User login
New SHM Members – February/March 2017
The Society of Hospital Medicine welcomes its newest members:
Kwie-Hoa Siem, MD, Alaska
Frank Abene, Alabama
Kayla Maldonado, Alabama
Kenny Murray, MD, Alabama
Shanthan Ramidi, MD, Alabama
Lauren Hancock, APRN, Arkansas
William Hawkins, MD, Arkansas
Matthew Law, Arkansas
Emily Smith, MD, Arkansas
Firas Abbas, MBchB, Arizona
Shahid Ahmad, MD, MBBS, Arizona
Praveen Bheemanathini, Arizona
Atoosa Hosseini, Arizona
William McGrade, DO, Arizona
Konstantin Mazursky, DO, Arizona
Ibrahim Taweel, MD, Arizona
Kevin Virk, MD, FACP, Arizona
Kevin Virk, MD, FACP, Arizona
Mohemmedd Khalid Abbas, Arizona
Hasan Chaudhry, MD, Arizona
Kelly Kelleher, FAAP, Arizona
Priyanka Sultania Dudani, MBBS, Arizona
Krishna Kasireddy, MD, Arizona
Melanie Meguro, Arizona
Puneet Tuli, MD, Arizona
Jonathan Byrdy, DO, Arizona
Sarah Corral, DO, Arizona
Edward Maharam, MD, Arizona
Arvind Satyanarayan, DO, Arizona
Mayank Aggarwal, MD, Arizona
Syed Jafri, Arizona
Bujji Ainapurapu, MD, Arizona
Aaron Fernandes, MD, Arizona
Sonal Gandhi, Arizona
Sudhir Tutiki, Arizona
Navaneeth Kumar, MD, Arizona
Brian T. Courtney, MD, California
Won Jin Jeon, California
Veena Panduranga, MD, California
Jennifer Tinloy, DO, California
Debra Buckland Coffey, MCUSN, MD, California
Kathleen Teves, MD, California
Paul Goebel, MD, ACMPE, California
Shainy Hegde, California
Summaiya Muhammad, California
Desmond Wah, California
Chonn Khristin Ng, California
Almira Yang, DO, California
Salimah Boghani, MD, California
Stella Abhyankar, California
Cherie Ginwalla, MD, California
Armond Esmaili, California
Sarah Schaeffer, MD, MPH, California
Sophia Virani, MD, California
Dipti Munshi, MD, California
Judy Nguyen, DO, California
Daniel Owyang, DO, California
Christian Chiavetta, DO, California
David Reinert, DO, California
Joseph Pawlowski, MD, California
Eleanor Yang, California
Adrian Campo, MD, California
Emerson De Jesus, MD, California
Zachary Edmonds, MD, California
Trit Garg, California
Alexandra G. Ianculescu, MD, PhD, California
Felix Karp, MD, California
Cara Lai, California
Kristen Lew, MD, California
John Mogannam, California
Ameer Moussa, California
Neil Parikh, MD, MBA, California
Priya Reddy, California
Adam Simons, California
Sanjay Vadgama, MD, California
Kristofer Wills, DO, California
Michael Yang, MD, MS, California
Victor Ekuta, California,
Donna Colobong, PA-C, Colorado
Janna B. Dreason, FNP-C, Colorado
Cheryl English, NP-C, Colorado
Melanie Gerrior, MD, Colorado
Marciann Harris, NP, Colorado
Marsha Henke, MD, Colorado
Brett Hesse, Colorado
Naomi J Hipp, MD, Colorado
Aurell Horing, Colorado
Rachel Koch, DO, Colorado
Ed Marino, PA-C, Colorado
Marcus Reinhardt, MD, Colorado
Carol Runge, Colorado
Harshal Shah, Colorado
Leo Soehnlen, DO, Colorado
Anna Villalobos, MD, Colorado
Kathryn Whitfield, PA-C, Colorado
Jonathan Bei-Shing Young, MD, Colorado
Leah Damiani, MD, Colorado
Kathy Lynch, MD, Colorado
Micah Friedman, Colorado
Rachael Hilton, MD, Colorado
Madeline Koerner, Colorado
Chi Zheng, MD, Colorado
Chin-Kun Baw, MD, Connecticut
Alexandra Hawkins, NP, Connecticut
Vasundhara Singh, MD, MBBS, Connecticut
Ryan Quarles, MD, Connecticut
Debra Hernandez, APRN, BC, Connecticut
Karine Karapetyan, MD, Delaware
Choosak Burr, ARNP, Florida
Nelsi Mora, Florida
Mary Quillinan, Florida
Thuntanat Rachanakul, Florida
Samual W. Sauer, MD, MPH, Florida
Jennifer Tibangin, Florida
Keith Williams, MD, Florida
Eric Penedo, MD, Florida
Margaret Webb, Florida
Mark Bender, Florida
Brett Waress, MD, MHA, Florida
Giselle Racho, Florida
Bryan Thiel, Florida
Juan Loor Tuarez, MD, Florida
Christine Stopyra, Florida
Betsy Screws, ARNP, Florida
Jaimie Weber, MD, Florida
Priti Amin, MHA, Georgia
Naga Doddapaneni, Georgia
Stephanie Fletcher, Georgia
Disha Spath, MD, Georgia
Rafaela Wesley, DO, Georgia
Nikky Keer, DO, Georgia
James Kim, Georgia
Todd Martin, Georgia
Eli Mlaver, Georgia
Andrew Ritter, Georgia
Ali Al-Zubaidi, MBchB, Georgia
Deann Bing, MD, Georgia
Tushar Shah, Georgia
Cameron Straughn, DO, Georgia
Nobuhiro Ariyoshi, MEd, Hawaii
Prerna Kumar, Iowa
Jonathan Sebolt, MD, Iowa
Amy Tesar, DO, Iowa
Houng Chea, NP, Idaho
Finnegan Greer, PA-C, Idaho
Thao Nelson, PA, Idaho
Malatesha Gangappa, Idaho
Gloria Alumona, ACNP, Illinois
Ram Sanjeev Alur, Illinois
James Antoon, MD, FAAP, PhD, Illinois
Stefania Bailuc, MD, Illinois
Richard Huh, Illinois
Bhakti Patel, MD, Illinois
Frances Uy, ACNP, Illinois
Fernando Velazquez Vazquez, MD, Illinois
Tiffany White, MD, Illinois
Bryan P. Tully, MD, Illinois
Swati Gobhil, MBBS, Illinois
Lianghe Gao, Illinois
Gopi Astik, MD, Illinois
Marina Kovacevic, MD, Illinois
Abbie Raymond, DO, Illinois
Timothy Yung, Illinois
Ahmed Zahid, MD, Illinois
Cristina Corsini, MEd, Illinois
Faisal Rashid, MD, FACP, Illinois
Mansoor Ahmad, MD, Illinois
Matthew A. Strauch, DO, Illinois
Purshotham Reddy Grinne, Illinois
Nadia Nasreen, MD, Illinois
Maham Ashraf, MD, Indiana
Jennifer Gross, Indiana
Debasmita Mohapatra, MBBS, Indiana
Eric Scheper, Indiana
Katherine Gray, APRNBC, FNP, Indiana
Venkata Kureti, Indiana
Omer Al-Buoshkor, MD, Indiana
David Johnson, FNP, MSN, Indiana
Jonathan Salisbury, MD, Indiana
Debra Shapert, MSN, RN, Iowa
Lisa Carter, ARNP, Iowa
Matthew Woodham, Iowa
Tomoharu Suzuki, MD, Pharm, Japan
Khaldoun Haj, Kansas
Will Rogers, ACMPE, MA, MBA, Kansas
Karen Shumate, Kansas
Lisa Unruh, MD, Kansas
Matthew George, Kansas
Katie Washburn, DO, Kansas
Edwin Avallone, DO, Kentucky
Matthew Morris, Kentucky
Samantha Cappetto, MD, Kentucky
Jaison John, Kentucky
Ammar Al Jajeh, Kentucky
Joseph Bolger, MD, PhD, Louisiana
Clairissa Mulloy, Louisiana
Harish Talla, MD, Louisiana
John Amadon, Louisiana
Karthik Krishnareddy, Louisiana
Cheryl DeGrandpre, PA-C, Maine
Katherine Liu, MD, Maine
Sarah Sedney, MD, Maine
Aksana Afanasenka, MD, Maryland
Syed Nazeer Mahmood, MBBS, Maryland
Joseph Apata, MD, Maryland
Russom Ghebrai, MD, Maryland
Musa Momoh, MD, Maryland
Antanina Voit, Maryland
Dejene Kassaye, MD, MSC, Maryland
Shams Quazi, MD, FACP, MS, Maryland
Dawn Roelofs, FNP, MSN, Maryland
Kirsten Austad, MD, Massachusetts
Yoel Carrasquillo Vega, MD, Massachusetts
Michele Gaudet, NP, Massachusetts
Karina Mejias, Massachusetts
Peter Rohloff, MD, PhD, Massachusetts
Jennifer Schaeffer, Massachusetts
James Shaw, MD, Massachusetts
Renee Wheeler, Massachusetts
Angela Freeman, PA, PA-C, Massachusetts
Supriya Parvatini, MD, Massachusetts
Karen Jiang, MD, Massachusetts
Roula E. Abou-Nader, MD, Massachusetts
Shreekant Vasudhev, MD, Massachusetts
Nivedita Adabala, MD, MBBS, Michigan
Robert Behrendt, RN, BSN, Michigan
Molly Belisle, Michigan
Christine Dugan, MD, Michigan
Baljinder Gill, Michigan
Kellie Herringa, PA-C, Michigan
Christine Klingert, Michigan
Kathy Mitchell, Michigan
Aimee Vos, Michigan
Alyssa Churchill, DO, Michigan
Mailvaganam Sridharan, MD, Michigan
Atul Kapoor, MD, MBBS, Michigan
Anitha Kompally, MD, MBBS, Michigan
Nicole Webb, PA-C, Michigan
Abdulqadir Ahmad, MD, Minnesota
John Patrick Eikens, Minnesota
Bobbi Jo Jensen, PA-C, Minnesota
Rachel Keuseman, Minnesota
Stephen Palmquist, Minnesota
Manit Singla, MD, Minnesota
Douglas Berg, Minnesota
Nathan Palmolea, Minnesota
Molly Tureson, PAC, Minnesota
Mehdi Dastrange, MD, MHA, Minnesota
Kent Svee, Minnesota
Ashley Viere, PA-C, Minnesota
Molly Yang, MD, Minnesota
Paige Sams, DO, Minnesota
Amit Reddy, MBBS, Mississippi
Jacqueline Brooke Banks, FNP-C, Mississippi
Lori Foxworth, CFNP, Mississippi
Nicki Lawson, FNP-C, Mississippi
Bikash Acharya, Missouri
Zafar Ahmad, PA-C, Missouri
Harleen Chela, MD, Missouri
Jeffrey Chung, MD, Missouri
Daniel Kornfeld, Missouri
Erika Leung, MD, MSc, Missouri
Lisa Moser, PA, Missouri
Mark Stiffler, Missouri
Tushar Tarun, MBBS, Missouri
Nicole McLaughlin, Missouri
Katy Lohmann, PA-C, Missouri
Jayasree Bodagala, MD, Missouri
Ravi Kiran Morumuru, ACMPE, Missouri
Matthew Brown, MD, FAAFP, Missouri
Ravikanth Tadi, Missouri
Bazgha Ahmad, DO, Missouri
Monica Hawkins, RN, Missouri
Karri Vesey, BSN, Montana
Madison Vertin, PA-C, Montana
