giving it a safety profile that compares favorably with other agents in its class, Dr. André said.

Results of other studies combining PI3K inhibition with endocrine therapy have not borne especially sweet fruit. For example, the SANDPIPER trial, a study of the combination of fulvestrant and the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib (Zydelig) presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, showed a benefit of 2 months more PFS, compared with fulvestrant alone, but at the cost of serious toxicities in half of all patients treated with the combination.

In the SOLAR-1 trial, investigators randomized 572 postmenopausal women, or men (sex of patients not shown), with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Of the 572 patients, 341 were determined to have PIK3CA mutations.

To be eligible for the study, patients had to have good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (1 or less) and have received one or more prior lines of endocrine therapy but no chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

Patients who had previously received fulvestrant, any PI3K inhibitor, Akt inhibitor, or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were excluded.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of treatment cycle 1 and then every 28 days, plus either oral alpelisib (300 mg daily) or placebo.

Locally assessed PFS in patients with PIK3CA mutations, the primary endpoint, favored alpelisib. At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS with alpelisib was 11 months, versus 5.7 months for placebo. The hazard ratio for progression with alpelisib was 0.65 (P = .00065).

A blinded independent review committee assessment of 50% of patients in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort supported the investigator-assessed findings, with a median PFS of 11.1 months with alpelisib, versus 3.7 months with placebo.

In contrast, a proof-of-concept analysis of the 231 patients without PIK3CA mutations could not show a benefit for alpelisib over placebo.

In the PIK3CA-mutant cohort, the overall response rates among patients with measurable disease were 35.7% with alpelisib versus 16.2% with placebo (P = .0002). Respective response rates among all patients were 26.6% and 12.8% (P = .0006).

Adverse events in the entire trial population included hyperglycemia leading to discontinuation of alpelisib in 6.3% of patients and rash leading to discontinuation of the drug in 3.2% of patients. There were no discontinuations for either hyperglycemia or rash in the placebo arm.

The hyperglycemia can be managed with metformin, Dr. André said.

At a briefing prior to presentation of the SOLAR-1 data in a symposium, briefing discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, of the University of Munich Medical Center said that the trial represents a significant advance.

“We have numerous talks, also phase 3 trials, with PI3-kinase inhibitors where we saw marginal benefit, and the drugs weren’t usable in clinical practice because the tolerability was so bad. So this is now the first phase 3 data proving that if you have a targeted drug and the tumor has the target, you can actually almost double progression-free survival, and I think this will change the way we practice,” she said.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Rebecca Dent, MD, a senior consultant at the National Cancer Centre Singapore, the invited discussant at the symposium, complimented the SOLAR-1 investigators for conducting a “clinically homogeneous, biomarker-driven clinical trial reflecting new pathways to registration.”

She suggested that the significant clinical toxicities seen with PI3K inhibitors might be ameliorated with different dosing schedules, pharmacodynamic endpoints such as hyperglycemia, or potential prophylaxis.

The trial demonstrated a clinically meaningful absolute PFS benefit, the best in class, but updated data, including overall survival data, are still needed, Dr. Dent said. “We also need to see the quality-of-life data; this is what’s important for our patients. Is this improving progression-free survival, is it improving quality of life, and is it improving overall survival? Only the future will tell.”

SOLAR-1 was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. André disclosed research grants from Novartis and others. Dr. Dent disclosed advisory board, honoraria, or travel support from Novartis and others. Dr. Harbeck disclosed honoraria for consulting and lecturing for Pfizer and others.

SOURCE: Andre F et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract LBA3_PR.

MUNICH – A combination of the selective phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor alpelisib and fulvestrant (Faslodex) was associated with significantly better progression-free survival than placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with PIK3CA mutations, investigators in the SOLAR-1 trial reported.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The addition of alpelisib, an inhibitor of the alpha isoform of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), to fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor modifier, was associated with a 35% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), reported Fabrice André, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

“Alpelisib plus fulvestrant is a potential new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutant, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who have progressed on prior endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK 4/6 [cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6] inhibitor,” he said in a podium presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

Unlike other PI3K inhibitors which have activity spanning the alpha, beta, gamma, and delta isoforms of PI3K, alpelisib is specific for only the alpha isoform, giving it a safety profile that compares favorably with other agents in its class, Dr. André said.

Results of other studies combining PI3K inhibition with endocrine therapy have not borne especially sweet fruit. For example, the SANDPIPER trial, a study of the combination of fulvestrant and the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib (Zydelig) presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, showed a benefit of 2 months more PFS, compared with fulvestrant alone, but at the cost of serious toxicities in half of all patients treated with the combination.

In the SOLAR-1 trial, investigators randomized 572 postmenopausal women, or men (sex of patients not shown), with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Of the 572 patients, 341 were determined to have PIK3CA mutations.

To be eligible for the study, patients had to have good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (1 or less) and have received one or more prior lines of endocrine therapy but no chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

Patients who had previously received fulvestrant, any PI3K inhibitor, Akt inhibitor, or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were excluded.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1 and 15 of treatment cycle 1 and then every 28 days, plus either oral alpelisib (300 mg daily) or placebo.

Locally assessed PFS in patients with PIK3CA mutations, the primary endpoint, favored alpelisib. At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median PFS with alpelisib was 11 months, versus 5.7 months for placebo. The hazard ratio for progression with alpelisib was 0.65 (P = .00065).

A blinded independent review committee assessment of 50% of patients in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort supported the investigator-assessed findings, with a median PFS of 11.1 months with alpelisib, versus 3.7 months with placebo.

In contrast, a proof-of-concept analysis of the 231 patients without PIK3CA mutations could not show a benefit for alpelisib over placebo.

In the PIK3CA-mutant cohort, the overall response rates among patients with measurable disease were 35.7% with alpelisib versus 16.2% with placebo (P = .0002). Respective response rates among all patients were 26.6% and 12.8% (P = .0006).

Adverse events in the entire trial population included hyperglycemia leading to discontinuation of alpelisib in 6.3% of patients and rash leading to discontinuation of the drug in 3.2% of patients. There were no discontinuations for either hyperglycemia or rash in the placebo arm.

The hyperglycemia can be managed with metformin, Dr. André said.

At a briefing prior to presentation of the SOLAR-1 data in a symposium, briefing discussant Nadia Harbeck, MD, of the University of Munich Medical Center said that the trial represents a significant advance.

“We have numerous talks, also phase 3 trials, with PI3-kinase inhibitors where we saw marginal benefit, and the drugs weren’t usable in clinical practice because the tolerability was so bad. So this is now the first phase 3 data proving that if you have a targeted drug and the tumor has the target, you can actually almost double progression-free survival, and I think this will change the way we practice,” she said.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Rebecca Dent, MD, a senior consultant at the National Cancer Centre Singapore, the invited discussant at the symposium, complimented the SOLAR-1 investigators for conducting a “clinically homogeneous, biomarker-driven clinical trial reflecting new pathways to registration.”

She suggested that the significant clinical toxicities seen with PI3K inhibitors might be ameliorated with different dosing schedules, pharmacodynamic endpoints such as hyperglycemia, or potential prophylaxis.

The trial demonstrated a clinically meaningful absolute PFS benefit, the best in class, but updated data, including overall survival data, are still needed, Dr. Dent said. “We also need to see the quality-of-life data; this is what’s important for our patients. Is this improving progression-free survival, is it improving quality of life, and is it improving overall survival? Only the future will tell.”

SOLAR-1 was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. André disclosed research grants from Novartis and others. Dr. Dent disclosed advisory board, honoraria, or travel support from Novartis and others. Dr. Harbeck disclosed honoraria for consulting and lecturing for Pfizer and others.

SOURCE: Andre F et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract LBA3_PR.

The Food and Drug Administration has extended the indication for a quadrivalent influenza vaccine (Afluria, marketed by Seqirus) to include infants and younger children.

The expanded approval now includes persons aged 6-59 months; the quadrivalent vaccine had previously been approved for ages 5 years and up. A trivalent version of the Afluria influenza vaccine also now is indicated for people aged 6 months and up, according to an Oct. 4 communication from the FDA.

A total of 172 pediatric influenza-related deaths occurred in the United States during the 2017-2018 season, representing a new high in nonpandemic influenza seasons. About half of the pediatric influenza deaths occurred in otherwise healthy children, and about 22% of children who died were fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reporting U.S. data from 2010 to 2016.

“As we enter a new flu season, we are reminded of the enormous impact that influenza can have on public health,” Seqirus’ vice president of medical affairs Gregg Sylvester, MD, said in a press release announcing the extended indication. “Having another option to fight this disease can translate to saved lives and fewer flu-related hospitalizations this season and going forward.”

According to the CDC, the 2018-2019 influenza vaccine has been updated to provide a better match – and more protection against – viruses circulating in this influenza season. Specifically, says the CDC, the influenza B Victoria lineage and the influenza A(H3N2) components were updated.

In addition to providing protection against these two strains of influenza, trivalent vaccines for the 2018-2019 season are recommended to include protection against H1N1 influenza as well. Quadrivalent vaccines protect against a second influenza B lineage.