Urmila Mukherjee, MD, Nebraska
Noah Wiedel, MD, Nebraska
Sidrah Sheikh, MD, MBBS, Nebraska
Mohammad Esmadi, MBBS, Nebraska
Jill Zabih, MD, Nebraska
Jody Frey-Burns, RN, Nevada
Adnan Akbar, MD, Nevada
Peter Gayed, MRCP, New Hampshire
Jonathan T. Huntington, MD, New Hampshire
Meghan Meehan, ACNP, New Hampshire
Saurabh Mehta, MD, New Jersey
Hanaa Benchekroun Belabbes, MD, MHA, New Jersey
Hwan Kim, MD, New Jersey
Mary Tobiasson, USA, New Jersey
Muhammad Khakwani, MD, New Jersey
Amita Maibam, MD, MPH, New Jersey
Kumar Rohit, MBBS, New Jersey
Crystal Benjamin, MD, New Jersey
Rafael Garabis, New Mexico
Sam MacBride, MD, New Mexico
Indra Peram, MD, New Mexico
Sarah Vertrees, DO, New Mexico
Aswani Kumar Alavala, MD, New Mexico
Christopher Anstine, New Mexico
Prathima Guruguri, MD, New Mexico
Diedre Hofinger, MD, FACP, New Mexico
Katharine Juarez, New Mexico
Amtul Mahavesh, MD, New Mexico
Francisco Marquez, New Mexico
Payal Sen, MD, New Mexico
Morgan Wong, DO, New Mexico
Kelly Berchou, New York
Ronald Cho, New York
Nishil Dalsania, New York
Carolyn Drake, MD, MPH, New York
Leanne Forman, New York
Valerie Gausman, New York
Laurie Jacobs, New York
Janice Jang, MD, New York
Sonia Kohli, MD, New York
Nancy Lee, PA, New York
Allen Lee, MD, New York
Matthew McCarthy, FACP, New York
Akram Mohammed, MD, New York
Jennifer Nead, New York
Kristal Persaud, PA, New York
Mariya Rozenblit, MD, New York
Christian Torres, MD, New York
Sasha De Jesus, MD, New York
Gabriella Polyak, New York
Nataliya Yuklyaeva, MD, New York
Riyaz Kamadoli, MD, New York
Ramanuj Chakravarty, New York
Adil Zaidi, MD, New York
Allison Walker, MD, New York
Himali Gandhi, New York
Alexey Yanilshtein, MD, New York
Ramsey Al-Khalil, New York
Latoya Codougan, MD, New York
Khan Najmi, MD, New York
Sara Stream, MD, New York
Bhuwan Poudyal, MD, New York
Khalil Anchouche, New York
Sarah Azarchi, New York
Susana Bejar, New York
Brian Chang, New York
Jonathan Chen, New York
Hailey Gupta, MD, New York
Medhavi Gupta, New York
Ali Khan, New York
Benjamin Kwok, MD, New York
Billy Lin, New York
Katherine Ni, New York
Jina Park, New York
Gabriel Perreault, New York
Luis Alberto Romero, New York
Payal Shah, New York
Punita Shroff, New York
Scott Statman, New York
Maria Sunseri, New York
Benjamin Verplanke, New York
Audrey Zhang, New York
Gaby Razzouk, MD, New York
Pranitha Mantrala, MD, New York
Marsha Antoine, New York
Kanica Yashi, New York
Navid Ahmed, New York
Tasha Richards, PA, New York
Connor Tryon, MD, New York
Naveen Yarlagadda, MD, New York
Alex Hogan, New York
Andrew Donohoe, CCM, MD, North Carolina
Brittany Forshay, MD, North Carolina
Kelly Hammerbeck, FNP, North Carolina
Jennifer Hausman, North Carolina
Babajide Obisesan, North Carolina
Kwadwo Ofori, MD, North Carolina
Eric Ofosu, MD, North Carolina
Kale Roth, North Carolina
Robert Soma, PA-C, North Carolina
Sommany Weber, North Carolina
Ronnie Jacobs, North Carolina
Muhammad Ghani, MD, MACP, MBBS, North Carolina
Madeline Treasure, North Carolina
Andrew McWilliams, MD, North Carolina
Karen Payne, ACNP, MPH, North Carolina
Rafal Poplawski, MD, North Carolina
James Seal, PA-C, North Carolina
Farheen Qureshi, DO, North Carolina
Basavatti Sowmya, MD, MBBS, North Carolina
Eshwar Lal, MD, North Carolina
Catherine Hathaway, MD, North Carolina
Sherif Naguib, FAAFP, North Carolina
Sara Skavroneck, North Carolina
Charles Ofosu, North Carolina
Alex Alburquerque, MD, Ohio
Isha Butler, DO, Ohio
Anne Carrol, MD, Ohio
Scott Childers, MD, Ohio
Philip Jonas, MD, Ohio
Ahmadreza Karimianpour, Ohio
Rahul Kumar, MD, Ohio
George Maidaa, MD, Ohio
Kevin McAninch, Ohio
Jill Mccourt, FNP, Ohio
Roxanne Oliver, Ohio
Farah Hussain, Ohio
Natasha Axton, PA-C, Ohio
Brooke Harris, ACNP, Ohio
Vidhya Murukesan, MD, Ohio
Sara Dong, Ohio
Christie Astor, FNP, Ohio
Sunita Mall, MD, Ohio
Sunita Mall, MD, Ohio
Fouzia Tariq, MD, Ohio
Kaveri Sivaruban, MD, Ohio
Eunice Quicho, Ohio
Smitha Achuthankutty, MD, Ohio
Harmanpreet Shinh, MD, Ohio
Maereg Tesfaye, Ohio
Kalyn Jolivette, MD, Ohio
Richelle Voth, PA-C, Oklahoma
Samuel J. Ratermann, MD, FAAFP, Oklahoma
Richelle Voth, PA-C, Oklahoma
Alden Forrester, MD, Oregon
Nicholas Brown, DO, Oregon
Ian Pennell-Walklin, MD, Oregon
Bruce Ramsey, Oregon
Kyle Brekke, DO, Oregon
Sarah Webber, MD, Oregon
Brian Beaudoin, MD, Pennsylvania
Glenn Bedell, MHSA, Pennsylvania
Cristina Green, AGACNP-DNP, Pennsylvania
Andrew Groff, Pennsylvania
Sulman Masood Hashmi, MBBS, Pennsylvania
Eric Kasprowicz, MD, MPH, Pennsylvania
Laura Leuenberger, Pennsylvania
James Liszewski, MD, Pennsylvania
Caitlyn Moss, Pennsylvania
Paul Seunghyun Nho, Pennsylvania
Rishan Patel, MD, Pennsylvania
Dilli R. Poudel, MBBS, Pennsylvania
Naveen Yellappa, MBBS, Pennsylvania
Usman Zulfiqar, Pennsylvania
Nina Jain, Pennsylvania
Bhumika Patel, DO, Pennsylvania
Jenna M. Diasio, PA-C, Pennsylvania
Malachi Courtney, MD, Pennsylvania
Sonia Arneja, MD, Pennsylvania
Ross Ellis, MD, Pennsylvania
Samreen Siddiqui, Pennsylvania
Jillian Zavodnick, Pennsylvania
Kinan Kassar, MD, Pennsylvania
Maritsa M. Scoulos-Hanson, Pennsylvania
Jennifer Taylor, PA-C, Pennsylvania
Steven Delaveris, DO, Pennsylvania
Danica Buzniak, DO, Rhode Island
Paul Browning, MD, South Carolina
Matt Coones, MD, South Carolina
Cedric Fisher, MD, South Carolina
Aloysius Jackson, MD, South Carolina
Katharine DuPont, MD, South Carolina
Michael Jenkins, MD, South Carolina
Jessica Hamilton, APRN, BC, FNP, South Carolina
Pamela Pyle, DO, South Carolina
Shakeel Ahmed, MBBS, MD, South Dakota
D. Bruce Eaton, MD, South Dakota
Drew Jorgensen, MD, South Dakota
Shelly Turbak, MSN, RN, South Dakota
Tamera Sturm, DO, South Dakota
Peggy Brooks, Tennessee
Joseph Garrido, MD, Tennessee
Lisa Grimes, FNP, Tennessee
Chennakesava Kummathi, MBBS, Tennessee
Victoria Okafor, Tennessee
Ashley Smith, Tennessee
Monisha Bhatia, Tennessee
Belinda Jenkins, APRN-BC, Tennessee
Kim Zahnke, MD, Tennessee
Robert Arias, Texas
Nicolas Batterton, MD, Texas
Scott DePaul, MD, Texas
Nancy Foster, Texas
Larry Hughes, Texas
Erin Koval, Texas
Femi Layiwola, MD, Texas
Krysta Lin, Texas
James J. Onorato, MD, PhD, Texas
Allison Stephenson, PA-C, Texas
Brandon Stormes, Texas
Rubin Simon, MD, Texas
Brian Anderson, DO, Texas
Hatim Chhatriwala, MD, Texas
Aziz Hammoud, Texas
Haru Yamamoto, MD, Texas
Lauren Schiegg, Texas
Victoria Grasso, DO, Texas
Victor Salcedo, MD, Texas
Rajiv Bhattarai, Texas
Iram Qureshi, DO, Texas
Lisa Hafemeister, FACHE, MHA, Texas
Helena Kurian, MD, Texas
Jessica Lin, Texas
Nathan Nowalk, MD, Texas
Keely Smith, MD, Texas
Jonathan Weiser, MD, Texas
Roland Prezas, DO, FAAFP, Texas
Allan Recto, AHIP, Texas
Regina Dimbo, Texas
Venkata Ghanta, Texas
Richmond Hunt, Texas
Vishal Patel, MD, Texas
Zain Sharif, MD, Texas
Rommel Del Rosario, MD, Texas
Khawer Khadimally, DO, Texas
Diogenes Valderrama, MD, Texas
Charles Ewoh, MD, Texas
Deepika Kilaru, Texas
Tilahun Belay, MD, Texas
Chandra S Reddy Navuluri, MD, Texas
Bradley Goad, DO, FACP, Virginia
Patrick Higdon, MD, Virginia
Gabriella Miller, MD, HMDC, Virginia
Miklos Szentirmai, MD, Virginia
Hyder Tamton, Virginia
Andra Mirescu, MD, Virginia
Olukayode Ojo, Virginia
Robert Szeles, MD, Virginia
Anya Cope, DO, Virginia
OsCiriah Press, MD, Virginia
Rikin Kadakia, MD, Virginia
Bryant Self, DO, Virginia
Sarah Sabo, ACNP, Virginia
Pedro A. Gonzales Alvarez, MD, Virginia
William Best, Virginia
Pushpanjali Basnyat, MD, Washington
Nikki Hartley-Jonason, Washington
Helen Johnsonwall, MD, Washington
Eric LaMotte, MD, Washington
Maher Muraywid, Washington
Evan Neal Paul, MD, Washington
Sarah Rogers, MD, Washington
Lindee Strizich, Washington
Maryam Tariq, MBBS, Washington
Meghaan Walsh, MD, Washington
Oleg Zbirun, MD, Washington
Meeta Sabnis, MD, Washington
James Kuo, MD, Washington
Liang Du, Washington
Syed Farhan Tabraiz Hashmi, MD, Washington
Jessica Jung, MD, Washington
Joshua Pelley, MD, Washington
Alex Yu, MD, Washington
Alfred Curnow, MD, Washington
Duhwan Kang, Washington
Gilbert Daniel, MD, Washington, D.C.
Eleanor Fitall, Washington, D.C.
Vinay Srinivasan, Washington, D.C.
Scott Wine, West Virginia
Trevor Miller, MBA, PA-C, West Virginia
Audrey Hiltunen, Wisconsin
Elina Litinskaya, Wisconsin
John M. Murphy, MD, Wisconsin
Tanya Pedretti, PA, Wisconsin
Adine Rodemeyer, MD, Wisconsin
Oghomwen Sule, MBBS, Wisconsin
Terrence Witt, MD, Wisconsin
Mayank Arora, Wisconsin
John D. MacDonald, MD, Wisconsin
Abigail Cook, Wisconsin
Mohamed Ibrahim, MD, Wisconsin
Aymen Khogali, MD, Wisconsin
Nicholas Haun, Wisconsin
Sandra Brown, Victoria, Australia
Alessandra Gessner, Alberta, Canada
Courtney Carlucci, British Columbia, Canada
Muhanad Y. Al Habash, Canada
Karen Tong, MD, Canada
Taku Yabuki, Japan
Liza van Loon, the Netherlands
Edward Gebuis, MD, the Netherlands
Abdisalan Afrah, MD, Qatar
Akhnuwkh Jones, Qatar
Mashuk Uddin, MBBS, MRCP, FRCP, Qatar
Ibrahim Yusuf Abubeker, MRCP, Qatar
Chih-Wei Tseng, Taiwan
Sawsan Abdel-Razig, MD, FACP, United Arab Emirates
The Society of Hospital Medicine welcomes its newest members:
Kwie-Hoa Siem, MD, Alaska
Frank Abene, Alabama
Kayla Maldonado, Alabama
Kenny Murray, MD, Alabama
Shanthan Ramidi, MD, Alabama
Lauren Hancock, APRN, Arkansas
William Hawkins, MD, Arkansas
Matthew Law, Arkansas
Emily Smith, MD, Arkansas
Firas Abbas, MBchB, Arizona
Shahid Ahmad, MD, MBBS, Arizona
Praveen Bheemanathini, Arizona
Atoosa Hosseini, Arizona
William McGrade, DO, Arizona
Konstantin Mazursky, DO, Arizona
Ibrahim Taweel, MD, Arizona
Kevin Virk, MD, FACP, Arizona
Kevin Virk, MD, FACP, Arizona
Mohemmedd Khalid Abbas, Arizona
Hasan Chaudhry, MD, Arizona
Kelly Kelleher, FAAP, Arizona
Priyanka Sultania Dudani, MBBS, Arizona
Krishna Kasireddy, MD, Arizona
Melanie Meguro, Arizona
Puneet Tuli, MD, Arizona
Jonathan Byrdy, DO, Arizona
Sarah Corral, DO, Arizona
Edward Maharam, MD, Arizona
Arvind Satyanarayan, DO, Arizona
Mayank Aggarwal, MD, Arizona
Syed Jafri, Arizona
Bujji Ainapurapu, MD, Arizona
Aaron Fernandes, MD, Arizona
Sonal Gandhi, Arizona
Sudhir Tutiki, Arizona
Navaneeth Kumar, MD, Arizona
Brian T. Courtney, MD, California
Won Jin Jeon, California
Veena Panduranga, MD, California
Jennifer Tinloy, DO, California
Debra Buckland Coffey, MCUSN, MD, California
Kathleen Teves, MD, California
Paul Goebel, MD, ACMPE, California
Shainy Hegde, California
Summaiya Muhammad, California
Desmond Wah, California
Chonn Khristin Ng, California
Almira Yang, DO, California
Salimah Boghani, MD, California
Stella Abhyankar, California
Cherie Ginwalla, MD, California
Armond Esmaili, California
Sarah Schaeffer, MD, MPH, California
Sophia Virani, MD, California
Dipti Munshi, MD, California
Judy Nguyen, DO, California
Daniel Owyang, DO, California
Christian Chiavetta, DO, California
David Reinert, DO, California
Joseph Pawlowski, MD, California
Eleanor Yang, California
Adrian Campo, MD, California
Emerson De Jesus, MD, California
Zachary Edmonds, MD, California
Trit Garg, California
Alexandra G. Ianculescu, MD, PhD, California
Felix Karp, MD, California
Cara Lai, California
Kristen Lew, MD, California
John Mogannam, California
Ameer Moussa, California
Neil Parikh, MD, MBA, California
Priya Reddy, California
Adam Simons, California
Sanjay Vadgama, MD, California
Kristofer Wills, DO, California
Michael Yang, MD, MS, California
Victor Ekuta, California,
Donna Colobong, PA-C, Colorado
Janna B. Dreason, FNP-C, Colorado
Cheryl English, NP-C, Colorado
Melanie Gerrior, MD, Colorado
Marciann Harris, NP, Colorado
Marsha Henke, MD, Colorado
Brett Hesse, Colorado
Naomi J Hipp, MD, Colorado
Aurell Horing, Colorado
Rachel Koch, DO, Colorado
Ed Marino, PA-C, Colorado
Marcus Reinhardt, MD, Colorado
Carol Runge, Colorado
Harshal Shah, Colorado
Leo Soehnlen, DO, Colorado
Anna Villalobos, MD, Colorado
Kathryn Whitfield, PA-C, Colorado
Jonathan Bei-Shing Young, MD, Colorado
Leah Damiani, MD, Colorado
Kathy Lynch, MD, Colorado
Micah Friedman, Colorado
Rachael Hilton, MD, Colorado
Madeline Koerner, Colorado
Chi Zheng, MD, Colorado
Chin-Kun Baw, MD, Connecticut
Alexandra Hawkins, NP, Connecticut
Vasundhara Singh, MD, MBBS, Connecticut
Ryan Quarles, MD, Connecticut
Debra Hernandez, APRN, BC, Connecticut
Karine Karapetyan, MD, Delaware
Choosak Burr, ARNP, Florida
Nelsi Mora, Florida
Mary Quillinan, Florida
Thuntanat Rachanakul, Florida
Samual W. Sauer, MD, MPH, Florida
Jennifer Tibangin, Florida
Keith Williams, MD, Florida
Eric Penedo, MD, Florida
Margaret Webb, Florida
Mark Bender, Florida
Brett Waress, MD, MHA, Florida
Giselle Racho, Florida
Bryan Thiel, Florida
Juan Loor Tuarez, MD, Florida
Christine Stopyra, Florida
Betsy Screws, ARNP, Florida
Jaimie Weber, MD, Florida
Priti Amin, MHA, Georgia
Naga Doddapaneni, Georgia
Stephanie Fletcher, Georgia
Disha Spath, MD, Georgia
Rafaela Wesley, DO, Georgia
Nikky Keer, DO, Georgia
James Kim, Georgia
Todd Martin, Georgia
Eli Mlaver, Georgia
Andrew Ritter, Georgia
Ali Al-Zubaidi, MBchB, Georgia
Deann Bing, MD, Georgia
Tushar Shah, Georgia
Cameron Straughn, DO, Georgia
Nobuhiro Ariyoshi, MEd, Hawaii
Prerna Kumar, Iowa
Jonathan Sebolt, MD, Iowa
Amy Tesar, DO, Iowa
Houng Chea, NP, Idaho
Finnegan Greer, PA-C, Idaho
Thao Nelson, PA, Idaho
Malatesha Gangappa, Idaho
Gloria Alumona, ACNP, Illinois
Ram Sanjeev Alur, Illinois
James Antoon, MD, FAAP, PhD, Illinois
Stefania Bailuc, MD, Illinois
Richard Huh, Illinois
Bhakti Patel, MD, Illinois
Frances Uy, ACNP, Illinois
Fernando Velazquez Vazquez, MD, Illinois
Tiffany White, MD, Illinois
Bryan P. Tully, MD, Illinois
Swati Gobhil, MBBS, Illinois
Lianghe Gao, Illinois
Gopi Astik, MD, Illinois
Marina Kovacevic, MD, Illinois
Abbie Raymond, DO, Illinois
Timothy Yung, Illinois
Ahmed Zahid, MD, Illinois
Cristina Corsini, MEd, Illinois
Faisal Rashid, MD, FACP, Illinois
Mansoor Ahmad, MD, Illinois
Matthew A. Strauch, DO, Illinois
Purshotham Reddy Grinne, Illinois
Nadia Nasreen, MD, Illinois
Maham Ashraf, MD, Indiana
Jennifer Gross, Indiana
Debasmita Mohapatra, MBBS, Indiana
Eric Scheper, Indiana
Katherine Gray, APRNBC, FNP, Indiana
Venkata Kureti, Indiana
Omer Al-Buoshkor, MD, Indiana
David Johnson, FNP, MSN, Indiana
Jonathan Salisbury, MD, Indiana
Debra Shapert, MSN, RN, Iowa
Lisa Carter, ARNP, Iowa
Matthew Woodham, Iowa
Tomoharu Suzuki, MD, Pharm, Japan
Khaldoun Haj, Kansas
Will Rogers, ACMPE, MA, MBA, Kansas
Karen Shumate, Kansas
Lisa Unruh, MD, Kansas
Matthew George, Kansas
Katie Washburn, DO, Kansas
Edwin Avallone, DO, Kentucky
Matthew Morris, Kentucky
Samantha Cappetto, MD, Kentucky
Jaison John, Kentucky
Ammar Al Jajeh, Kentucky
Joseph Bolger, MD, PhD, Louisiana
Clairissa Mulloy, Louisiana
Harish Talla, MD, Louisiana
John Amadon, Louisiana
Karthik Krishnareddy, Louisiana
Cheryl DeGrandpre, PA-C, Maine
Katherine Liu, MD, Maine
Sarah Sedney, MD, Maine
Aksana Afanasenka, MD, Maryland
Syed Nazeer Mahmood, MBBS, Maryland
Joseph Apata, MD, Maryland
Russom Ghebrai, MD, Maryland
Musa Momoh, MD, Maryland
Antanina Voit, Maryland
Dejene Kassaye, MD, MSC, Maryland
Shams Quazi, MD, FACP, MS, Maryland
Dawn Roelofs, FNP, MSN, Maryland
Kirsten Austad, MD, Massachusetts
Yoel Carrasquillo Vega, MD, Massachusetts
Michele Gaudet, NP, Massachusetts
Karina Mejias, Massachusetts
Peter Rohloff, MD, PhD, Massachusetts
Jennifer Schaeffer, Massachusetts
James Shaw, MD, Massachusetts
Renee Wheeler, Massachusetts
Angela Freeman, PA, PA-C, Massachusetts
Supriya Parvatini, MD, Massachusetts
Karen Jiang, MD, Massachusetts
Roula E. Abou-Nader, MD, Massachusetts
Shreekant Vasudhev, MD, Massachusetts
Nivedita Adabala, MD, MBBS, Michigan
Robert Behrendt, RN, BSN, Michigan
Molly Belisle, Michigan
Christine Dugan, MD, Michigan
Baljinder Gill, Michigan
Kellie Herringa, PA-C, Michigan
Christine Klingert, Michigan
Kathy Mitchell, Michigan
Aimee Vos, Michigan
Alyssa Churchill, DO, Michigan
Mailvaganam Sridharan, MD, Michigan
Atul Kapoor, MD, MBBS, Michigan
Anitha Kompally, MD, MBBS, Michigan
Nicole Webb, PA-C, Michigan
Abdulqadir Ahmad, MD, Minnesota
John Patrick Eikens, Minnesota
Bobbi Jo Jensen, PA-C, Minnesota
Rachel Keuseman, Minnesota
Stephen Palmquist, Minnesota
Manit Singla, MD, Minnesota
Douglas Berg, Minnesota
Nathan Palmolea, Minnesota
Molly Tureson, PAC, Minnesota
Mehdi Dastrange, MD, MHA, Minnesota
Kent Svee, Minnesota
Ashley Viere, PA-C, Minnesota
Molly Yang, MD, Minnesota
Paige Sams, DO, Minnesota
Amit Reddy, MBBS, Mississippi
Jacqueline Brooke Banks, FNP-C, Mississippi
Lori Foxworth, CFNP, Mississippi
Nicki Lawson, FNP-C, Mississippi
Bikash Acharya, Missouri
Zafar Ahmad, PA-C, Missouri
Harleen Chela, MD, Missouri
Jeffrey Chung, MD, Missouri
Daniel Kornfeld, Missouri
Erika Leung, MD, MSc, Missouri
Lisa Moser, PA, Missouri
Mark Stiffler, Missouri
Tushar Tarun, MBBS, Missouri
Nicole McLaughlin, Missouri
Katy Lohmann, PA-C, Missouri
Jayasree Bodagala, MD, Missouri
Ravi Kiran Morumuru, ACMPE, Missouri
Matthew Brown, MD, FAAFP, Missouri
Ravikanth Tadi, Missouri
Bazgha Ahmad, DO, Missouri
Monica Hawkins, RN, Missouri
Karri Vesey, BSN, Montana
Madison Vertin, PA-C, Montana
Urmila Mukherjee, MD, Nebraska
Noah Wiedel, MD, Nebraska
Sidrah Sheikh, MD, MBBS, Nebraska
Mohammad Esmadi, MBBS, Nebraska
Jill Zabih, MD, Nebraska
Jody Frey-Burns, RN, Nevada
Adnan Akbar, MD, Nevada
Peter Gayed, MRCP, New Hampshire
Jonathan T. Huntington, MD, New Hampshire
Meghan Meehan, ACNP, New Hampshire
Saurabh Mehta, MD, New Jersey
Hanaa Benchekroun Belabbes, MD, MHA, New Jersey
Hwan Kim, MD, New Jersey
Mary Tobiasson, USA, New Jersey
Muhammad Khakwani, MD, New Jersey
Amita Maibam, MD, MPH, New Jersey
Kumar Rohit, MBBS, New Jersey
Crystal Benjamin, MD, New Jersey
Rafael Garabis, New Mexico
Sam MacBride, MD, New Mexico
Indra Peram, MD, New Mexico
Sarah Vertrees, DO, New Mexico
Aswani Kumar Alavala, MD, New Mexico
Christopher Anstine, New Mexico
Prathima Guruguri, MD, New Mexico
Diedre Hofinger, MD, FACP, New Mexico
Katharine Juarez, New Mexico
Amtul Mahavesh, MD, New Mexico
Francisco Marquez, New Mexico
Payal Sen, MD, New Mexico
Morgan Wong, DO, New Mexico
Kelly Berchou, New York
Ronald Cho, New York
Nishil Dalsania, New York
Carolyn Drake, MD, MPH, New York
Leanne Forman, New York
Valerie Gausman, New York
Laurie Jacobs, New York
Janice Jang, MD, New York
Sonia Kohli, MD, New York
Nancy Lee, PA, New York
Allen Lee, MD, New York
Matthew McCarthy, FACP, New York
Akram Mohammed, MD, New York
Jennifer Nead, New York
Kristal Persaud, PA, New York
Mariya Rozenblit, MD, New York
Christian Torres, MD, New York
Sasha De Jesus, MD, New York
Gabriella Polyak, New York
Nataliya Yuklyaeva, MD, New York
Riyaz Kamadoli, MD, New York
Ramanuj Chakravarty, New York
Adil Zaidi, MD, New York
Allison Walker, MD, New York
Himali Gandhi, New York
Alexey Yanilshtein, MD, New York
Ramsey Al-Khalil, New York
Latoya Codougan, MD, New York
Khan Najmi, MD, New York
Sara Stream, MD, New York
Bhuwan Poudyal, MD, New York
Khalil Anchouche, New York
Sarah Azarchi, New York
Susana Bejar, New York
Brian Chang, New York
Jonathan Chen, New York
Hailey Gupta, MD, New York
Medhavi Gupta, New York
Ali Khan, New York
Benjamin Kwok, MD, New York
Billy Lin, New York
Katherine Ni, New York
Jina Park, New York
Gabriel Perreault, New York
Luis Alberto Romero, New York
Payal Shah, New York
Punita Shroff, New York
Scott Statman, New York
Maria Sunseri, New York
Benjamin Verplanke, New York
Audrey Zhang, New York
Gaby Razzouk, MD, New York
Pranitha Mantrala, MD, New York
Marsha Antoine, New York