Most people will receive a quadrivalent vaccine this year, according to the CDC.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has extended the indication for a quadrivalent influenza vaccine (Afluria, marketed by Seqirus) to include infants and younger children.

The expanded approval now includes persons aged 6-59 months; the quadrivalent vaccine had previously been approved for ages 5 years and up. A trivalent version of the Afluria influenza vaccine also now is indicated for people aged 6 months and up, according to an Oct. 4 communication from the FDA.

A total of 172 pediatric influenza-related deaths occurred in the United States during the 2017-2018 season, representing a new high in nonpandemic influenza seasons. About half of the pediatric influenza deaths occurred in otherwise healthy children, and about 22% of children who died were fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reporting U.S. data from 2010 to 2016.

“As we enter a new flu season, we are reminded of the enormous impact that influenza can have on public health,” Seqirus’ vice president of medical affairs Gregg Sylvester, MD, said in a press release announcing the extended indication. “Having another option to fight this disease can translate to saved lives and fewer flu-related hospitalizations this season and going forward.”

According to the CDC, the 2018-2019 influenza vaccine has been updated to provide a better match – and more protection against – viruses circulating in this influenza season. Specifically, says the CDC, the influenza B Victoria lineage and the influenza A(H3N2) components were updated.

In addition to providing protection against these two strains of influenza, trivalent vaccines for the 2018-2019 season are recommended to include protection against H1N1 influenza as well. Quadrivalent vaccines protect against a second influenza B lineage.

Most people will receive a quadrivalent vaccine this year, according to the CDC.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has extended the indication for a quadrivalent influenza vaccine (Afluria, marketed by Seqirus) to include infants and younger children.

The expanded approval now includes persons aged 6-59 months; the quadrivalent vaccine had previously been approved for ages 5 years and up. A trivalent version of the Afluria influenza vaccine also now is indicated for people aged 6 months and up, according to an Oct. 4 communication from the FDA.

A total of 172 pediatric influenza-related deaths occurred in the United States during the 2017-2018 season, representing a new high in nonpandemic influenza seasons. About half of the pediatric influenza deaths occurred in otherwise healthy children, and about 22% of children who died were fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reporting U.S. data from 2010 to 2016.

“As we enter a new flu season, we are reminded of the enormous impact that influenza can have on public health,” Seqirus’ vice president of medical affairs Gregg Sylvester, MD, said in a press release announcing the extended indication. “Having another option to fight this disease can translate to saved lives and fewer flu-related hospitalizations this season and going forward.”

According to the CDC, the 2018-2019 influenza vaccine has been updated to provide a better match – and more protection against – viruses circulating in this influenza season. Specifically, says the CDC, the influenza B Victoria lineage and the influenza A(H3N2) components were updated.

In addition to providing protection against these two strains of influenza, trivalent vaccines for the 2018-2019 season are recommended to include protection against H1N1 influenza as well. Quadrivalent vaccines protect against a second influenza B lineage.

Most people will receive a quadrivalent vaccine this year, according to the CDC.

[email protected]

Uterine serous carcinoma patients may have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), not just in the postoperative period, but throughout the natural history of the disease, results of a retrospective analysis suggest.

Most patients developed VTE either before staging surgery or more than 6 months postoperatively, according to results of the analysis reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Nearly one-third (31%) of the women developed VTE while receiving chemotherapy, reported Gregory M. Gressel, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and his coinvestigators.

The risk was highest in women with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and stage III and IV disease, they said.

“Although this is a retrospective study, it generates the hypothesis that venous thromboembolism prophylaxis may be beneficial in women with active uterine serous carcinoma, at least while receiving treatment such as neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Gressel and his coauthors noted.

Historically, clinical practice guidelines have focused on risk stratification in the perioperative period due to the strong association between cancer-related VTE and surgery, the authors wrote.

To better assess the timing and risk factors associated with clot development, Dr. Gressel and his colleagues abstracted clinical data from the medical records of 413 patients with uterine serous carcinoma between 1999 and 2016 at one center in New York, about half of whom identified as black and one-quarter as Hispanic.

Eighty-four percent of the patients were diagnosed with VTE before or after the 6-week postoperative window when thromboprophylaxis typically is recommended, and 31% developed clots during chemotherapy, the investigators reported. The median time to clot development was 7.2 months after diagnosis, and, after excluding patients who developed clots preoperatively or during chemotherapy, the investigators found the median time from surgery to VTE was 13.2 months.

Patients with stage III and IV disease were, respectively, 2.6 and 4 times more likely to develop thrombosis, compared with patients with stage I disease. Conversely, age, body mass index, and race were not associated with VTE diagnosis.

Patients who developed VTE on chemotherapy had a median Khorana score of 1, which corresponds to an intermediate risk of VTE, the investigators said, adding that pharmacologic prophylaxis is recommended only in patients with scores of 3 or higher.

“Ours is not the first report to posit that currently available venous thromboembolism risk stratification tools are of limited utility in gynecologic oncology patients,” said Dr. Gressel and his coauthors.

However, larger prospective studies are needed, not only to look at the utility of Khorana scoring in this high-risk histologic subtype, they said, but also to test their hypothesis that VTE prophylaxis may be beneficial during chemotherapy or other active treatment.

Dr. Gressel and his colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science.

SOURCE: Gressel GM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Oct 5;132:1130-6.

Uterine serous carcinoma patients may have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), not just in the postoperative period, but throughout the natural history of the disease, results of a retrospective analysis suggest.

Most patients developed VTE either before staging surgery or more than 6 months postoperatively, according to results of the analysis reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Nearly one-third (31%) of the women developed VTE while receiving chemotherapy, reported Gregory M. Gressel, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and his coinvestigators.

The risk was highest in women with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and stage III and IV disease, they said.

“Although this is a retrospective study, it generates the hypothesis that venous thromboembolism prophylaxis may be beneficial in women with active uterine serous carcinoma, at least while receiving treatment such as neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Gressel and his coauthors noted.

Historically, clinical practice guidelines have focused on risk stratification in the perioperative period due to the strong association between cancer-related VTE and surgery, the authors wrote.

To better assess the timing and risk factors associated with clot development, Dr. Gressel and his colleagues abstracted clinical data from the medical records of 413 patients with uterine serous carcinoma between 1999 and 2016 at one center in New York, about half of whom identified as black and one-quarter as Hispanic.

Eighty-four percent of the patients were diagnosed with VTE before or after the 6-week postoperative window when thromboprophylaxis typically is recommended, and 31% developed clots during chemotherapy, the investigators reported. The median time to clot development was 7.2 months after diagnosis, and, after excluding patients who developed clots preoperatively or during chemotherapy, the investigators found the median time from surgery to VTE was 13.2 months.

Patients with stage III and IV disease were, respectively, 2.6 and 4 times more likely to develop thrombosis, compared with patients with stage I disease. Conversely, age, body mass index, and race were not associated with VTE diagnosis.

Patients who developed VTE on chemotherapy had a median Khorana score of 1, which corresponds to an intermediate risk of VTE, the investigators said, adding that pharmacologic prophylaxis is recommended only in patients with scores of 3 or higher.

“Ours is not the first report to posit that currently available venous thromboembolism risk stratification tools are of limited utility in gynecologic oncology patients,” said Dr. Gressel and his coauthors.

However, larger prospective studies are needed, not only to look at the utility of Khorana scoring in this high-risk histologic subtype, they said, but also to test their hypothesis that VTE prophylaxis may be beneficial during chemotherapy or other active treatment.

Dr. Gressel and his colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science.

SOURCE: Gressel GM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Oct 5;132:1130-6.

Uterine serous carcinoma patients may have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), not just in the postoperative period, but throughout the natural history of the disease, results of a retrospective analysis suggest.

Most patients developed VTE either before staging surgery or more than 6 months postoperatively, according to results of the analysis reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Nearly one-third (31%) of the women developed VTE while receiving chemotherapy, reported Gregory M. Gressel, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and his coinvestigators.

The risk was highest in women with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and stage III and IV disease, they said.

“Although this is a retrospective study, it generates the hypothesis that venous thromboembolism prophylaxis may be beneficial in women with active uterine serous carcinoma, at least while receiving treatment such as neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Gressel and his coauthors noted.

Historically, clinical practice guidelines have focused on risk stratification in the perioperative period due to the strong association between cancer-related VTE and surgery, the authors wrote.

To better assess the timing and risk factors associated with clot development, Dr. Gressel and his colleagues abstracted clinical data from the medical records of 413 patients with uterine serous carcinoma between 1999 and 2016 at one center in New York, about half of whom identified as black and one-quarter as Hispanic.

Eighty-four percent of the patients were diagnosed with VTE before or after the 6-week postoperative window when thromboprophylaxis typically is recommended, and 31% developed clots during chemotherapy, the investigators reported. The median time to clot development was 7.2 months after diagnosis, and, after excluding patients who developed clots preoperatively or during chemotherapy, the investigators found the median time from surgery to VTE was 13.2 months.

Patients with stage III and IV disease were, respectively, 2.6 and 4 times more likely to develop thrombosis, compared with patients with stage I disease. Conversely, age, body mass index, and race were not associated with VTE diagnosis.