Kanica Yashi, New York
Navid Ahmed, New York
Tasha Richards, PA, New York
Connor Tryon, MD, New York
Naveen Yarlagadda, MD, New York
Alex Hogan, New York
Andrew Donohoe, CCM, MD, North Carolina
Brittany Forshay, MD, North Carolina
Kelly Hammerbeck, FNP, North Carolina
Jennifer Hausman, North Carolina
Babajide Obisesan, North Carolina
Kwadwo Ofori, MD, North Carolina
Eric Ofosu, MD, North Carolina
Kale Roth, North Carolina
Robert Soma, PA-C, North Carolina
Sommany Weber, North Carolina
Ronnie Jacobs, North Carolina
Muhammad Ghani, MD, MACP, MBBS, North Carolina
Madeline Treasure, North Carolina
Andrew McWilliams, MD, North Carolina
Karen Payne, ACNP, MPH, North Carolina
Rafal Poplawski, MD, North Carolina
James Seal, PA-C, North Carolina
Farheen Qureshi, DO, North Carolina
Basavatti Sowmya, MD, MBBS, North Carolina
Eshwar Lal, MD, North Carolina
Catherine Hathaway, MD, North Carolina
Sherif Naguib, FAAFP, North Carolina
Sara Skavroneck, North Carolina
Charles Ofosu, North Carolina
Alex Alburquerque, MD, Ohio
Isha Butler, DO, Ohio
Anne Carrol, MD, Ohio
Scott Childers, MD, Ohio
Philip Jonas, MD, Ohio
Ahmadreza Karimianpour, Ohio
Rahul Kumar, MD, Ohio
George Maidaa, MD, Ohio
Kevin McAninch, Ohio
Jill Mccourt, FNP, Ohio
Roxanne Oliver, Ohio
Farah Hussain, Ohio
Natasha Axton, PA-C, Ohio
Brooke Harris, ACNP, Ohio
Vidhya Murukesan, MD, Ohio
Sara Dong, Ohio
Christie Astor, FNP, Ohio
Sunita Mall, MD, Ohio
Sunita Mall, MD, Ohio
Fouzia Tariq, MD, Ohio
Kaveri Sivaruban, MD, Ohio
Eunice Quicho, Ohio
Smitha Achuthankutty, MD, Ohio
Harmanpreet Shinh, MD, Ohio
Maereg Tesfaye, Ohio
Kalyn Jolivette, MD, Ohio
Richelle Voth, PA-C, Oklahoma
Samuel J. Ratermann, MD, FAAFP, Oklahoma
Richelle Voth, PA-C, Oklahoma
Alden Forrester, MD, Oregon
Nicholas Brown, DO, Oregon
Ian Pennell-Walklin, MD, Oregon
Bruce Ramsey, Oregon
Kyle Brekke, DO, Oregon
Sarah Webber, MD, Oregon
Brian Beaudoin, MD, Pennsylvania
Glenn Bedell, MHSA, Pennsylvania
Cristina Green, AGACNP-DNP, Pennsylvania
Andrew Groff, Pennsylvania
Sulman Masood Hashmi, MBBS, Pennsylvania
Eric Kasprowicz, MD, MPH, Pennsylvania
Laura Leuenberger, Pennsylvania
James Liszewski, MD, Pennsylvania
Caitlyn Moss, Pennsylvania
Paul Seunghyun Nho, Pennsylvania
Rishan Patel, MD, Pennsylvania
Dilli R. Poudel, MBBS, Pennsylvania
Naveen Yellappa, MBBS, Pennsylvania
Usman Zulfiqar, Pennsylvania
Nina Jain, Pennsylvania
Bhumika Patel, DO, Pennsylvania
Jenna M. Diasio, PA-C, Pennsylvania
Malachi Courtney, MD, Pennsylvania
Sonia Arneja, MD, Pennsylvania
Ross Ellis, MD, Pennsylvania
Samreen Siddiqui, Pennsylvania
Jillian Zavodnick, Pennsylvania
Kinan Kassar, MD, Pennsylvania
Maritsa M. Scoulos-Hanson, Pennsylvania
Jennifer Taylor, PA-C, Pennsylvania
Steven Delaveris, DO, Pennsylvania
Danica Buzniak, DO, Rhode Island
Paul Browning, MD, South Carolina
Matt Coones, MD, South Carolina
Cedric Fisher, MD, South Carolina
Aloysius Jackson, MD, South Carolina
Katharine DuPont, MD, South Carolina
Michael Jenkins, MD, South Carolina
Jessica Hamilton, APRN, BC, FNP, South Carolina
Pamela Pyle, DO, South Carolina
Shakeel Ahmed, MBBS, MD, South Dakota
D. Bruce Eaton, MD, South Dakota
Drew Jorgensen, MD, South Dakota
Shelly Turbak, MSN, RN, South Dakota
Tamera Sturm, DO, South Dakota
Peggy Brooks, Tennessee
Joseph Garrido, MD, Tennessee
Lisa Grimes, FNP, Tennessee
Chennakesava Kummathi, MBBS, Tennessee
Victoria Okafor, Tennessee
Ashley Smith, Tennessee
Monisha Bhatia, Tennessee
Belinda Jenkins, APRN-BC, Tennessee
Kim Zahnke, MD, Tennessee
Robert Arias, Texas
Nicolas Batterton, MD, Texas
Scott DePaul, MD, Texas
Nancy Foster, Texas
Larry Hughes, Texas
Erin Koval, Texas
Femi Layiwola, MD, Texas
Krysta Lin, Texas
James J. Onorato, MD, PhD, Texas
Allison Stephenson, PA-C, Texas
Brandon Stormes, Texas
Rubin Simon, MD, Texas
Brian Anderson, DO, Texas
Hatim Chhatriwala, MD, Texas
Aziz Hammoud, Texas
Haru Yamamoto, MD, Texas
Lauren Schiegg, Texas
Victoria Grasso, DO, Texas
Victor Salcedo, MD, Texas
Rajiv Bhattarai, Texas
Iram Qureshi, DO, Texas
Lisa Hafemeister, FACHE, MHA, Texas
Helena Kurian, MD, Texas
Jessica Lin, Texas
Nathan Nowalk, MD, Texas
Keely Smith, MD, Texas
Jonathan Weiser, MD, Texas
Roland Prezas, DO, FAAFP, Texas
Allan Recto, AHIP, Texas
Regina Dimbo, Texas
Venkata Ghanta, Texas
Richmond Hunt, Texas
Vishal Patel, MD, Texas
Zain Sharif, MD, Texas
Rommel Del Rosario, MD, Texas
Khawer Khadimally, DO, Texas
Diogenes Valderrama, MD, Texas
Charles Ewoh, MD, Texas
Deepika Kilaru, Texas
Tilahun Belay, MD, Texas
Chandra S Reddy Navuluri, MD, Texas
Bradley Goad, DO, FACP, Virginia
Patrick Higdon, MD, Virginia
Gabriella Miller, MD, HMDC, Virginia
Miklos Szentirmai, MD, Virginia
Hyder Tamton, Virginia
Andra Mirescu, MD, Virginia
Olukayode Ojo, Virginia
Robert Szeles, MD, Virginia
Anya Cope, DO, Virginia
OsCiriah Press, MD, Virginia
Rikin Kadakia, MD, Virginia
Bryant Self, DO, Virginia
Sarah Sabo, ACNP, Virginia
Pedro A. Gonzales Alvarez, MD, Virginia
William Best, Virginia
Pushpanjali Basnyat, MD, Washington
Nikki Hartley-Jonason, Washington
Helen Johnsonwall, MD, Washington
Eric LaMotte, MD, Washington
Maher Muraywid, Washington
Evan Neal Paul, MD, Washington
Sarah Rogers, MD, Washington
Lindee Strizich, Washington
Maryam Tariq, MBBS, Washington
Meghaan Walsh, MD, Washington
Oleg Zbirun, MD, Washington
Meeta Sabnis, MD, Washington
James Kuo, MD, Washington
Liang Du, Washington
Syed Farhan Tabraiz Hashmi, MD, Washington
Jessica Jung, MD, Washington
Joshua Pelley, MD, Washington
Alex Yu, MD, Washington
Alfred Curnow, MD, Washington
Duhwan Kang, Washington
Gilbert Daniel, MD, Washington, D.C.
Eleanor Fitall, Washington, D.C.
Vinay Srinivasan, Washington, D.C.
Scott Wine, West Virginia
Trevor Miller, MBA, PA-C, West Virginia
Audrey Hiltunen, Wisconsin
Elina Litinskaya, Wisconsin
John M. Murphy, MD, Wisconsin
Tanya Pedretti, PA, Wisconsin
Adine Rodemeyer, MD, Wisconsin
Oghomwen Sule, MBBS, Wisconsin
Terrence Witt, MD, Wisconsin
Mayank Arora, Wisconsin
John D. MacDonald, MD, Wisconsin
Abigail Cook, Wisconsin
Mohamed Ibrahim, MD, Wisconsin
Aymen Khogali, MD, Wisconsin
Nicholas Haun, Wisconsin
Sandra Brown, Victoria, Australia
Alessandra Gessner, Alberta, Canada
Courtney Carlucci, British Columbia, Canada
Muhanad Y. Al Habash, Canada
Karen Tong, MD, Canada
Taku Yabuki, Japan
Liza van Loon, the Netherlands
Edward Gebuis, MD, the Netherlands
Abdisalan Afrah, MD, Qatar
Akhnuwkh Jones, Qatar
Mashuk Uddin, MBBS, MRCP, FRCP, Qatar
Ibrahim Yusuf Abubeker, MRCP, Qatar
Chih-Wei Tseng, Taiwan
Sawsan Abdel-Razig, MD, FACP, United Arab Emirates
The Society of Hospital Medicine welcomes its newest members:
Kwie-Hoa Siem, MD, Alaska
Frank Abene, Alabama
Kayla Maldonado, Alabama
Kenny Murray, MD, Alabama
Shanthan Ramidi, MD, Alabama
Lauren Hancock, APRN, Arkansas
William Hawkins, MD, Arkansas
Matthew Law, Arkansas
Emily Smith, MD, Arkansas
Firas Abbas, MBchB, Arizona
Shahid Ahmad, MD, MBBS, Arizona
Praveen Bheemanathini, Arizona
Atoosa Hosseini, Arizona
William McGrade, DO, Arizona
Konstantin Mazursky, DO, Arizona
Ibrahim Taweel, MD, Arizona
Kevin Virk, MD, FACP, Arizona
Kevin Virk, MD, FACP, Arizona
Mohemmedd Khalid Abbas, Arizona
Hasan Chaudhry, MD, Arizona
Kelly Kelleher, FAAP, Arizona
Priyanka Sultania Dudani, MBBS, Arizona
Krishna Kasireddy, MD, Arizona
Melanie Meguro, Arizona
Puneet Tuli, MD, Arizona
Jonathan Byrdy, DO, Arizona
Sarah Corral, DO, Arizona
Edward Maharam, MD, Arizona
Arvind Satyanarayan, DO, Arizona
Mayank Aggarwal, MD, Arizona
Syed Jafri, Arizona
Bujji Ainapurapu, MD, Arizona
Aaron Fernandes, MD, Arizona
Sonal Gandhi, Arizona
Sudhir Tutiki, Arizona
Navaneeth Kumar, MD, Arizona
Brian T. Courtney, MD, California
Won Jin Jeon, California
Veena Panduranga, MD, California
Jennifer Tinloy, DO, California
Debra Buckland Coffey, MCUSN, MD, California
Kathleen Teves, MD, California
Paul Goebel, MD, ACMPE, California
Shainy Hegde, California
Summaiya Muhammad, California
Desmond Wah, California
Chonn Khristin Ng, California
Almira Yang, DO, California
Salimah Boghani, MD, California
Stella Abhyankar, California
Cherie Ginwalla, MD, California
Armond Esmaili, California
Sarah Schaeffer, MD, MPH, California
Sophia Virani, MD, California
Dipti Munshi, MD, California
Judy Nguyen, DO, California
Daniel Owyang, DO, California
Christian Chiavetta, DO, California
David Reinert, DO, California
Joseph Pawlowski, MD, California
Eleanor Yang, California
Adrian Campo, MD, California
Emerson De Jesus, MD, California
Zachary Edmonds, MD, California
Trit Garg, California
Alexandra G. Ianculescu, MD, PhD, California
Felix Karp, MD, California
Cara Lai, California
Kristen Lew, MD, California
John Mogannam, California
Ameer Moussa, California
Neil Parikh, MD, MBA, California
Priya Reddy, California
Adam Simons, California
Sanjay Vadgama, MD, California
Kristofer Wills, DO, California
Michael Yang, MD, MS, California
Victor Ekuta, California,
Donna Colobong, PA-C, Colorado
Janna B. Dreason, FNP-C, Colorado
Cheryl English, NP-C, Colorado
Melanie Gerrior, MD, Colorado
Marciann Harris, NP, Colorado
Marsha Henke, MD, Colorado
Brett Hesse, Colorado
Naomi J Hipp, MD, Colorado
Aurell Horing, Colorado
Rachel Koch, DO, Colorado
Ed Marino, PA-C, Colorado
Marcus Reinhardt, MD, Colorado
Carol Runge, Colorado
Harshal Shah, Colorado
Leo Soehnlen, DO, Colorado
Anna Villalobos, MD, Colorado
Kathryn Whitfield, PA-C, Colorado
Jonathan Bei-Shing Young, MD, Colorado
Leah Damiani, MD, Colorado
Kathy Lynch, MD, Colorado
Micah Friedman, Colorado
Rachael Hilton, MD, Colorado
Madeline Koerner, Colorado
Chi Zheng, MD, Colorado
Chin-Kun Baw, MD, Connecticut
Alexandra Hawkins, NP, Connecticut
Vasundhara Singh, MD, MBBS, Connecticut
Ryan Quarles, MD, Connecticut
Debra Hernandez, APRN, BC, Connecticut
Karine Karapetyan, MD, Delaware
Choosak Burr, ARNP, Florida
Nelsi Mora, Florida
Mary Quillinan, Florida
Thuntanat Rachanakul, Florida
Samual W. Sauer, MD, MPH, Florida
Jennifer Tibangin, Florida
Keith Williams, MD, Florida
Eric Penedo, MD, Florida
Margaret Webb, Florida
Mark Bender, Florida
Brett Waress, MD, MHA, Florida
Giselle Racho, Florida
Bryan Thiel, Florida
Juan Loor Tuarez, MD, Florida
Christine Stopyra, Florida
Betsy Screws, ARNP, Florida
Jaimie Weber, MD, Florida
Priti Amin, MHA, Georgia
Naga Doddapaneni, Georgia
Stephanie Fletcher, Georgia
Disha Spath, MD, Georgia
Rafaela Wesley, DO, Georgia
Nikky Keer, DO, Georgia
James Kim, Georgia
Todd Martin, Georgia
Eli Mlaver, Georgia
Andrew Ritter, Georgia
Ali Al-Zubaidi, MBchB, Georgia
Deann Bing, MD, Georgia
Tushar Shah, Georgia
Cameron Straughn, DO, Georgia
Nobuhiro Ariyoshi, MEd, Hawaii
Prerna Kumar, Iowa
Jonathan Sebolt, MD, Iowa
Amy Tesar, DO, Iowa
Houng Chea, NP, Idaho
Finnegan Greer, PA-C, Idaho
Thao Nelson, PA, Idaho
Malatesha Gangappa, Idaho
Gloria Alumona, ACNP, Illinois
Ram Sanjeev Alur, Illinois
James Antoon, MD, FAAP, PhD, Illinois
Stefania Bailuc, MD, Illinois
Richard Huh, Illinois
Bhakti Patel, MD, Illinois
Frances Uy, ACNP, Illinois
Fernando Velazquez Vazquez, MD, Illinois
Tiffany White, MD, Illinois
Bryan P. Tully, MD, Illinois
Swati Gobhil, MBBS, Illinois
Lianghe Gao, Illinois
Gopi Astik, MD, Illinois
Marina Kovacevic, MD, Illinois
Abbie Raymond, DO, Illinois
Timothy Yung, Illinois
Ahmed Zahid, MD, Illinois
Cristina Corsini, MEd, Illinois
Faisal Rashid, MD, FACP, Illinois
Mansoor Ahmad, MD, Illinois
Matthew A. Strauch, DO, Illinois
Purshotham Reddy Grinne, Illinois
Nadia Nasreen, MD, Illinois
Maham Ashraf, MD, Indiana
Jennifer Gross, Indiana
Debasmita Mohapatra, MBBS, Indiana
Eric Scheper, Indiana
Katherine Gray, APRNBC, FNP, Indiana
Venkata Kureti, Indiana
Omer Al-Buoshkor, MD, Indiana
David Johnson, FNP, MSN, Indiana
Jonathan Salisbury, MD, Indiana
Debra Shapert, MSN, RN, Iowa
Lisa Carter, ARNP, Iowa
Matthew Woodham, Iowa
Tomoharu Suzuki, MD, Pharm, Japan
Khaldoun Haj, Kansas
Will Rogers, ACMPE, MA, MBA, Kansas
Karen Shumate, Kansas
Lisa Unruh, MD, Kansas
Matthew George, Kansas
Katie Washburn, DO, Kansas
Edwin Avallone, DO, Kentucky
Matthew Morris, Kentucky
Samantha Cappetto, MD, Kentucky
Jaison John, Kentucky
Ammar Al Jajeh, Kentucky
Joseph Bolger, MD, PhD, Louisiana
Clairissa Mulloy, Louisiana
Harish Talla, MD, Louisiana
John Amadon, Louisiana
Karthik Krishnareddy, Louisiana
Cheryl DeGrandpre, PA-C, Maine
Katherine Liu, MD, Maine
Sarah Sedney, MD, Maine
Aksana Afanasenka, MD, Maryland
Syed Nazeer Mahmood, MBBS, Maryland
Joseph Apata, MD, Maryland
Russom Ghebrai, MD, Maryland
Musa Momoh, MD, Maryland
Antanina Voit, Maryland
Dejene Kassaye, MD, MSC, Maryland
Shams Quazi, MD, FACP, MS, Maryland
Dawn Roelofs, FNP, MSN, Maryland
Kirsten Austad, MD, Massachusetts
Yoel Carrasquillo Vega, MD, Massachusetts
Michele Gaudet, NP, Massachusetts
Karina Mejias, Massachusetts
Peter Rohloff, MD, PhD, Massachusetts
Jennifer Schaeffer, Massachusetts
James Shaw, MD, Massachusetts
Renee Wheeler, Massachusetts
Angela Freeman, PA, PA-C, Massachusetts
Supriya Parvatini, MD, Massachusetts
Karen Jiang, MD, Massachusetts
Roula E. Abou-Nader, MD, Massachusetts
Shreekant Vasudhev, MD, Massachusetts
Nivedita Adabala, MD, MBBS, Michigan
Robert Behrendt, RN, BSN, Michigan
Molly Belisle, Michigan
Christine Dugan, MD, Michigan
Baljinder Gill, Michigan
Kellie Herringa, PA-C, Michigan
Christine Klingert, Michigan
Kathy Mitchell, Michigan
Aimee Vos, Michigan
Alyssa Churchill, DO, Michigan
Mailvaganam Sridharan, MD, Michigan
Atul Kapoor, MD, MBBS, Michigan
Anitha Kompally, MD, MBBS, Michigan
Nicole Webb, PA-C, Michigan
Abdulqadir Ahmad, MD, Minnesota
John Patrick Eikens, Minnesota
Bobbi Jo Jensen, PA-C, Minnesota
Rachel Keuseman, Minnesota
Stephen Palmquist, Minnesota
Manit Singla, MD, Minnesota
Douglas Berg, Minnesota
Nathan Palmolea, Minnesota
Molly Tureson, PAC, Minnesota
Mehdi Dastrange, MD, MHA, Minnesota
Kent Svee, Minnesota
Ashley Viere, PA-C, Minnesota
Molly Yang, MD, Minnesota
Paige Sams, DO, Minnesota
Amit Reddy, MBBS, Mississippi
Jacqueline Brooke Banks, FNP-C, Mississippi
Lori Foxworth, CFNP, Mississippi
Nicki Lawson, FNP-C, Mississippi
Bikash Acharya, Missouri
Zafar Ahmad, PA-C, Missouri
Harleen Chela, MD, Missouri
Jeffrey Chung, MD, Missouri
Daniel Kornfeld, Missouri
Erika Leung, MD, MSc, Missouri
Lisa Moser, PA, Missouri
Mark Stiffler, Missouri
Tushar Tarun, MBBS, Missouri
Nicole McLaughlin, Missouri
Katy Lohmann, PA-C, Missouri
Jayasree Bodagala, MD, Missouri
Ravi Kiran Morumuru, ACMPE, Missouri
Matthew Brown, MD, FAAFP, Missouri
Ravikanth Tadi, Missouri
Bazgha Ahmad, DO, Missouri
Monica Hawkins, RN, Missouri
Karri Vesey, BSN, Montana
Madison Vertin, PA-C, Montana
Urmila Mukherjee, MD, Nebraska
Noah Wiedel, MD, Nebraska
Sidrah Sheikh, MD, MBBS, Nebraska
Mohammad Esmadi, MBBS, Nebraska
Jill Zabih, MD, Nebraska
Jody Frey-Burns, RN, Nevada
Adnan Akbar, MD, Nevada
Peter Gayed, MRCP, New Hampshire
Jonathan T. Huntington, MD, New Hampshire
Meghan Meehan, ACNP, New Hampshire
Saurabh Mehta, MD, New Jersey
Hanaa Benchekroun Belabbes, MD, MHA, New Jersey
Hwan Kim, MD, New Jersey
Mary Tobiasson, USA, New Jersey
Muhammad Khakwani, MD, New Jersey
Amita Maibam, MD, MPH, New Jersey
Kumar Rohit, MBBS, New Jersey
Crystal Benjamin, MD, New Jersey
Rafael Garabis, New Mexico
Sam MacBride, MD, New Mexico
Indra Peram, MD, New Mexico
Sarah Vertrees, DO, New Mexico
Aswani Kumar Alavala, MD, New Mexico
Christopher Anstine, New Mexico
Prathima Guruguri, MD, New Mexico
Diedre Hofinger, MD, FACP, New Mexico
Katharine Juarez, New Mexico
Amtul Mahavesh, MD, New Mexico
Francisco Marquez, New Mexico
Payal Sen, MD, New Mexico
Morgan Wong, DO, New Mexico
Kelly Berchou, New York
Ronald Cho, New York
Nishil Dalsania, New York
Carolyn Drake, MD, MPH, New York
Leanne Forman, New York
Valerie Gausman, New York
Laurie Jacobs, New York
Janice Jang, MD, New York
Sonia Kohli, MD, New York
Nancy Lee, PA, New York
Allen Lee, MD, New York
Matthew McCarthy, FACP, New York
Akram Mohammed, MD, New York
Jennifer Nead, New York
Kristal Persaud, PA, New York
Mariya Rozenblit, MD, New York
Christian Torres, MD, New York
Sasha De Jesus, MD, New York
Gabriella Polyak, New York
Nataliya Yuklyaeva, MD, New York
Riyaz Kamadoli, MD, New York
Ramanuj Chakravarty, New York
Adil Zaidi, MD, New York
Allison Walker, MD, New York
Himali Gandhi, New York
Alexey Yanilshtein, MD, New York
Ramsey Al-Khalil, New York
Latoya Codougan, MD, New York
Khan Najmi, MD, New York
Sara Stream, MD, New York
Bhuwan Poudyal, MD, New York
Khalil Anchouche, New York
Sarah Azarchi, New York
Susana Bejar, New York
Brian Chang, New York
Jonathan Chen, New York
Hailey Gupta, MD, New York
Medhavi Gupta, New York
Ali Khan, New York
Benjamin Kwok, MD, New York
Billy Lin, New York
Katherine Ni, New York
Jina Park, New York
Gabriel Perreault, New York
Luis Alberto Romero, New York
Payal Shah, New York
Punita Shroff, New York
Scott Statman, New York
Maria Sunseri, New York
Benjamin Verplanke, New York
Audrey Zhang, New York
Gaby Razzouk, MD, New York
Pranitha Mantrala, MD, New York
Marsha Antoine, New York
Kanica Yashi, New York
Navid Ahmed, New York
Tasha Richards, PA, New York
Connor Tryon, MD, New York
Naveen Yarlagadda, MD, New York
Alex Hogan, New York
Andrew Donohoe, CCM, MD, North Carolina
Brittany Forshay, MD, North Carolina
Kelly Hammerbeck, FNP, North Carolina
Jennifer Hausman, North Carolina
Babajide Obisesan, North Carolina
Kwadwo Ofori, MD, North Carolina
Eric Ofosu, MD, North Carolina
Kale Roth, North Carolina
Robert Soma, PA-C, North Carolina
Sommany Weber, North Carolina
Ronnie Jacobs, North Carolina
Muhammad Ghani, MD, MACP, MBBS, North Carolina
Madeline Treasure, North Carolina
Andrew McWilliams, MD, North Carolina
Karen Payne, ACNP, MPH, North Carolina
Rafal Poplawski, MD, North Carolina
James Seal, PA-C, North Carolina
Farheen Qureshi, DO, North Carolina
Basavatti Sowmya, MD, MBBS, North Carolina
Eshwar Lal, MD, North Carolina
Catherine Hathaway, MD, North Carolina
Sherif Naguib, FAAFP, North Carolina
Sara Skavroneck, North Carolina
Charles Ofosu, North Carolina
Alex Alburquerque, MD, Ohio
Isha Butler, DO, Ohio
Anne Carrol, MD, Ohio
Scott Childers, MD, Ohio
Philip Jonas, MD, Ohio
Ahmadreza Karimianpour, Ohio
Rahul Kumar, MD, Ohio
George Maidaa, MD, Ohio
Kevin McAninch, Ohio
Jill Mccourt, FNP, Ohio
Roxanne Oliver, Ohio
Farah Hussain, Ohio
Natasha Axton, PA-C, Ohio
Brooke Harris, ACNP, Ohio
Vidhya Murukesan, MD, Ohio
Sara Dong, Ohio
Christie Astor, FNP, Ohio
Sunita Mall, MD, Ohio
Sunita Mall, MD, Ohio
Fouzia Tariq, MD, Ohio
Kaveri Sivaruban, MD, Ohio
Eunice Quicho, Ohio
Smitha Achuthankutty, MD, Ohio
Harmanpreet Shinh, MD, Ohio
Maereg Tesfaye, Ohio
Kalyn Jolivette, MD, Ohio
Richelle Voth, PA-C, Oklahoma
Samuel J. Ratermann, MD, FAAFP, Oklahoma
Richelle Voth, PA-C, Oklahoma
Alden Forrester, MD, Oregon
Nicholas Brown, DO, Oregon
Ian Pennell-Walklin, MD, Oregon
Bruce Ramsey, Oregon
Kyle Brekke, DO, Oregon
Sarah Webber, MD, Oregon
Brian Beaudoin, MD, Pennsylvania
Glenn Bedell, MHSA, Pennsylvania
Cristina Green, AGACNP-DNP, Pennsylvania
Andrew Groff, Pennsylvania
Sulman Masood Hashmi, MBBS, Pennsylvania
Eric Kasprowicz, MD, MPH, Pennsylvania
Laura Leuenberger, Pennsylvania
James Liszewski, MD, Pennsylvania
Caitlyn Moss, Pennsylvania
Paul Seunghyun Nho, Pennsylvania
Rishan Patel, MD, Pennsylvania
Dilli R. Poudel, MBBS, Pennsylvania
Naveen Yellappa, MBBS, Pennsylvania
Usman Zulfiqar, Pennsylvania
Nina Jain, Pennsylvania
Bhumika Patel, DO, Pennsylvania
Jenna M. Diasio, PA-C, Pennsylvania
Malachi Courtney, MD, Pennsylvania
Sonia Arneja, MD, Pennsylvania
Ross Ellis, MD, Pennsylvania
Samreen Siddiqui, Pennsylvania
Jillian Zavodnick, Pennsylvania
Kinan Kassar, MD, Pennsylvania
Maritsa M. Scoulos-Hanson, Pennsylvania
Jennifer Taylor, PA-C, Pennsylvania
Steven Delaveris, DO, Pennsylvania
Danica Buzniak, DO, Rhode Island
Paul Browning, MD, South Carolina
Matt Coones, MD, South Carolina
Cedric Fisher, MD, South Carolina
Aloysius Jackson, MD, South Carolina
Katharine DuPont, MD, South Carolina
Michael Jenkins, MD, South Carolina
Jessica Hamilton, APRN, BC, FNP, South Carolina
Pamela Pyle, DO, South Carolina
Shakeel Ahmed, MBBS, MD, South Dakota
D. Bruce Eaton, MD, South Dakota
Drew Jorgensen, MD, South Dakota
Shelly Turbak, MSN, RN, South Dakota
Tamera Sturm, DO, South Dakota
Peggy Brooks, Tennessee
Joseph Garrido, MD, Tennessee
Lisa Grimes, FNP, Tennessee
Chennakesava Kummathi, MBBS, Tennessee
Victoria Okafor, Tennessee
Ashley Smith, Tennessee
Monisha Bhatia, Tennessee
Belinda Jenkins, APRN-BC, Tennessee
Kim Zahnke, MD, Tennessee
Robert Arias, Texas
Nicolas Batterton, MD, Texas
Scott DePaul, MD, Texas
Nancy Foster, Texas
Larry Hughes, Texas
Erin Koval, Texas
Femi Layiwola, MD, Texas
Krysta Lin, Texas
James J. Onorato, MD, PhD, Texas
Allison Stephenson, PA-C, Texas
Brandon Stormes, Texas
Rubin Simon, MD, Texas
Brian Anderson, DO, Texas
Hatim Chhatriwala, MD, Texas
Aziz Hammoud, Texas
Haru Yamamoto, MD, Texas
Lauren Schiegg, Texas
Victoria Grasso, DO, Texas
Victor Salcedo, MD, Texas
Rajiv Bhattarai, Texas
Iram Qureshi, DO, Texas
Lisa Hafemeister, FACHE, MHA, Texas
Helena Kurian, MD, Texas
Jessica Lin, Texas
Nathan Nowalk, MD, Texas
Keely Smith, MD, Texas
Jonathan Weiser, MD, Texas
Roland Prezas, DO, FAAFP, Texas
Allan Recto, AHIP, Texas
Regina Dimbo, Texas
Venkata Ghanta, Texas
Richmond Hunt, Texas
Vishal Patel, MD, Texas
Zain Sharif, MD, Texas
Rommel Del Rosario, MD, Texas
Khawer Khadimally, DO, Texas
Diogenes Valderrama, MD, Texas
Charles Ewoh, MD, Texas
Deepika Kilaru, Texas
Tilahun Belay, MD, Texas
Chandra S Reddy Navuluri, MD, Texas
Bradley Goad, DO, FACP, Virginia
Patrick Higdon, MD, Virginia
Gabriella Miller, MD, HMDC, Virginia
Miklos Szentirmai, MD, Virginia
Hyder Tamton, Virginia
Andra Mirescu, MD, Virginia
Olukayode Ojo, Virginia
Robert Szeles, MD, Virginia
Anya Cope, DO, Virginia
OsCiriah Press, MD, Virginia
Rikin Kadakia, MD, Virginia
Bryant Self, DO, Virginia
Sarah Sabo, ACNP, Virginia
Pedro A. Gonzales Alvarez, MD, Virginia
William Best, Virginia
Pushpanjali Basnyat, MD, Washington
Nikki Hartley-Jonason, Washington
Helen Johnsonwall, MD, Washington
Eric LaMotte, MD, Washington
Maher Muraywid, Washington
Evan Neal Paul, MD, Washington
Sarah Rogers, MD, Washington
Lindee Strizich, Washington
Maryam Tariq, MBBS, Washington
Meghaan Walsh, MD, Washington
Oleg Zbirun, MD, Washington
Meeta Sabnis, MD, Washington
James Kuo, MD, Washington
Liang Du, Washington
Syed Farhan Tabraiz Hashmi, MD, Washington
Jessica Jung, MD, Washington
Joshua Pelley, MD, Washington
Alex Yu, MD, Washington
Alfred Curnow, MD, Washington
Duhwan Kang, Washington
Gilbert Daniel, MD, Washington, D.C.