Patients who developed VTE on chemotherapy had a median Khorana score of 1, which corresponds to an intermediate risk of VTE, the investigators said, adding that pharmacologic prophylaxis is recommended only in patients with scores of 3 or higher.

“Ours is not the first report to posit that currently available venous thromboembolism risk stratification tools are of limited utility in gynecologic oncology patients,” said Dr. Gressel and his coauthors.

However, larger prospective studies are needed, not only to look at the utility of Khorana scoring in this high-risk histologic subtype, they said, but also to test their hypothesis that VTE prophylaxis may be beneficial during chemotherapy or other active treatment.

Dr. Gressel and his colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science.

SOURCE: Gressel GM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Oct 5;132:1130-6.

Recent recommendations from an international task force advocating that patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) be treated to a target of clinical remission have been backed up by research that finds the goal is a feasible one.

Published online in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized BEST for Kids study found that, regardless of initial specific treatments, after 24 months of treatment to target aimed at drug-free inactive disease, 71% of recent-onset patients with JIA had inactive disease (at a median onset of 9 months), and 39% were drug free.

The investigators, led by Petra Hissink Muller, MD, department of pediatrics, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center said previous studies of JIA supported the “window of opportunity” hypothesis in which disease optimally responds to treatment.

“In JIA, continuous treatment-to-target therapy in a tight control setting, with treatment adjustments based on frequent evaluations of disease activity, has not yet been studied. Recent recommendations agree that treatment to target should be implemented in daily practice,” they wrote.

The aim of the BEST for Kids study was to investigate which of three frequently used treatment-to-target strategies was most effective and safe.

Overall, 94 children (67% girls) with a median age of 9.1 years with new-onset (oligoarticular, juvenile psoriatic arthritis, or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarticular) JIA, without previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy and symptom duration of less than 18 months were enrolled in the study.

Median symptom duration was 7.5 months and median duration between diagnosis and inclusion in the study was 6 weeks. The investigators noted that two patients left the study during follow-up because of a revised diagnosis.

All study participants were randomized into three strategy arms:

• Initial treatment with conventional synthetic DMARD monotherapy (methotrexate [MTX] or sulfasalazine if preferred by treating physician), n = 32.
• Initial treatment with MTX and 6 weeks of tapered prednisolone (‘bridging therapy), n = 32).
• Initial treatment with MTX and etanercept, n = 30.

In case of inactive disease for at least 3 (oligoarticular disease) or 6 (polyarticular disease) consecutive months, DMARDs were tapered and stopped in all three arms. For combination therapy, etanercept was tapered to once every 2 weeks, followed by a 50% dose reduction, then halted. The dose of MTX or sulfasalazine was reduced by 25% per week to zero.

In case of a disease flare, the last discontinued drug and/or the last effective dose was reintroduced. The protocol did not allow prednisolone to be restarted, whereas etanercept could be restarted but not discontinued for a second time.

The primary outcome of the trial was time to inactive disease and time to flare (defined as the time between first moment of drug-free inactive disease (DFID) and the first arthritis flare as judged by the treating physician) after tapering and stopping all DMARD therapy. Secondary outcomes were adapted ACR Pediatric (ACR Pedi) 30/50/70/90 scores, functional ability, and adverse events.

Results showed that after 24 months inactive disease was achieved by more than 70% of the patients (71%, arm 1; 70%, arm 2; and 72%, arm 3).

Furthermore, drug-free inactive disease (DFID) was achieved by 59% of the cohort (54 of 92 patients; 45% of arm 1, 31% of arm 2, and 41% of arm 3), although the authors noted that early flares did occur in 14 patients and were successfully retreated, resulting in 39% of the patients in DFID at the 2-year study endpoint.

In the treatment of JIA,“we showed that tapering and discontinuation of treatment is a realistic goal. On the other hand, treatment to target resulted in a relatively high use of [biologic] DMARDs, greater than 50% of patients in all arms,” the investigators wrote.

Median time to inactive disease was 9 months in all arms (P = .30), and time to flare was also not significantly different among the groups (overall 3 months [3.0-6.8]; P = .7). The investigators noted that while overall flare rates (26%) were lower than the 37%-60% mentioned in previous cohorts, this finding could be a result of the limited follow-up time.

After 3 months of treatment, more patients who started with MTX and etanercept (arm 3) had achieved rapid improvement as determined by ACR Pedi 70 scores. However, the investigators noted that, because of treatment adjustments in cases of active disease, which were needed more often in arms 1 and 2 than in arm 3, ACR Pedi improvement scores were met in similar percentages of patients over time across the arms.

Adverse events were similar across treatment arms and were generally mild, involving mostly gastrointestinal complaints, upper respiratory tract and other infections, and general malaise.

Overall, the investigators concluded that DFID was a “feasible goal” in the treatment of children with JIA.

Limitations of the study included breaches of treatment protocol by physicians in patients across the three arms.“The physicians did not follow protocol for various reasons, mainly reluctance to intensify therapy based on shared decision making,” they wrote.

Another limitation was the small sample size, which the investigators said could obscure differences between groups that in a larger population might have become clear.

“Long-term follow-up of the BEST for Kids cohort, including radiology results, is initiated to investigate possible lasting positive results of treatment to target in JIA,” they said.

SOURCE: Hissink Muller P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Oct 12. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213902.

Recent recommendations from an international task force advocating that patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) be treated to a target of clinical remission have been backed up by research that finds the goal is a feasible one.

Published online in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized BEST for Kids study found that, regardless of initial specific treatments, after 24 months of treatment to target aimed at drug-free inactive disease, 71% of recent-onset patients with JIA had inactive disease (at a median onset of 9 months), and 39% were drug free.

The investigators, led by Petra Hissink Muller, MD, department of pediatrics, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center said previous studies of JIA supported the “window of opportunity” hypothesis in which disease optimally responds to treatment.

“In JIA, continuous treatment-to-target therapy in a tight control setting, with treatment adjustments based on frequent evaluations of disease activity, has not yet been studied. Recent recommendations agree that treatment to target should be implemented in daily practice,” they wrote.

The aim of the BEST for Kids study was to investigate which of three frequently used treatment-to-target strategies was most effective and safe.

Overall, 94 children (67% girls) with a median age of 9.1 years with new-onset (oligoarticular, juvenile psoriatic arthritis, or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarticular) JIA, without previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy and symptom duration of less than 18 months were enrolled in the study.

Median symptom duration was 7.5 months and median duration between diagnosis and inclusion in the study was 6 weeks. The investigators noted that two patients left the study during follow-up because of a revised diagnosis.

All study participants were randomized into three strategy arms:

• Initial treatment with conventional synthetic DMARD monotherapy (methotrexate [MTX] or sulfasalazine if preferred by treating physician), n = 32.
• Initial treatment with MTX and 6 weeks of tapered prednisolone (‘bridging therapy), n = 32).
• Initial treatment with MTX and etanercept, n = 30.

In case of inactive disease for at least 3 (oligoarticular disease) or 6 (polyarticular disease) consecutive months, DMARDs were tapered and stopped in all three arms. For combination therapy, etanercept was tapered to once every 2 weeks, followed by a 50% dose reduction, then halted. The dose of MTX or sulfasalazine was reduced by 25% per week to zero.

In case of a disease flare, the last discontinued drug and/or the last effective dose was reintroduced. The protocol did not allow prednisolone to be restarted, whereas etanercept could be restarted but not discontinued for a second time.

The primary outcome of the trial was time to inactive disease and time to flare (defined as the time between first moment of drug-free inactive disease (DFID) and the first arthritis flare as judged by the treating physician) after tapering and stopping all DMARD therapy. Secondary outcomes were adapted ACR Pediatric (ACR Pedi) 30/50/70/90 scores, functional ability, and adverse events.

Results showed that after 24 months inactive disease was achieved by more than 70% of the patients (71%, arm 1; 70%, arm 2; and 72%, arm 3).

Furthermore, drug-free inactive disease (DFID) was achieved by 59% of the cohort (54 of 92 patients; 45% of arm 1, 31% of arm 2, and 41% of arm 3), although the authors noted that early flares did occur in 14 patients and were successfully retreated, resulting in 39% of the patients in DFID at the 2-year study endpoint.

In the treatment of JIA,“we showed that tapering and discontinuation of treatment is a realistic goal. On the other hand, treatment to target resulted in a relatively high use of [biologic] DMARDs, greater than 50% of patients in all arms,” the investigators wrote.

Median time to inactive disease was 9 months in all arms (P = .30), and time to flare was also not significantly different among the groups (overall 3 months [3.0-6.8]; P = .7). The investigators noted that while overall flare rates (26%) were lower than the 37%-60% mentioned in previous cohorts, this finding could be a result of the limited follow-up time.

After 3 months of treatment, more patients who started with MTX and etanercept (arm 3) had achieved rapid improvement as determined by ACR Pedi 70 scores. However, the investigators noted that, because of treatment adjustments in cases of active disease, which were needed more often in arms 1 and 2 than in arm 3, ACR Pedi improvement scores were met in similar percentages of patients over time across the arms.

Adverse events were similar across treatment arms and were generally mild, involving mostly gastrointestinal complaints, upper respiratory tract and other infections, and general malaise.

Overall, the investigators concluded that DFID was a “feasible goal” in the treatment of children with JIA.

Limitations of the study included breaches of treatment protocol by physicians in patients across the three arms.“The physicians did not follow protocol for various reasons, mainly reluctance to intensify therapy based on shared decision making,” they wrote.

Another limitation was the small sample size, which the investigators said could obscure differences between groups that in a larger population might have become clear.

“Long-term follow-up of the BEST for Kids cohort, including radiology results, is initiated to investigate possible lasting positive results of treatment to target in JIA,” they said.

SOURCE: Hissink Muller P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Oct 12. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213902.

Recent recommendations from an international task force advocating that patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) be treated to a target of clinical remission have been backed up by research that finds the goal is a feasible one.

Published online in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized BEST for Kids study found that, regardless of initial specific treatments, after 24 months of treatment to target aimed at drug-free inactive disease, 71% of recent-onset patients with JIA had inactive disease (at a median onset of 9 months), and 39% were drug free.

The investigators, led by Petra Hissink Muller, MD, department of pediatrics, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center said previous studies of JIA supported the “window of opportunity” hypothesis in which disease optimally responds to treatment.

“In JIA, continuous treatment-to-target therapy in a tight control setting, with treatment adjustments based on frequent evaluations of disease activity, has not yet been studied. Recent recommendations agree that treatment to target should be implemented in daily practice,” they wrote.

The aim of the BEST for Kids study was to investigate which of three frequently used treatment-to-target strategies was most effective and safe.

Overall, 94 children (67% girls) with a median age of 9.1 years with new-onset (oligoarticular, juvenile psoriatic arthritis, or rheumatoid factor–negative polyarticular) JIA, without previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy and symptom duration of less than 18 months were enrolled in the study.

Median symptom duration was 7.5 months and median duration between diagnosis and inclusion in the study was 6 weeks. The investigators noted that two patients left the study during follow-up because of a revised diagnosis.

All study participants were randomized into three strategy arms:

• Initial treatment with conventional synthetic DMARD monotherapy (methotrexate [MTX] or sulfasalazine if preferred by treating physician), n = 32.
• Initial treatment with MTX and 6 weeks of tapered prednisolone (‘bridging therapy), n = 32).
• Initial treatment with MTX and etanercept, n = 30.

In case of inactive disease for at least 3 (oligoarticular disease) or 6 (polyarticular disease) consecutive months, DMARDs were tapered and stopped in all three arms. For combination therapy, etanercept was tapered to once every 2 weeks, followed by a 50% dose reduction, then halted. The dose of MTX or sulfasalazine was reduced by 25% per week to zero.

In case of a disease flare, the last discontinued drug and/or the last effective dose was reintroduced. The protocol did not allow prednisolone to be restarted, whereas etanercept could be restarted but not discontinued for a second time.

The primary outcome of the trial was time to inactive disease and time to flare (defined as the time between first moment of drug-free inactive disease (DFID) and the first arthritis flare as judged by the treating physician) after tapering and stopping all DMARD therapy. Secondary outcomes were adapted ACR Pediatric (ACR Pedi) 30/50/70/90 scores, functional ability, and adverse events.

Results showed that after 24 months inactive disease was achieved by more than 70% of the patients (71%, arm 1; 70%, arm 2; and 72%, arm 3).

Furthermore, drug-free inactive disease (DFID) was achieved by 59% of the cohort (54 of 92 patients; 45% of arm 1, 31% of arm 2, and 41% of arm 3), although the authors noted that early flares did occur in 14 patients and were successfully retreated, resulting in 39% of the patients in DFID at the 2-year study endpoint.

In the treatment of JIA,“we showed that tapering and discontinuation of treatment is a realistic goal. On the other hand, treatment to target resulted in a relatively high use of [biologic] DMARDs, greater than 50% of patients in all arms,” the investigators wrote.

Median time to inactive disease was 9 months in all arms (P = .30), and time to flare was also not significantly different among the groups (overall 3 months [3.0-6.8]; P = .7). The investigators noted that while overall flare rates (26%) were lower than the 37%-60% mentioned in previous cohorts, this finding could be a result of the limited follow-up time.

After 3 months of treatment, more patients who started with MTX and etanercept (arm 3) had achieved rapid improvement as determined by ACR Pedi 70 scores. However, the investigators noted that, because of treatment adjustments in cases of active disease, which were needed more often in arms 1 and 2 than in arm 3, ACR Pedi improvement scores were met in similar percentages of patients over time across the arms.

Adverse events were similar across treatment arms and were generally mild, involving mostly gastrointestinal complaints, upper respiratory tract and other infections, and general malaise.

Overall, the investigators concluded that DFID was a “feasible goal” in the treatment of children with JIA.

Limitations of the study included breaches of treatment protocol by physicians in patients across the three arms.“The physicians did not follow protocol for various reasons, mainly reluctance to intensify therapy based on shared decision making,” they wrote.

Another limitation was the small sample size, which the investigators said could obscure differences between groups that in a larger population might have become clear.

“Long-term follow-up of the BEST for Kids cohort, including radiology results, is initiated to investigate possible lasting positive results of treatment to target in JIA,” they said.

SOURCE: Hissink Muller P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Oct 12. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213902.

SAN ANTONIO – Women in medicine have made great strides in cracking the glass ceiling, but it’s not shattered yet, said Stephanie M. Levine, MD, FCCP, the incoming president of CHEST.

At a session on women in medicine at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, Dr. Levine discussed the challenges of breaking through the metaphorical invisible barrier. The “glass ceiling” refers to multiple ways in which women lack equality with men in medicine: leadership roles, positions and titles, progress in academic medicine, gaps in salaries and compensation, and overall gender parity in specialties.

For example, according to data from the American Association of Medical Colleges for 2017-2018, women comprise 50% of medical school graduates but only 34% of the physician workforce and 22% of leadership roles. Women are 13% less likely to be promoted to professor. They receive salaries an average 21% lower than those of their male peers, said Dr. Levine, professor of medicine and director of the pulmonary/critical care fellowship program at the University of Texas, San Antonio.

Disparities exist particularly within specialties and subspecialties, she said. Women make 85% of what men earn in primary care but, in the specialties, only 75% of what men earn. Among active fellow trainees in the areas of medicine most represented by CHEST, one-third (32%) of critical care physicians and less than a third (29%) of pulmonary physicians are female.
 

Why the lag in specialty parity?

The reasons for these disparities are complex, Dr. Levine argued, but the problem is not insurmountable. They begin, in a sense, with the problem itself: When there are fewer mentors, role models, sponsors, and leaders, and less overall representation of women in the first place, it is harder for women to advance.

One male audience member, for example, asked how his department could recruit more women, because most turned down interviews despite the fact that more women than men were being invited. “How many women are in your leadership?” Dr. Levine asked. He acknowledged that there were none – and therein lies the likely problem. Applicants are looking for female representation in leadership.

Gender bias and discrimination certainly play a role among peers, leadership, and even patients. Patients referring to female physicians by their first names and asking questions such as “Are you my nurse?” are subtle but cutting examples of the ways in which they reveal implicit bias and reinforce gender stereotypes, Dr. Levine said to weary nods of agreement among the attendees.

Implicit, unconscious bias is also built into the culture of a place and the way things have always been done. Lack of equity in salary, space to work, support, and promotion all compound one another. Work-life integration challenges often do not favor women. Studies have shown that in the hiring process, CVs with female names do not receive as much attention as do CVs with male names, Dr. Levine noted.

Some of the challenges lie with the way women themselves do or do not advocate for themselves. Research has long shown that women do not negotiate as well – or at all – compared with men. Women tend to be less aggressive in seeking higher compensation and leadership roles, possibly because of existing implicit bias against female assertiveness in general.

The catch-22 is that being more assertive or direct can lead others to interpret a woman as being rude or brusk, as one audience member noted when she described how colleagues perceive her simple, direct tone as seeming “upset.”

Conscious bias remains alive and well: The stereotypes that women are caretakers and men are take-charge dominators persist and can reinforce gender disparities in leadership roles.

Women also must make calculations and trade-offs between their academic promotion clocks and their biologic clocks, Dr. Levine explained.

“The 30s are great for both academic and biologic productivity,” she told attendees. The typical age for a person’s first National Institutes of Health Research Project grant (R01) is in the early 40s.
 

How to improve gender equality

Women bring diverse skills and perspectives to the table, Dr. Levine explained. Women tend to have stronger collaborative skills and greater compassion and empathy, for example. They tend to be less hierarchal and better at mentoring and empowerment, she said.

There are many ways to poke more cracks in the ceiling, starting with diversity and inclusion officers who make it a priority to focus on parity. Formal programs can educate staff and colleagues about implicit bias so that they might more easily recognize it when it kicks in, and training for gatekeepers can lead to more proportional hiring of women at every level.

Institutions should review their policies – salary inequities, diversity in promotion, processes for selecting leaders – and set formal interventional goals that are then evaluated in honest, documented annual reviews.

Some of these policies should address work-life balance as well: Offering part-time and flexible work options during early child-rearing years helps not only mothers, but also fathers who are now taking a more active role in parenting. Slowing or prorating the promotion clock can help those building families, and shifting meetings away from times such as 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. allow mothers and fathers alike to get their kids to and from school and attend children’s events.