Eleanor Fitall, Washington, D.C.
Vinay Srinivasan, Washington, D.C.
Scott Wine, West Virginia
Trevor Miller, MBA, PA-C, West Virginia
Audrey Hiltunen, Wisconsin
Elina Litinskaya, Wisconsin
John M. Murphy, MD, Wisconsin
Tanya Pedretti, PA, Wisconsin
Adine Rodemeyer, MD, Wisconsin
Oghomwen Sule, MBBS, Wisconsin
Terrence Witt, MD, Wisconsin
Mayank Arora, Wisconsin
John D. MacDonald, MD, Wisconsin
Abigail Cook, Wisconsin
Mohamed Ibrahim, MD, Wisconsin
Aymen Khogali, MD, Wisconsin
Nicholas Haun, Wisconsin
Sandra Brown, Victoria, Australia
Alessandra Gessner, Alberta, Canada
Courtney Carlucci, British Columbia, Canada
Muhanad Y. Al Habash, Canada
Karen Tong, MD, Canada
Taku Yabuki, Japan
Liza van Loon, the Netherlands
Edward Gebuis, MD, the Netherlands
Abdisalan Afrah, MD, Qatar
Akhnuwkh Jones, Qatar
Mashuk Uddin, MBBS, MRCP, FRCP, Qatar
Ibrahim Yusuf Abubeker, MRCP, Qatar
Chih-Wei Tseng, Taiwan
Sawsan Abdel-Razig, MD, FACP, United Arab Emirates
Oral clozapine, long-acting injectables tied to lower relapse risk in schizophrenia
Clozapine and long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications were most effective at preventing rehospitalization and treatment failure among patients with schizophrenia, according to a large prospective cohort study reported online June 7.
“The risk of rehospitalization is about 20% to 30% lower during long-acting injectable treatments, compared with equivalent oral formulations,” wrote Jari Tiihonen, MD, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, together with his associates.
Selection bias is a major problem in clinical trials of antipsychotics because up to 90% of patients are excluded for suicidal or antisocial behavior, substance abuse, refusal to participate, or comorbidities, the researchers noted. Observational studies also suffer from selection bias because of residual confounding. To address this issue, the researchers analyzed linked databases of 29,823 adults in Sweden with schizophrenia by using within-individual Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, in which each patient serves as his or her own control. Patients were diagnosed by 2006 and followed through 2013 (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 June 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1322). A total of 13,042 patients (44%) were rehospitalized during follow-up. Rehospitalization was significantly less likely when patients were receiving oral clozapine or long-acting injectable antipsychotics, including paliperidone, zuclopenthixol, perphenazine, and olanzapine, than when they were not on antipsychotics. Hazard ratios for these comparisons were statistically significant, ranging from 0.51 to 0.58, the researchers reported.
In the overall cohort, patients were about 22% less likely to be rehospitalized when they received long-acting injectable antipsychotics instead of equivalent oral formulations (HR, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.84; P less than .001). For newly diagnosed patients, this protective effect reached 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86). The overall rate of treatment failure was 72%, but this outcome was significantly less likely when patients received clozapine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.63) or any of the long-acting injectable antipsychotics (HR, 0.65-0.80) instead of the most widely used medication, oral olanzapine. Those trends held up during several sensitivity analyses, the researchers noted.
The major reason long-acting injectables led to better outcomes probably is tied to adherence, “and the rationale for developing long-acting injectable formulations was to improve adherence,” Dr. Tilhonen and his associates wrote.
Dr. Tiihonen and his associates cited several limitations. For example, their results comparing the effectiveness of antipsychotics “can be generalized only to white populations and high-income countries in which all antipsychotic treatments are reimbursed by the state,” they wrote.
Nevertheless, they concluded that their results suggest that substantial differences exist “between specific antipsychotic agents and between routes of administration concerning the risk of rehospitalization and treatment failure among patients with schizophrenia.”
Janssen-Cilag funded the study. Dr. Tiihonen disclosed ties to Janssen-Cilag and several other pharmaceutical companies.
Clozapine and long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications were most effective at preventing rehospitalization and treatment failure among patients with schizophrenia, according to a large prospective cohort study reported online June 7.
“The risk of rehospitalization is about 20% to 30% lower during long-acting injectable treatments, compared with equivalent oral formulations,” wrote Jari Tiihonen, MD, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, together with his associates.
Selection bias is a major problem in clinical trials of antipsychotics because up to 90% of patients are excluded for suicidal or antisocial behavior, substance abuse, refusal to participate, or comorbidities, the researchers noted. Observational studies also suffer from selection bias because of residual confounding. To address this issue, the researchers analyzed linked databases of 29,823 adults in Sweden with schizophrenia by using within-individual Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, in which each patient serves as his or her own control. Patients were diagnosed by 2006 and followed through 2013 (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 June 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1322). A total of 13,042 patients (44%) were rehospitalized during follow-up. Rehospitalization was significantly less likely when patients were receiving oral clozapine or long-acting injectable antipsychotics, including paliperidone, zuclopenthixol, perphenazine, and olanzapine, than when they were not on antipsychotics. Hazard ratios for these comparisons were statistically significant, ranging from 0.51 to 0.58, the researchers reported.
In the overall cohort, patients were about 22% less likely to be rehospitalized when they received long-acting injectable antipsychotics instead of equivalent oral formulations (HR, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.84; P less than .001). For newly diagnosed patients, this protective effect reached 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86). The overall rate of treatment failure was 72%, but this outcome was significantly less likely when patients received clozapine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.63) or any of the long-acting injectable antipsychotics (HR, 0.65-0.80) instead of the most widely used medication, oral olanzapine. Those trends held up during several sensitivity analyses, the researchers noted.
The major reason long-acting injectables led to better outcomes probably is tied to adherence, “and the rationale for developing long-acting injectable formulations was to improve adherence,” Dr. Tilhonen and his associates wrote.
Dr. Tiihonen and his associates cited several limitations. For example, their results comparing the effectiveness of antipsychotics “can be generalized only to white populations and high-income countries in which all antipsychotic treatments are reimbursed by the state,” they wrote.
Nevertheless, they concluded that their results suggest that substantial differences exist “between specific antipsychotic agents and between routes of administration concerning the risk of rehospitalization and treatment failure among patients with schizophrenia.”
Janssen-Cilag funded the study. Dr. Tiihonen disclosed ties to Janssen-Cilag and several other pharmaceutical companies.
Clozapine and long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications were most effective at preventing rehospitalization and treatment failure among patients with schizophrenia, according to a large prospective cohort study reported online June 7.
“The risk of rehospitalization is about 20% to 30% lower during long-acting injectable treatments, compared with equivalent oral formulations,” wrote Jari Tiihonen, MD, PhD, of the department of clinical neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, together with his associates.
Selection bias is a major problem in clinical trials of antipsychotics because up to 90% of patients are excluded for suicidal or antisocial behavior, substance abuse, refusal to participate, or comorbidities, the researchers noted. Observational studies also suffer from selection bias because of residual confounding. To address this issue, the researchers analyzed linked databases of 29,823 adults in Sweden with schizophrenia by using within-individual Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, in which each patient serves as his or her own control. Patients were diagnosed by 2006 and followed through 2013 (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 June 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1322). A total of 13,042 patients (44%) were rehospitalized during follow-up. Rehospitalization was significantly less likely when patients were receiving oral clozapine or long-acting injectable antipsychotics, including paliperidone, zuclopenthixol, perphenazine, and olanzapine, than when they were not on antipsychotics. Hazard ratios for these comparisons were statistically significant, ranging from 0.51 to 0.58, the researchers reported.
In the overall cohort, patients were about 22% less likely to be rehospitalized when they received long-acting injectable antipsychotics instead of equivalent oral formulations (HR, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.84; P less than .001). For newly diagnosed patients, this protective effect reached 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86). The overall rate of treatment failure was 72%, but this outcome was significantly less likely when patients received clozapine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.63) or any of the long-acting injectable antipsychotics (HR, 0.65-0.80) instead of the most widely used medication, oral olanzapine. Those trends held up during several sensitivity analyses, the researchers noted.
The major reason long-acting injectables led to better outcomes probably is tied to adherence, “and the rationale for developing long-acting injectable formulations was to improve adherence,” Dr. Tilhonen and his associates wrote.
Dr. Tiihonen and his associates cited several limitations. For example, their results comparing the effectiveness of antipsychotics “can be generalized only to white populations and high-income countries in which all antipsychotic treatments are reimbursed by the state,” they wrote.
Nevertheless, they concluded that their results suggest that substantial differences exist “between specific antipsychotic agents and between routes of administration concerning the risk of rehospitalization and treatment failure among patients with schizophrenia.”
Janssen-Cilag funded the study. Dr. Tiihonen disclosed ties to Janssen-Cilag and several other pharmaceutical companies.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY
Key clinical point: Clozapine and long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications were associated with the lowest rates of relapse in patients with schizophrenia.
Major finding: Patients were about 22% less likely to be rehospitalized when receiving long-acting injectable antipsychotics instead of equivalent oral formulations (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84).
Data source: A prospective observational study of 29,823 adults diagnosed with schizophrenia living in Sweden who served as their own controls.
Disclosures: Janssen-Cilag funded the study. Dr. Tiihonen disclosed ties to Janssen-Cilag and several other pharmaceutical companies.
Late-to-bed adolescents may be early-to-diabetes
BOSTON – Late chronotype may have a deleterious impact on glucose homeostasis independent of obesity in preadolescents aged 10-13 years, according to a small study.
Late chronotype – or an individual’s preference for later sleep and food intake – is associated with higher body mass index (BMI), risk incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, hemoglobin A1c, and risk of hypertension in adults. It is also associated with higher BMI, lower dietary restraint, and lower HDL cholesterol in adolescents. This study was the first to focus on chronotype and glycemic control in children on the cusp of or in early puberty.
In participants tested during the summer months, the actigraphy-derived mid-sleep time on free days – an objective measure of chronotype – was associated positively with fasting plasma glucose (P = 0.048). “This is an important point because it highlights the objective measure of chronotype, whereas questionnaires can be more subjective,” said Magdalena Dumin, MD, at the annual meeting of Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
The researcher also noted that higher sleep fragmentation and lower sleep efficiency were both associated with hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia, independent of obesity.
“Our preliminary findings suggest that having a late chronotype and less efficient and more fragmented sleep in pre- and early adolescence may have a deleterious glycemic impact independent of obesity and pubertal stage,” she said.
“Advancing bedtimes may reduce glucose levels in preadolescents and adolescents,” Dr. Dumin surmised.
This study included 24 adolescents, 13 of whom were normal weight and 11 of whom were obese. They all underwent anthropometric measurements with fasting glucose, insulin, C-peptide, HbA1c, and lipid levels. Exclusion criteria included a clinical diagnosis of sleep, behavioral, or dietary problems. The obese subjects also underwent a 180-minute glucose tolerance test.
Chronotype was assessed via actigraphy over 1 week to provide mid-sleep time on free days, and secondarily through administration to chronotype questionnaires – the Children’s ChronoType Questionnaire and the Morningness-Eveningness Scale for Children.
Among the normal-weight participants, 31% were morning and 23% evening chronotype (the rest being neutral chronotype), and, in the obese subjects, 27% were morning and 36% were evening chronotype.
The obese subjects were more likely to be in puberty, and had higher systolic blood pressures, higher fasting plasma insulin and levels of insulin resistance, as measured by Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance. Hemoglobin A1c tended to be higher in the obese subjects (P = .06), but fasting plasma glucose did not differ significantly between the obese and normal-weight participants (P = .68).
“We chose this population due to the shift from morningness to eveningness that occurs during adolescence followed by a progressive return to an intermediate or early chronotype at the end of adolescence,” Dr. Dumin said.
Bedtime, wake time, and total sleep time were nearly identical between the two groups (7.84 hours and 7.62 hours; P = .49), although sleep efficiency was numerically lower in the obese subjects (87.0 vs. 89.8; P = .14), while sleep fragmentation was somewhat greater (20.16 vs. 17.38; P = .18).
Dr. Dumin suggested that a continuation of her research with more patients would be useful.
This study is supported by the Endocrine Fellows Foundation and the University of Chicago Institute of Translational Medicine. Dr. Dumin reported having no financial disclosures.
BOSTON – Late chronotype may have a deleterious impact on glucose homeostasis independent of obesity in preadolescents aged 10-13 years, according to a small study.
Late chronotype – or an individual’s preference for later sleep and food intake – is associated with higher body mass index (BMI), risk incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, hemoglobin A1c, and risk of hypertension in adults. It is also associated with higher BMI, lower dietary restraint, and lower HDL cholesterol in adolescents. This study was the first to focus on chronotype and glycemic control in children on the cusp of or in early puberty.
In participants tested during the summer months, the actigraphy-derived mid-sleep time on free days – an objective measure of chronotype – was associated positively with fasting plasma glucose (P = 0.048). “This is an important point because it highlights the objective measure of chronotype, whereas questionnaires can be more subjective,” said Magdalena Dumin, MD, at the annual meeting of Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
The researcher also noted that higher sleep fragmentation and lower sleep efficiency were both associated with hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia, independent of obesity.
“Our preliminary findings suggest that having a late chronotype and less efficient and more fragmented sleep in pre- and early adolescence may have a deleterious glycemic impact independent of obesity and pubertal stage,” she said.
“Advancing bedtimes may reduce glucose levels in preadolescents and adolescents,” Dr. Dumin surmised.
This study included 24 adolescents, 13 of whom were normal weight and 11 of whom were obese. They all underwent anthropometric measurements with fasting glucose, insulin, C-peptide, HbA1c, and lipid levels. Exclusion criteria included a clinical diagnosis of sleep, behavioral, or dietary problems. The obese subjects also underwent a 180-minute glucose tolerance test.
Chronotype was assessed via actigraphy over 1 week to provide mid-sleep time on free days, and secondarily through administration to chronotype questionnaires – the Children’s ChronoType Questionnaire and the Morningness-Eveningness Scale for Children.
Among the normal-weight participants, 31% were morning and 23% evening chronotype (the rest being neutral chronotype), and, in the obese subjects, 27% were morning and 36% were evening chronotype.
The obese subjects were more likely to be in puberty, and had higher systolic blood pressures, higher fasting plasma insulin and levels of insulin resistance, as measured by Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance. Hemoglobin A1c tended to be higher in the obese subjects (P = .06), but fasting plasma glucose did not differ significantly between the obese and normal-weight participants (P = .68).
“We chose this population due to the shift from morningness to eveningness that occurs during adolescence followed by a progressive return to an intermediate or early chronotype at the end of adolescence,” Dr. Dumin said.
Bedtime, wake time, and total sleep time were nearly identical between the two groups (7.84 hours and 7.62 hours; P = .49), although sleep efficiency was numerically lower in the obese subjects (87.0 vs. 89.8; P = .14), while sleep fragmentation was somewhat greater (20.16 vs. 17.38; P = .18).
Dr. Dumin suggested that a continuation of her research with more patients would be useful.
This study is supported by the Endocrine Fellows Foundation and the University of Chicago Institute of Translational Medicine. Dr. Dumin reported having no financial disclosures.
BOSTON – Late chronotype may have a deleterious impact on glucose homeostasis independent of obesity in preadolescents aged 10-13 years, according to a small study.
Late chronotype – or an individual’s preference for later sleep and food intake – is associated with higher body mass index (BMI), risk incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, hemoglobin A1c, and risk of hypertension in adults. It is also associated with higher BMI, lower dietary restraint, and lower HDL cholesterol in adolescents. This study was the first to focus on chronotype and glycemic control in children on the cusp of or in early puberty.
In participants tested during the summer months, the actigraphy-derived mid-sleep time on free days – an objective measure of chronotype – was associated positively with fasting plasma glucose (P = 0.048). “This is an important point because it highlights the objective measure of chronotype, whereas questionnaires can be more subjective,” said Magdalena Dumin, MD, at the annual meeting of Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
The researcher also noted that higher sleep fragmentation and lower sleep efficiency were both associated with hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia, independent of obesity.
“Our preliminary findings suggest that having a late chronotype and less efficient and more fragmented sleep in pre- and early adolescence may have a deleterious glycemic impact independent of obesity and pubertal stage,” she said.
“Advancing bedtimes may reduce glucose levels in preadolescents and adolescents,” Dr. Dumin surmised.
This study included 24 adolescents, 13 of whom were normal weight and 11 of whom were obese. They all underwent anthropometric measurements with fasting glucose, insulin, C-peptide, HbA1c, and lipid levels. Exclusion criteria included a clinical diagnosis of sleep, behavioral, or dietary problems. The obese subjects also underwent a 180-minute glucose tolerance test.
Chronotype was assessed via actigraphy over 1 week to provide mid-sleep time on free days, and secondarily through administration to chronotype questionnaires – the Children’s ChronoType Questionnaire and the Morningness-Eveningness Scale for Children.
Among the normal-weight participants, 31% were morning and 23% evening chronotype (the rest being neutral chronotype), and, in the obese subjects, 27% were morning and 36% were evening chronotype.
The obese subjects were more likely to be in puberty, and had higher systolic blood pressures, higher fasting plasma insulin and levels of insulin resistance, as measured by Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance. Hemoglobin A1c tended to be higher in the obese subjects (P = .06), but fasting plasma glucose did not differ significantly between the obese and normal-weight participants (P = .68).
“We chose this population due to the shift from morningness to eveningness that occurs during adolescence followed by a progressive return to an intermediate or early chronotype at the end of adolescence,” Dr. Dumin said.
Bedtime, wake time, and total sleep time were nearly identical between the two groups (7.84 hours and 7.62 hours; P = .49), although sleep efficiency was numerically lower in the obese subjects (87.0 vs. 89.8; P = .14), while sleep fragmentation was somewhat greater (20.16 vs. 17.38; P = .18).
Dr. Dumin suggested that a continuation of her research with more patients would be useful.
This study is supported by the Endocrine Fellows Foundation and the University of Chicago Institute of Translational Medicine. Dr. Dumin reported having no financial disclosures.
AT SLEEP 2017
Key clinical point: Preadolescents with a late chronotype show impaired glucose homeostasis independent of obesity.
Major finding: In participants tested during the summer months, the actigraphy-derived mid-sleep time on free days was positively associated with fasting plasma glucose (P = .048).
Data source: Observational study including 24 adolescents between 10 and 13 years of age. Thirteen were normal weight and 11 were obese.
Disclosures: Dr. Dumin reported having no financial disclosures. This study is supported by the Endocrine Fellows Foundation and the University of Chicago Institute of Translational Medicine.
VIDEO: Shorter oxaliplatin-based therapy suffices for some patients with stage III CRC
CHICAGO – When it comes to oxaliplatin-based therapy for stage III colon cancer patients with low recurrence risk, 3 is preferable to 6 months and may also be preferable in those with higher recurrence risk – particularly if they are receiving oxaliplatin with capecitabine (CAPOX), according to findings from a prospective pooled analysis of data from six phase III trials.
The findings have immediate practice-changing implications, according to Axel Grothey, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minn.
The preplanned analysis of the concurrently conducted trials (the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy [IDEA] collaboration), which included 12,834 patients receiving either oxaliplatin with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFOX) or CAPOX, showed that, at a median follow-up of 39 months, the overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates differed by only 0.9% between those receiving 3 vs. 6 months of therapy (DFS, 74.6% and 75.5%, respectively). The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (estimated disease-free hazard ratio, 1.07), Dr. Grothey reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
However, grade 2 or greater neurotoxicity was greatly reduced, occurring in 17% vs. 48% of FOLFOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively, and in 15% vs. 45% of CAPOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively.
When outcomes were analyzed based on risk of recurrence, low-risk patients (those with T1-3 N1 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival rates of 83.1% and 83.3% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and high-risk patients (T4 or N2 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival of 62.7% vs. 64.4% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy.
When outcomes were analyzed by regimen, the FOLFOX patients (about 60% of the patient population) had 3-year DFS of 73.6% and 76.0% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and the CAPOX patients had 3-year DFS of 75.9% and 74.8%, respectively.
In this video interview, Dr. Grothey discusses the findings, as well as the importance of federal funding for cancer research, which is underscored by the findings.
He also discusses the IDEA Collaboration consensus based on the results, which calls for 3 months of therapy in low-risk patients and for an individualized approach based on tolerability of therapy, patient preference, assessment of recurrence risk, and treatment regimen (CAPOX vs. FOLFOX) in higher-risk patients.
“We now have very important, very solid data to engage patients in discussion [about] how to individualize the duration of therapy,” he said.
Dr. Grothey reported having no relevant disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO – When it comes to oxaliplatin-based therapy for stage III colon cancer patients with low recurrence risk, 3 is preferable to 6 months and may also be preferable in those with higher recurrence risk – particularly if they are receiving oxaliplatin with capecitabine (CAPOX), according to findings from a prospective pooled analysis of data from six phase III trials.
The findings have immediate practice-changing implications, according to Axel Grothey, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minn.
The preplanned analysis of the concurrently conducted trials (the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy [IDEA] collaboration), which included 12,834 patients receiving either oxaliplatin with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFOX) or CAPOX, showed that, at a median follow-up of 39 months, the overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates differed by only 0.9% between those receiving 3 vs. 6 months of therapy (DFS, 74.6% and 75.5%, respectively). The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (estimated disease-free hazard ratio, 1.07), Dr. Grothey reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
However, grade 2 or greater neurotoxicity was greatly reduced, occurring in 17% vs. 48% of FOLFOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively, and in 15% vs. 45% of CAPOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively.
When outcomes were analyzed based on risk of recurrence, low-risk patients (those with T1-3 N1 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival rates of 83.1% and 83.3% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and high-risk patients (T4 or N2 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival of 62.7% vs. 64.4% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy.
When outcomes were analyzed by regimen, the FOLFOX patients (about 60% of the patient population) had 3-year DFS of 73.6% and 76.0% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and the CAPOX patients had 3-year DFS of 75.9% and 74.8%, respectively.
In this video interview, Dr. Grothey discusses the findings, as well as the importance of federal funding for cancer research, which is underscored by the findings.
He also discusses the IDEA Collaboration consensus based on the results, which calls for 3 months of therapy in low-risk patients and for an individualized approach based on tolerability of therapy, patient preference, assessment of recurrence risk, and treatment regimen (CAPOX vs. FOLFOX) in higher-risk patients.
“We now have very important, very solid data to engage patients in discussion [about] how to individualize the duration of therapy,” he said.
Dr. Grothey reported having no relevant disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO – When it comes to oxaliplatin-based therapy for stage III colon cancer patients with low recurrence risk, 3 is preferable to 6 months and may also be preferable in those with higher recurrence risk – particularly if they are receiving oxaliplatin with capecitabine (CAPOX), according to findings from a prospective pooled analysis of data from six phase III trials.
The findings have immediate practice-changing implications, according to Axel Grothey, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minn.