Sponsorship of women is an important strategy in breaking the glass ceiling, Dr. Levine said. Sponsors can support women with untapped leadership potential and do the necessary networking and introductions that help make that advance happen. And it must be done by sponsors with power and influence, including men, Dr. Levine said.

Men can play important roles in promoting gender parity by suggesting women for key roles, leadership positions, and committees and also notifying women of upcoming opportunities, such as editorial board spots and other hot jobs. For women who aspire to be leaders, men can seek to convey leadership skills that may be needed to chair committees and other groups. Search committees need to expand beyond looking for “token women,” she said.

Dr. Levine illustrated her address with her own story. She described how many of these strategies had helped her career and how many male supervisors, mentors, and colleagues helped her, including introducing her to other male leaders who then offered her opportunities to contribute to the American College of Chest Physicians. She ran for CHEST president twice before being elected on her third run in September. She is the fifth woman to lead CHEST.

“Don’t give up,” she encouraged women in the audience, telling them to advocate for themselves and to encourage, mentor, and sponsor their female fellows and junior faculty.

“This will result in closing the gaps and will help women achieve leadership roles and competitive salaries as well as work-life integration,” Dr. Levine said.

SAN ANTONIO – Women in medicine have made great strides in cracking the glass ceiling, but it’s not shattered yet, said Stephanie M. Levine, MD, FCCP, the incoming president of CHEST.

At a session on women in medicine at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, Dr. Levine discussed the challenges of breaking through the metaphorical invisible barrier. The “glass ceiling” refers to multiple ways in which women lack equality with men in medicine: leadership roles, positions and titles, progress in academic medicine, gaps in salaries and compensation, and overall gender parity in specialties.

For example, according to data from the American Association of Medical Colleges for 2017-2018, women comprise 50% of medical school graduates but only 34% of the physician workforce and 22% of leadership roles. Women are 13% less likely to be promoted to professor. They receive salaries an average 21% lower than those of their male peers, said Dr. Levine, professor of medicine and director of the pulmonary/critical care fellowship program at the University of Texas, San Antonio.

Disparities exist particularly within specialties and subspecialties, she said. Women make 85% of what men earn in primary care but, in the specialties, only 75% of what men earn. Among active fellow trainees in the areas of medicine most represented by CHEST, one-third (32%) of critical care physicians and less than a third (29%) of pulmonary physicians are female.
 

Why the lag in specialty parity?

The reasons for these disparities are complex, Dr. Levine argued, but the problem is not insurmountable. They begin, in a sense, with the problem itself: When there are fewer mentors, role models, sponsors, and leaders, and less overall representation of women in the first place, it is harder for women to advance.

One male audience member, for example, asked how his department could recruit more women, because most turned down interviews despite the fact that more women than men were being invited. “How many women are in your leadership?” Dr. Levine asked. He acknowledged that there were none – and therein lies the likely problem. Applicants are looking for female representation in leadership.

Gender bias and discrimination certainly play a role among peers, leadership, and even patients. Patients referring to female physicians by their first names and asking questions such as “Are you my nurse?” are subtle but cutting examples of the ways in which they reveal implicit bias and reinforce gender stereotypes, Dr. Levine said to weary nods of agreement among the attendees.

Implicit, unconscious bias is also built into the culture of a place and the way things have always been done. Lack of equity in salary, space to work, support, and promotion all compound one another. Work-life integration challenges often do not favor women. Studies have shown that in the hiring process, CVs with female names do not receive as much attention as do CVs with male names, Dr. Levine noted.

Some of the challenges lie with the way women themselves do or do not advocate for themselves. Research has long shown that women do not negotiate as well – or at all – compared with men. Women tend to be less aggressive in seeking higher compensation and leadership roles, possibly because of existing implicit bias against female assertiveness in general.

The catch-22 is that being more assertive or direct can lead others to interpret a woman as being rude or brusk, as one audience member noted when she described how colleagues perceive her simple, direct tone as seeming “upset.”

Conscious bias remains alive and well: The stereotypes that women are caretakers and men are take-charge dominators persist and can reinforce gender disparities in leadership roles.

Women also must make calculations and trade-offs between their academic promotion clocks and their biologic clocks, Dr. Levine explained.

“The 30s are great for both academic and biologic productivity,” she told attendees. The typical age for a person’s first National Institutes of Health Research Project grant (R01) is in the early 40s.
 

How to improve gender equality

Women bring diverse skills and perspectives to the table, Dr. Levine explained. Women tend to have stronger collaborative skills and greater compassion and empathy, for example. They tend to be less hierarchal and better at mentoring and empowerment, she said.

There are many ways to poke more cracks in the ceiling, starting with diversity and inclusion officers who make it a priority to focus on parity. Formal programs can educate staff and colleagues about implicit bias so that they might more easily recognize it when it kicks in, and training for gatekeepers can lead to more proportional hiring of women at every level.

Institutions should review their policies – salary inequities, diversity in promotion, processes for selecting leaders – and set formal interventional goals that are then evaluated in honest, documented annual reviews.

Some of these policies should address work-life balance as well: Offering part-time and flexible work options during early child-rearing years helps not only mothers, but also fathers who are now taking a more active role in parenting. Slowing or prorating the promotion clock can help those building families, and shifting meetings away from times such as 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. allow mothers and fathers alike to get their kids to and from school and attend children’s events.

Sponsorship of women is an important strategy in breaking the glass ceiling, Dr. Levine said. Sponsors can support women with untapped leadership potential and do the necessary networking and introductions that help make that advance happen. And it must be done by sponsors with power and influence, including men, Dr. Levine said.

Men can play important roles in promoting gender parity by suggesting women for key roles, leadership positions, and committees and also notifying women of upcoming opportunities, such as editorial board spots and other hot jobs. For women who aspire to be leaders, men can seek to convey leadership skills that may be needed to chair committees and other groups. Search committees need to expand beyond looking for “token women,” she said.

Dr. Levine illustrated her address with her own story. She described how many of these strategies had helped her career and how many male supervisors, mentors, and colleagues helped her, including introducing her to other male leaders who then offered her opportunities to contribute to the American College of Chest Physicians. She ran for CHEST president twice before being elected on her third run in September. She is the fifth woman to lead CHEST.

“Don’t give up,” she encouraged women in the audience, telling them to advocate for themselves and to encourage, mentor, and sponsor their female fellows and junior faculty.

“This will result in closing the gaps and will help women achieve leadership roles and competitive salaries as well as work-life integration,” Dr. Levine said.

SAN ANTONIO – Women in medicine have made great strides in cracking the glass ceiling, but it’s not shattered yet, said Stephanie M. Levine, MD, FCCP, the incoming president of CHEST.

At a session on women in medicine at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, Dr. Levine discussed the challenges of breaking through the metaphorical invisible barrier. The “glass ceiling” refers to multiple ways in which women lack equality with men in medicine: leadership roles, positions and titles, progress in academic medicine, gaps in salaries and compensation, and overall gender parity in specialties.

For example, according to data from the American Association of Medical Colleges for 2017-2018, women comprise 50% of medical school graduates but only 34% of the physician workforce and 22% of leadership roles. Women are 13% less likely to be promoted to professor. They receive salaries an average 21% lower than those of their male peers, said Dr. Levine, professor of medicine and director of the pulmonary/critical care fellowship program at the University of Texas, San Antonio.

Disparities exist particularly within specialties and subspecialties, she said. Women make 85% of what men earn in primary care but, in the specialties, only 75% of what men earn. Among active fellow trainees in the areas of medicine most represented by CHEST, one-third (32%) of critical care physicians and less than a third (29%) of pulmonary physicians are female.
 

Why the lag in specialty parity?

The reasons for these disparities are complex, Dr. Levine argued, but the problem is not insurmountable. They begin, in a sense, with the problem itself: When there are fewer mentors, role models, sponsors, and leaders, and less overall representation of women in the first place, it is harder for women to advance.

One male audience member, for example, asked how his department could recruit more women, because most turned down interviews despite the fact that more women than men were being invited. “How many women are in your leadership?” Dr. Levine asked. He acknowledged that there were none – and therein lies the likely problem. Applicants are looking for female representation in leadership.

Gender bias and discrimination certainly play a role among peers, leadership, and even patients. Patients referring to female physicians by their first names and asking questions such as “Are you my nurse?” are subtle but cutting examples of the ways in which they reveal implicit bias and reinforce gender stereotypes, Dr. Levine said to weary nods of agreement among the attendees.

Implicit, unconscious bias is also built into the culture of a place and the way things have always been done. Lack of equity in salary, space to work, support, and promotion all compound one another. Work-life integration challenges often do not favor women. Studies have shown that in the hiring process, CVs with female names do not receive as much attention as do CVs with male names, Dr. Levine noted.

Some of the challenges lie with the way women themselves do or do not advocate for themselves. Research has long shown that women do not negotiate as well – or at all – compared with men. Women tend to be less aggressive in seeking higher compensation and leadership roles, possibly because of existing implicit bias against female assertiveness in general.

The catch-22 is that being more assertive or direct can lead others to interpret a woman as being rude or brusk, as one audience member noted when she described how colleagues perceive her simple, direct tone as seeming “upset.”

Conscious bias remains alive and well: The stereotypes that women are caretakers and men are take-charge dominators persist and can reinforce gender disparities in leadership roles.

Women also must make calculations and trade-offs between their academic promotion clocks and their biologic clocks, Dr. Levine explained.

“The 30s are great for both academic and biologic productivity,” she told attendees. The typical age for a person’s first National Institutes of Health Research Project grant (R01) is in the early 40s.
 

How to improve gender equality

Women bring diverse skills and perspectives to the table, Dr. Levine explained. Women tend to have stronger collaborative skills and greater compassion and empathy, for example. They tend to be less hierarchal and better at mentoring and empowerment, she said.

There are many ways to poke more cracks in the ceiling, starting with diversity and inclusion officers who make it a priority to focus on parity. Formal programs can educate staff and colleagues about implicit bias so that they might more easily recognize it when it kicks in, and training for gatekeepers can lead to more proportional hiring of women at every level.

Institutions should review their policies – salary inequities, diversity in promotion, processes for selecting leaders – and set formal interventional goals that are then evaluated in honest, documented annual reviews.

Some of these policies should address work-life balance as well: Offering part-time and flexible work options during early child-rearing years helps not only mothers, but also fathers who are now taking a more active role in parenting. Slowing or prorating the promotion clock can help those building families, and shifting meetings away from times such as 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. allow mothers and fathers alike to get their kids to and from school and attend children’s events.

Sponsorship of women is an important strategy in breaking the glass ceiling, Dr. Levine said. Sponsors can support women with untapped leadership potential and do the necessary networking and introductions that help make that advance happen. And it must be done by sponsors with power and influence, including men, Dr. Levine said.

Men can play important roles in promoting gender parity by suggesting women for key roles, leadership positions, and committees and also notifying women of upcoming opportunities, such as editorial board spots and other hot jobs. For women who aspire to be leaders, men can seek to convey leadership skills that may be needed to chair committees and other groups. Search committees need to expand beyond looking for “token women,” she said.

Dr. Levine illustrated her address with her own story. She described how many of these strategies had helped her career and how many male supervisors, mentors, and colleagues helped her, including introducing her to other male leaders who then offered her opportunities to contribute to the American College of Chest Physicians. She ran for CHEST president twice before being elected on her third run in September. She is the fifth woman to lead CHEST.

“Don’t give up,” she encouraged women in the audience, telling them to advocate for themselves and to encourage, mentor, and sponsor their female fellows and junior faculty.

“This will result in closing the gaps and will help women achieve leadership roles and competitive salaries as well as work-life integration,” Dr. Levine said.

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org/discussions) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices and diagnoses.

In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions shared in the forum recently:


1. Addressing early-onset CRC
With the recommendation by the American Cancer Society to start colorectal cancer screening at 45, Dr. Samir Gupta and Dr. Peter Liang led a hearty discussion on the intended and unintended consequences of widespread implementation of these recommendations.


2. Surveillance colonoscopies in IBD patients
The question “are GIs doing too many surveillance colonoscopies in IBD patients” evolved into a call for more clinical guidance on the topic. IBD experts, AGA President Dr. David Lieberman, and the AGA Guidelines and Clinical Practice Update Committees tackle next steps and recommendations.


3. Patient case: severe colitis in asymptomatic patient
When a 51-year-old patient was seen for a colonoscopy screening, subsequent biopsies revealed severe active chronic colitis with lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate, crypts, and crypt abscesses and no granulomas. Would you treat as ulcerative colitis or wait?


4. Patient case: IBD patient with steroid dependency
A 35-year-old female who was seen for refractory diarrhea and cramps tested positive for perinuclear antineutrophil antibodies cytoplasmic (pANCA). Her symptoms resolved after she received prednisone for an unrelated issue. The physician asks: is a low dose of prednisone “safer” than Remicade?


More clinical cases and discussions are at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.
[email protected]

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org/discussions) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices and diagnoses.

In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions shared in the forum recently:


1. Addressing early-onset CRC
With the recommendation by the American Cancer Society to start colorectal cancer screening at 45, Dr. Samir Gupta and Dr. Peter Liang led a hearty discussion on the intended and unintended consequences of widespread implementation of these recommendations.


2. Surveillance colonoscopies in IBD patients
The question “are GIs doing too many surveillance colonoscopies in IBD patients” evolved into a call for more clinical guidance on the topic. IBD experts, AGA President Dr. David Lieberman, and the AGA Guidelines and Clinical Practice Update Committees tackle next steps and recommendations.


3. Patient case: severe colitis in asymptomatic patient
When a 51-year-old patient was seen for a colonoscopy screening, subsequent biopsies revealed severe active chronic colitis with lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate, crypts, and crypt abscesses and no granulomas. Would you treat as ulcerative colitis or wait?


4. Patient case: IBD patient with steroid dependency
A 35-year-old female who was seen for refractory diarrhea and cramps tested positive for perinuclear antineutrophil antibodies cytoplasmic (pANCA). Her symptoms resolved after she received prednisone for an unrelated issue. The physician asks: is a low dose of prednisone “safer” than Remicade?


More clinical cases and discussions are at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.
[email protected]

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org/discussions) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices and diagnoses.

In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions shared in the forum recently:


1. Addressing early-onset CRC
With the recommendation by the American Cancer Society to start colorectal cancer screening at 45, Dr. Samir Gupta and Dr. Peter Liang led a hearty discussion on the intended and unintended consequences of widespread implementation of these recommendations.


2. Surveillance colonoscopies in IBD patients
The question “are GIs doing too many surveillance colonoscopies in IBD patients” evolved into a call for more clinical guidance on the topic. IBD experts, AGA President Dr. David Lieberman, and the AGA Guidelines and Clinical Practice Update Committees tackle next steps and recommendations.


3. Patient case: severe colitis in asymptomatic patient
When a 51-year-old patient was seen for a colonoscopy screening, subsequent biopsies revealed severe active chronic colitis with lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate, crypts, and crypt abscesses and no granulomas. Would you treat as ulcerative colitis or wait?


4. Patient case: IBD patient with steroid dependency
A 35-year-old female who was seen for refractory diarrhea and cramps tested positive for perinuclear antineutrophil antibodies cytoplasmic (pANCA). Her symptoms resolved after she received prednisone for an unrelated issue. The physician asks: is a low dose of prednisone “safer” than Remicade?


More clinical cases and discussions are at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.
[email protected]

Thank you to members who met with their congressperson and who participated in Virtual Advocacy Day.

Advocates met with House and Senate offices to push for passage of the Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act, legislation that waives the coinsurance for screening colonoscopies that become therapeutic and has broad, bipartisan and bicameral support. They made the argument that paying for prevention services saves the government money in the long term by preventing treatment costs on cancer treatment.

H.R. 2077, the Restoring Patient’s Voice Act, addresses step therapy protocols that threaten the physician-patient relationship and delay timely treatment to care. Support for the legislation is growing and our advocates were able to relay experiences they have encountered with their patients’ care being delayed and also the administrative burden this policy places on practices.

Katherine Clark, D-Mass., a member of the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, met with our advocates and let them know that the House-Senate conferees agreed to the $2 billion increase in NIH funding in the final bill. Rep. Clark is a strong supporter of NIH and called it the “pillar of our economy.” AGA members encouraged their legislators to support the final Labor-HHS package that includes this $2 billion increase, which amounts to a 5.5% increase. The Senate recently approved the final agreement on Labor-HHS for fiscal year 2019 and we call on the House to follow suit.

AGA appreciates all those advocates who took time out of their busy schedules to advocate on behalf of their colleagues and patients. We also appreciate those who took time to participate in Virtual Advocacy Day. Remember, if we don’t advocate for GI, no one will.

To learn more about how you can get involved visit www.gastro.org/advocacy.
 

[email protected]

Thank you to members who met with their congressperson and who participated in Virtual Advocacy Day.

Advocates met with House and Senate offices to push for passage of the Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act, legislation that waives the coinsurance for screening colonoscopies that become therapeutic and has broad, bipartisan and bicameral support. They made the argument that paying for prevention services saves the government money in the long term by preventing treatment costs on cancer treatment.

H.R. 2077, the Restoring Patient’s Voice Act, addresses step therapy protocols that threaten the physician-patient relationship and delay timely treatment to care. Support for the legislation is growing and our advocates were able to relay experiences they have encountered with their patients’ care being delayed and also the administrative burden this policy places on practices.

Katherine Clark, D-Mass., a member of the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, met with our advocates and let them know that the House-Senate conferees agreed to the $2 billion increase in NIH funding in the final bill. Rep. Clark is a strong supporter of NIH and called it the “pillar of our economy.” AGA members encouraged their legislators to support the final Labor-HHS package that includes this $2 billion increase, which amounts to a 5.5% increase. The Senate recently approved the final agreement on Labor-HHS for fiscal year 2019 and we call on the House to follow suit.

AGA appreciates all those advocates who took time out of their busy schedules to advocate on behalf of their colleagues and patients. We also appreciate those who took time to participate in Virtual Advocacy Day. Remember, if we don’t advocate for GI, no one will.

To learn more about how you can get involved visit www.gastro.org/advocacy.
 

[email protected]

Thank you to members who met with their congressperson and who participated in Virtual Advocacy Day.

Advocates met with House and Senate offices to push for passage of the Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act, legislation that waives the coinsurance for screening colonoscopies that become therapeutic and has broad, bipartisan and bicameral support. They made the argument that paying for prevention services saves the government money in the long term by preventing treatment costs on cancer treatment.

H.R. 2077, the Restoring Patient’s Voice Act, addresses step therapy protocols that threaten the physician-patient relationship and delay timely treatment to care. Support for the legislation is growing and our advocates were able to relay experiences they have encountered with their patients’ care being delayed and also the administrative burden this policy places on practices.

Katherine Clark, D-Mass., a member of the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, met with our advocates and let them know that the House-Senate conferees agreed to the $2 billion increase in NIH funding in the final bill. Rep. Clark is a strong supporter of NIH and called it the “pillar of our economy.” AGA members encouraged their legislators to support the final Labor-HHS package that includes this $2 billion increase, which amounts to a 5.5% increase. The Senate recently approved the final agreement on Labor-HHS for fiscal year 2019 and we call on the House to follow suit.

AGA appreciates all those advocates who took time out of their busy schedules to advocate on behalf of their colleagues and patients. We also appreciate those who took time to participate in Virtual Advocacy Day. Remember, if we don’t advocate for GI, no one will.

To learn more about how you can get involved visit www.gastro.org/advocacy.
 

[email protected]

Chronic viral infection can be associated with a variety of autoimmune kidney diseases, according to a review published in Rheumatic Disease Clinics.

London_England/Thinkstock

In particular, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can cause several kidney disorders. These include cryoglobulinemic glomerulonephritis, membranous nephropathy, fibrillary glomerulopathy, immunotactoid glomerulopathy, and IgA nephropathy, wrote Joshua D. Long and his colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Similarly, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection was found to be associated with both membranous nephropathy and polyarteritis nodosa, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection can cause HIV-associated nephropathy and HIV-associated immune complex diseases, which affect the kidneys.

In their detailed review, the authors discussed the various causal mechanisms and clinical presentations of each of these various autoimmune kidney diseases caused by HCV, HBV, and HIV, along with current treatment modalities.

“Control of the kidney disease relies primarily on treatment of viremia with antiviral agents; however, immunosuppression also may be needed in severe cases,” said the reviewers. However, “more clinical trials are needed to determine first-line therapies for patients who develop autoimmune kidney diseases in the context of chronic viral infections and to define when adjunctive immunosuppressive therapy is warranted,” they concluded.

One of the authors reported grant support and acting as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Long JD et al. Rheum Dis Clin N Am 2018;44:675-98.

Chronic viral infection can be associated with a variety of autoimmune kidney diseases, according to a review published in Rheumatic Disease Clinics.

London_England/Thinkstock

In particular, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can cause several kidney disorders. These include cryoglobulinemic glomerulonephritis, membranous nephropathy, fibrillary glomerulopathy, immunotactoid glomerulopathy, and IgA nephropathy, wrote Joshua D. Long and his colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Similarly, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection was found to be associated with both membranous nephropathy and polyarteritis nodosa, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection can cause HIV-associated nephropathy and HIV-associated immune complex diseases, which affect the kidneys.

In their detailed review, the authors discussed the various causal mechanisms and clinical presentations of each of these various autoimmune kidney diseases caused by HCV, HBV, and HIV, along with current treatment modalities.

“Control of the kidney disease relies primarily on treatment of viremia with antiviral agents; however, immunosuppression also may be needed in severe cases,” said the reviewers. However, “more clinical trials are needed to determine first-line therapies for patients who develop autoimmune kidney diseases in the context of chronic viral infections and to define when adjunctive immunosuppressive therapy is warranted,” they concluded.

One of the authors reported grant support and acting as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Long JD et al. Rheum Dis Clin N Am 2018;44:675-98.

Chronic viral infection can be associated with a variety of autoimmune kidney diseases, according to a review published in Rheumatic Disease Clinics.

London_England/Thinkstock

In particular, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can cause several kidney disorders. These include cryoglobulinemic glomerulonephritis, membranous nephropathy, fibrillary glomerulopathy, immunotactoid glomerulopathy, and IgA nephropathy, wrote Joshua D. Long and his colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Similarly, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection was found to be associated with both membranous nephropathy and polyarteritis nodosa, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection can cause HIV-associated nephropathy and HIV-associated immune complex diseases, which affect the kidneys.

In their detailed review, the authors discussed the various causal mechanisms and clinical presentations of each of these various autoimmune kidney diseases caused by HCV, HBV, and HIV, along with current treatment modalities.

“Control of the kidney disease relies primarily on treatment of viremia with antiviral agents; however, immunosuppression also may be needed in severe cases,” said the reviewers. However, “more clinical trials are needed to determine first-line therapies for patients who develop autoimmune kidney diseases in the context of chronic viral infections and to define when adjunctive immunosuppressive therapy is warranted,” they concluded.

One of the authors reported grant support and acting as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Long JD et al. Rheum Dis Clin N Am 2018;44:675-98.

Editor’s note: Each month, the Society of Hospitalist Medicine puts the spotlight on some of our most active members who are making substantial contributions to hospital medicine. Visit www.hospitalmedicine.org for more information on how you can lend your expertise to help improve the care of hospitalized patients.

This month, The Hospitalist spotlights Barbara Egan, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief of the hospital medicine service in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Barbara has been a member of SHM since 2005, is dual certified in hospital medicine and palliative care, and is the chair of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group.

When did you first hear about SHM, and why did you decide to become a member?

I first learned about SHM when I was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in the early 2000s. BWH had an extremely strong hospitalist group; the staff I worked with served as powerful role models for me and inspired my interest in becoming a hospitalist. One of my attendings suggested that I join SHM, which I did right after I graduated from residency. I attended my first SHM Annual Conference in 2005. By then, I was working as a hospitalist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. SHM and the field of hospital medicine have exploded since my career first began, and I am happy to have grown alongside them. Similarly, our hospital medicine group here at MSKCC has dramatically grown, from 1 hospitalist (me) to more than 30!

How did you get involved with SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group, and what has the work group accomplished since you joined?

I was honored to be invited to join SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group in 2017 by Wendy Anderson, MD, a colleague and now a friend from University of California, San Francisco. Wendy is a visionary leader who practices and researches at the intersection of palliative care and hospital medicine. She and I met during 2015, when we were both invited to join a collaboration between SHM and the Hastings Center in Garrison, N.Y., which was aimed at improving hospitalists’ ability to provide outstanding care to hospitalized patients with life-limiting illnesses. That collaboration resulted in the Improving Communication about Serious Illness–Implementation Guide, a compilation of resources and best practices.

Wendy was chairing the SHM Palliative Care Work Group and invited me to join, which I did with great enthusiasm. This group consists of several passionate and brilliant hospitalists whose practices, in a variety of ways, involve both hospital medicine and palliative medicine. I was so honored when Wendy passed the baton to me last spring and invited me to chair the Work Group. I am lucky to have the opportunity to collaborate with this group of dynamic individuals, and we are well supported by an outstanding SHM staff member, Nick Marzano.
 

Are there any new projects that the work group is currently focusing on?

The primary focus of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group is educational. That is, we aim to assess and help meet the educational needs of hospitalists, thereby helping to empower them to be outstanding providers of primary palliative care to seriously ill, hospitalized patients. To that end, we were very proud to orchestrate a palliative care mini-track for the first time at HM18. To our group’s delight, the attendance and reviews of that track were great. Thus, we were invited to further expand the palliative care offerings at HM19. We are busy planning for HM19: a full-day pre-course in palliative medicine; several podium presentations which will touch on ethical challenges, symptom management, prognostication, and other important topics; and a workshop in communication skills.
 

What led to your dual certification and how do your two specialties overlap?

I am board certified in internal medicine with Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine by virtue of my clinical training and my primary clinical practice as a hospitalist. As a hospitalist in a cancer center, I spend most of my time caring for patients with late- and end-stage malignancy. As such, early in my career, I had to develop a broad base of palliative medical skills, such as pain and symptom management and communication skills. I find this work extremely rewarding, albeit emotionally taxing. I have learned to redefine what clinical “success” looks like – my patients often have unfixable medical problems, but I can always strive to improve their lives in some way, even if that means helping to provide them with a painless, dignified death as opposed to curing them.

When the American Board of Medical Specialties established a board certification in Hospice and Palliative Medicine, there briefly existed a pathway to be “grandfathered” in, i.e., to qualify for board certification through an examination and clinical experience, as opposed to a fellowship. I jumped at the chance to formalize my palliative care skills and experience, and I attained board certification in 2012. This allowed me to further diversify my clinical practice here at MSKCC.

Hospital medicine is still my first love, and I spend most of my time practicing as a hospitalist on our solid tumor services. But now I also spend several weeks each year attending as a consultant on our inpatient supportive care service. In that role, I am able to collaborate with a fantastic multidisciplinary team consisting of MDs, NPs, a chaplain, a pharmacist, a social worker, and integrative medicine practitioners. I also love the opportunity to teach and mentor our palliative medicine fellows.

To me, the opportunity to marry hospital medicine and palliative medicine in my career was a natural fit. Hospitalists, particularly those caring exclusively for cancer patients like I do, need to provide excellent palliative care to our patients every day. The opportunity to further my training and to obtain board certification was a golden one, and I love being able to wear both hats here at MSKCC.
 

Ms. Steele is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Editor’s note: Each month, the Society of Hospitalist Medicine puts the spotlight on some of our most active members who are making substantial contributions to hospital medicine. Visit www.hospitalmedicine.org for more information on how you can lend your expertise to help improve the care of hospitalized patients.

This month, The Hospitalist spotlights Barbara Egan, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief of the hospital medicine service in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Barbara has been a member of SHM since 2005, is dual certified in hospital medicine and palliative care, and is the chair of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group.

When did you first hear about SHM, and why did you decide to become a member?

I first learned about SHM when I was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in the early 2000s. BWH had an extremely strong hospitalist group; the staff I worked with served as powerful role models for me and inspired my interest in becoming a hospitalist. One of my attendings suggested that I join SHM, which I did right after I graduated from residency. I attended my first SHM Annual Conference in 2005. By then, I was working as a hospitalist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. SHM and the field of hospital medicine have exploded since my career first began, and I am happy to have grown alongside them. Similarly, our hospital medicine group here at MSKCC has dramatically grown, from 1 hospitalist (me) to more than 30!

How did you get involved with SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group, and what has the work group accomplished since you joined?

I was honored to be invited to join SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group in 2017 by Wendy Anderson, MD, a colleague and now a friend from University of California, San Francisco. Wendy is a visionary leader who practices and researches at the intersection of palliative care and hospital medicine. She and I met during 2015, when we were both invited to join a collaboration between SHM and the Hastings Center in Garrison, N.Y., which was aimed at improving hospitalists’ ability to provide outstanding care to hospitalized patients with life-limiting illnesses. That collaboration resulted in the Improving Communication about Serious Illness–Implementation Guide, a compilation of resources and best practices.

Wendy was chairing the SHM Palliative Care Work Group and invited me to join, which I did with great enthusiasm. This group consists of several passionate and brilliant hospitalists whose practices, in a variety of ways, involve both hospital medicine and palliative medicine. I was so honored when Wendy passed the baton to me last spring and invited me to chair the Work Group. I am lucky to have the opportunity to collaborate with this group of dynamic individuals, and we are well supported by an outstanding SHM staff member, Nick Marzano.
 

Are there any new projects that the work group is currently focusing on?

The primary focus of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group is educational. That is, we aim to assess and help meet the educational needs of hospitalists, thereby helping to empower them to be outstanding providers of primary palliative care to seriously ill, hospitalized patients. To that end, we were very proud to orchestrate a palliative care mini-track for the first time at HM18. To our group’s delight, the attendance and reviews of that track were great. Thus, we were invited to further expand the palliative care offerings at HM19. We are busy planning for HM19: a full-day pre-course in palliative medicine; several podium presentations which will touch on ethical challenges, symptom management, prognostication, and other important topics; and a workshop in communication skills.
 

What led to your dual certification and how do your two specialties overlap?

I am board certified in internal medicine with Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine by virtue of my clinical training and my primary clinical practice as a hospitalist. As a hospitalist in a cancer center, I spend most of my time caring for patients with late- and end-stage malignancy. As such, early in my career, I had to develop a broad base of palliative medical skills, such as pain and symptom management and communication skills. I find this work extremely rewarding, albeit emotionally taxing. I have learned to redefine what clinical “success” looks like – my patients often have unfixable medical problems, but I can always strive to improve their lives in some way, even if that means helping to provide them with a painless, dignified death as opposed to curing them.

When the American Board of Medical Specialties established a board certification in Hospice and Palliative Medicine, there briefly existed a pathway to be “grandfathered” in, i.e., to qualify for board certification through an examination and clinical experience, as opposed to a fellowship. I jumped at the chance to formalize my palliative care skills and experience, and I attained board certification in 2012. This allowed me to further diversify my clinical practice here at MSKCC.

Hospital medicine is still my first love, and I spend most of my time practicing as a hospitalist on our solid tumor services. But now I also spend several weeks each year attending as a consultant on our inpatient supportive care service. In that role, I am able to collaborate with a fantastic multidisciplinary team consisting of MDs, NPs, a chaplain, a pharmacist, a social worker, and integrative medicine practitioners. I also love the opportunity to teach and mentor our palliative medicine fellows.

To me, the opportunity to marry hospital medicine and palliative medicine in my career was a natural fit. Hospitalists, particularly those caring exclusively for cancer patients like I do, need to provide excellent palliative care to our patients every day. The opportunity to further my training and to obtain board certification was a golden one, and I love being able to wear both hats here at MSKCC.
 

Ms. Steele is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Editor’s note: Each month, the Society of Hospitalist Medicine puts the spotlight on some of our most active members who are making substantial contributions to hospital medicine. Visit www.hospitalmedicine.org for more information on how you can lend your expertise to help improve the care of hospitalized patients.

This month, The Hospitalist spotlights Barbara Egan, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief of the hospital medicine service in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Barbara has been a member of SHM since 2005, is dual certified in hospital medicine and palliative care, and is the chair of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group.

When did you first hear about SHM, and why did you decide to become a member?

I first learned about SHM when I was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in the early 2000s. BWH had an extremely strong hospitalist group; the staff I worked with served as powerful role models for me and inspired my interest in becoming a hospitalist. One of my attendings suggested that I join SHM, which I did right after I graduated from residency. I attended my first SHM Annual Conference in 2005. By then, I was working as a hospitalist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. SHM and the field of hospital medicine have exploded since my career first began, and I am happy to have grown alongside them. Similarly, our hospital medicine group here at MSKCC has dramatically grown, from 1 hospitalist (me) to more than 30!

How did you get involved with SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group, and what has the work group accomplished since you joined?

I was honored to be invited to join SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group in 2017 by Wendy Anderson, MD, a colleague and now a friend from University of California, San Francisco. Wendy is a visionary leader who practices and researches at the intersection of palliative care and hospital medicine. She and I met during 2015, when we were both invited to join a collaboration between SHM and the Hastings Center in Garrison, N.Y., which was aimed at improving hospitalists’ ability to provide outstanding care to hospitalized patients with life-limiting illnesses. That collaboration resulted in the Improving Communication about Serious Illness–Implementation Guide, a compilation of resources and best practices.

Wendy was chairing the SHM Palliative Care Work Group and invited me to join, which I did with great enthusiasm. This group consists of several passionate and brilliant hospitalists whose practices, in a variety of ways, involve both hospital medicine and palliative medicine. I was so honored when Wendy passed the baton to me last spring and invited me to chair the Work Group. I am lucky to have the opportunity to collaborate with this group of dynamic individuals, and we are well supported by an outstanding SHM staff member, Nick Marzano.
 

Are there any new projects that the work group is currently focusing on?

The primary focus of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group is educational. That is, we aim to assess and help meet the educational needs of hospitalists, thereby helping to empower them to be outstanding providers of primary palliative care to seriously ill, hospitalized patients. To that end, we were very proud to orchestrate a palliative care mini-track for the first time at HM18. To our group’s delight, the attendance and reviews of that track were great. Thus, we were invited to further expand the palliative care offerings at HM19. We are busy planning for HM19: a full-day pre-course in palliative medicine; several podium presentations which will touch on ethical challenges, symptom management, prognostication, and other important topics; and a workshop in communication skills.
 

What led to your dual certification and how do your two specialties overlap?

I am board certified in internal medicine with Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine by virtue of my clinical training and my primary clinical practice as a hospitalist. As a hospitalist in a cancer center, I spend most of my time caring for patients with late- and end-stage malignancy. As such, early in my career, I had to develop a broad base of palliative medical skills, such as pain and symptom management and communication skills. I find this work extremely rewarding, albeit emotionally taxing. I have learned to redefine what clinical “success” looks like – my patients often have unfixable medical problems, but I can always strive to improve their lives in some way, even if that means helping to provide them with a painless, dignified death as opposed to curing them.

When the American Board of Medical Specialties established a board certification in Hospice and Palliative Medicine, there briefly existed a pathway to be “grandfathered” in, i.e., to qualify for board certification through an examination and clinical experience, as opposed to a fellowship. I jumped at the chance to formalize my palliative care skills and experience, and I attained board certification in 2012. This allowed me to further diversify my clinical practice here at MSKCC.

Hospital medicine is still my first love, and I spend most of my time practicing as a hospitalist on our solid tumor services. But now I also spend several weeks each year attending as a consultant on our inpatient supportive care service. In that role, I am able to collaborate with a fantastic multidisciplinary team consisting of MDs, NPs, a chaplain, a pharmacist, a social worker, and integrative medicine practitioners. I also love the opportunity to teach and mentor our palliative medicine fellows.

To me, the opportunity to marry hospital medicine and palliative medicine in my career was a natural fit. Hospitalists, particularly those caring exclusively for cancer patients like I do, need to provide excellent palliative care to our patients every day. The opportunity to further my training and to obtain board certification was a golden one, and I love being able to wear both hats here at MSKCC.
 

Ms. Steele is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.