The preplanned analysis of the concurrently conducted trials (the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy [IDEA] collaboration), which included 12,834 patients receiving either oxaliplatin with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFOX) or CAPOX, showed that, at a median follow-up of 39 months, the overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates differed by only 0.9% between those receiving 3 vs. 6 months of therapy (DFS, 74.6% and 75.5%, respectively). The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (estimated disease-free hazard ratio, 1.07), Dr. Grothey reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
However, grade 2 or greater neurotoxicity was greatly reduced, occurring in 17% vs. 48% of FOLFOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively, and in 15% vs. 45% of CAPOX patients treated for 3 vs. 6 months, respectively.
When outcomes were analyzed based on risk of recurrence, low-risk patients (those with T1-3 N1 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival rates of 83.1% and 83.3% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and high-risk patients (T4 or N2 disease) had 3-year disease-free survival of 62.7% vs. 64.4% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy.
When outcomes were analyzed by regimen, the FOLFOX patients (about 60% of the patient population) had 3-year DFS of 73.6% and 76.0% with 3 vs. 6 months of therapy, and the CAPOX patients had 3-year DFS of 75.9% and 74.8%, respectively.
In this video interview, Dr. Grothey discusses the findings, as well as the importance of federal funding for cancer research, which is underscored by the findings.
He also discusses the IDEA Collaboration consensus based on the results, which calls for 3 months of therapy in low-risk patients and for an individualized approach based on tolerability of therapy, patient preference, assessment of recurrence risk, and treatment regimen (CAPOX vs. FOLFOX) in higher-risk patients.
“We now have very important, very solid data to engage patients in discussion [about] how to individualize the duration of therapy,” he said.
Dr. Grothey reported having no relevant disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT ASCO 2017
VIDEO: Pertuzumab prolongs disease-free survival in HER2+ early breast cancer
CHICAGO –
At a median follow-up of 45.4 months, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events occurred in 171 of 2,400 patients (7.1%) who received pertuzumab, compared with 210 of 2,405 patients (8.7%) who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81). This 19% reduction in risk of an IDFS event was statistically significant, Gunter von Minckwitz, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The estimated IDFS rate at 3 years was 94.1% in the pertuzumab arm, and 93.2% in the placebo arm, said Dr. von Minckwitz of the German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg.
Study subjects were patients with adequately excised HER2-positive, pT1-3 early breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy plus 1 year of either trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus placebo.
In a video interview, Dr. von Minckwitz discusses the study results, including outcomes in node-positive vs. node-negative patients, early overall survival findings, and safety.
“We are using pertuzumab right now in many countries for the neoadjuvant setting,” he said, explaining that existing approvals were granted conditionally in the absence of evidence regarding long-term benefits. “With the APHINITY study ... use of pertuzumab either in the neoadjuvant setting or in the higher-risk adjuvant setting is something that is supported now with evidence.”
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO –
At a median follow-up of 45.4 months, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events occurred in 171 of 2,400 patients (7.1%) who received pertuzumab, compared with 210 of 2,405 patients (8.7%) who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81). This 19% reduction in risk of an IDFS event was statistically significant, Gunter von Minckwitz, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The estimated IDFS rate at 3 years was 94.1% in the pertuzumab arm, and 93.2% in the placebo arm, said Dr. von Minckwitz of the German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg.
Study subjects were patients with adequately excised HER2-positive, pT1-3 early breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy plus 1 year of either trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus placebo.
In a video interview, Dr. von Minckwitz discusses the study results, including outcomes in node-positive vs. node-negative patients, early overall survival findings, and safety.
“We are using pertuzumab right now in many countries for the neoadjuvant setting,” he said, explaining that existing approvals were granted conditionally in the absence of evidence regarding long-term benefits. “With the APHINITY study ... use of pertuzumab either in the neoadjuvant setting or in the higher-risk adjuvant setting is something that is supported now with evidence.”
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO –
At a median follow-up of 45.4 months, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events occurred in 171 of 2,400 patients (7.1%) who received pertuzumab, compared with 210 of 2,405 patients (8.7%) who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81). This 19% reduction in risk of an IDFS event was statistically significant, Gunter von Minckwitz, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The estimated IDFS rate at 3 years was 94.1% in the pertuzumab arm, and 93.2% in the placebo arm, said Dr. von Minckwitz of the German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg.
Study subjects were patients with adequately excised HER2-positive, pT1-3 early breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy plus 1 year of either trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus placebo.
In a video interview, Dr. von Minckwitz discusses the study results, including outcomes in node-positive vs. node-negative patients, early overall survival findings, and safety.
“We are using pertuzumab right now in many countries for the neoadjuvant setting,” he said, explaining that existing approvals were granted conditionally in the absence of evidence regarding long-term benefits. “With the APHINITY study ... use of pertuzumab either in the neoadjuvant setting or in the higher-risk adjuvant setting is something that is supported now with evidence.”
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT ASCO 2017
HIV study: Vaginal bacteria rapidly metabolized topical tenofovir
Certain species of vaginal bacteria rapidly metabolized topical tenofovir, which was three times less effective at preventing HIV in women with predominantly these vaginal microbiota, according to results of a study published in Science.
Key culprits were Gardnerella vaginalis and other anaerobic species associated with bacterial vaginosis, reported Nichole R. Klatt, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and her associates. The findings could help explain the lower and widely variable efficacy rates of topical microbicides in clinical HIV prevention trials, they added.
Lactobacillus was the primary genus in 423 women (62%), while non-Lactobacillus microbiota predominated in the remaining 256 women. Compared with placebo, tenofovir decreased the incidence of HIV infections by 61% (95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.89; P = .01) in women whose vaginal microbiota consisted mainly of Lactobacillus species, but by only 18% (95% CI, 0.37-1.77; P = .6) when nonlactobacilli predominated. These findings did not change after the investigators controlled for sexually transmitted infections, use of antibiotics, use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), and sexual behaviors (including frequency of sex, number of partners, and condom use). Furthermore, the two groups were clinically, behaviorally, and demographically similar and had similar rates of adherence to tenofovir gel during the trial.
The non-Lactobacillus group had more bacterial diversity and several distinct subgroups, the largest of which was dominated by Gardnerella vaginalis and other bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis. This subgroup had lower mucosal levels of tenofovir, compared with women with primarily lactobacilli, the investigators reported. Tenofovir concentrations fell by 51% in the in vivo cultures of G. vaginalis but dropped only slightly in cultures of two common Lactobacillus species (P less than .004 for each comparison). After 24 hours, tenofovir concentrations had decreased by 67% in cultures with G. vaginalis but by only 9%-14% in cultures with lactobacilli.
The researchers also tested three other subtypes of G. vaginalis, all of which metabolized tenofovir. The findings revealed a biologic mechanism that is probably part of “a multifactorial process, including increased vaginal inflammation and adherence, leading to varying levels of HIV prevention efficacy observed across topical microbicide trials,” they concluded. Screening by testing vaginal pH or microbiota might help “guide and enhance prevention of HIV in women,” they wrote.
Funders included the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the University of Washington, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The investigators had no disclosures.
Certain species of vaginal bacteria rapidly metabolized topical tenofovir, which was three times less effective at preventing HIV in women with predominantly these vaginal microbiota, according to results of a study published in Science.
Key culprits were Gardnerella vaginalis and other anaerobic species associated with bacterial vaginosis, reported Nichole R. Klatt, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and her associates. The findings could help explain the lower and widely variable efficacy rates of topical microbicides in clinical HIV prevention trials, they added.
Lactobacillus was the primary genus in 423 women (62%), while non-Lactobacillus microbiota predominated in the remaining 256 women. Compared with placebo, tenofovir decreased the incidence of HIV infections by 61% (95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.89; P = .01) in women whose vaginal microbiota consisted mainly of Lactobacillus species, but by only 18% (95% CI, 0.37-1.77; P = .6) when nonlactobacilli predominated. These findings did not change after the investigators controlled for sexually transmitted infections, use of antibiotics, use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), and sexual behaviors (including frequency of sex, number of partners, and condom use). Furthermore, the two groups were clinically, behaviorally, and demographically similar and had similar rates of adherence to tenofovir gel during the trial.
The non-Lactobacillus group had more bacterial diversity and several distinct subgroups, the largest of which was dominated by Gardnerella vaginalis and other bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis. This subgroup had lower mucosal levels of tenofovir, compared with women with primarily lactobacilli, the investigators reported. Tenofovir concentrations fell by 51% in the in vivo cultures of G. vaginalis but dropped only slightly in cultures of two common Lactobacillus species (P less than .004 for each comparison). After 24 hours, tenofovir concentrations had decreased by 67% in cultures with G. vaginalis but by only 9%-14% in cultures with lactobacilli.
The researchers also tested three other subtypes of G. vaginalis, all of which metabolized tenofovir. The findings revealed a biologic mechanism that is probably part of “a multifactorial process, including increased vaginal inflammation and adherence, leading to varying levels of HIV prevention efficacy observed across topical microbicide trials,” they concluded. Screening by testing vaginal pH or microbiota might help “guide and enhance prevention of HIV in women,” they wrote.
Funders included the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the University of Washington, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The investigators had no disclosures.
Certain species of vaginal bacteria rapidly metabolized topical tenofovir, which was three times less effective at preventing HIV in women with predominantly these vaginal microbiota, according to results of a study published in Science.
Key culprits were Gardnerella vaginalis and other anaerobic species associated with bacterial vaginosis, reported Nichole R. Klatt, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and her associates. The findings could help explain the lower and widely variable efficacy rates of topical microbicides in clinical HIV prevention trials, they added.
Lactobacillus was the primary genus in 423 women (62%), while non-Lactobacillus microbiota predominated in the remaining 256 women. Compared with placebo, tenofovir decreased the incidence of HIV infections by 61% (95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.89; P = .01) in women whose vaginal microbiota consisted mainly of Lactobacillus species, but by only 18% (95% CI, 0.37-1.77; P = .6) when nonlactobacilli predominated. These findings did not change after the investigators controlled for sexually transmitted infections, use of antibiotics, use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), and sexual behaviors (including frequency of sex, number of partners, and condom use). Furthermore, the two groups were clinically, behaviorally, and demographically similar and had similar rates of adherence to tenofovir gel during the trial.
The non-Lactobacillus group had more bacterial diversity and several distinct subgroups, the largest of which was dominated by Gardnerella vaginalis and other bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis. This subgroup had lower mucosal levels of tenofovir, compared with women with primarily lactobacilli, the investigators reported. Tenofovir concentrations fell by 51% in the in vivo cultures of G. vaginalis but dropped only slightly in cultures of two common Lactobacillus species (P less than .004 for each comparison). After 24 hours, tenofovir concentrations had decreased by 67% in cultures with G. vaginalis but by only 9%-14% in cultures with lactobacilli.
The researchers also tested three other subtypes of G. vaginalis, all of which metabolized tenofovir. The findings revealed a biologic mechanism that is probably part of “a multifactorial process, including increased vaginal inflammation and adherence, leading to varying levels of HIV prevention efficacy observed across topical microbicide trials,” they concluded. Screening by testing vaginal pH or microbiota might help “guide and enhance prevention of HIV in women,” they wrote.
Funders included the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the University of Washington, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The investigators had no disclosures.
FROM SCIENCE
Key clinical point: Certain species of vaginal bacteria rapidly metabolized topical tenofovir.
Major finding: After 24 hours in culture, tenofovir concentrations had decreased by 67% in cultures with Gardnerella vaginalis but by only 9%-14% in culture with lactobacilli.
Data source: Mass spectrometry–based proteomics of vaginal specimens from 668 HIV-negative women.
Disclosures: Funders included the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the University of Washington, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The investigators had no disclosures.
CDC specifies risk-reduction strategies for HIV-discordant conception
When HIV-discordant couples wish to conceive, several strategies can effectively prevent men from infecting their female partners, according to an analysis in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Using sperm from an HIV-negative donor remains the safest choice, but current methods of sperm washing make in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intrauterine insemination (IUI) a low-risk alternative, especially when used together with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), wrote Jennifer F. Kawwass, MD, and her associates in the division of reproductive health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66:554-7).
Previously, the CDC recommended against insemination with semen from HIV-infected men. The new report reverses that position, citing epidemiologic and laboratory evidence that conception can occur safely when HIV-discordant couples use combined strategies including HAART, PrEP, and either condomless intercourse limited to the time around ovulation, or sperm washing prior to IVF or IUI.
Sperm washing has been around for about 2 decades, but current techniques appear to significantly cut the risk of HIV transmission, based on epidemiologic data. Among 11,500 IVF or IUI cycles in which uninfected females used washed sperm from their HIV-infected male partners, there have been no cases of HIV transmission to women or their children, the CDC authors emphasized. The use of HAART and PrEP can add an extra layer of protection, they added.
Serodiscordant couples may also consider or prefer natural conception. An HIV-infected male on HAART whose plasma viral load is undetectable can expect to infect his female partner only about 0.16 times for every 10,000 exposures during condomless intercourse, the report noted. Limiting condomless intercourse to the time of ovulation and using PrEP by the uninfected female can further minimize the risk of sexual transmission, the authors added. Experienced medical providers can help HIV-discordant couples further evaluate the “unique risk profile” of each approach to conception, they concluded.
Dr. Kawwass and her associates had no conflicts of interest.
When HIV-discordant couples wish to conceive, several strategies can effectively prevent men from infecting their female partners, according to an analysis in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Using sperm from an HIV-negative donor remains the safest choice, but current methods of sperm washing make in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intrauterine insemination (IUI) a low-risk alternative, especially when used together with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), wrote Jennifer F. Kawwass, MD, and her associates in the division of reproductive health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66:554-7).
Previously, the CDC recommended against insemination with semen from HIV-infected men. The new report reverses that position, citing epidemiologic and laboratory evidence that conception can occur safely when HIV-discordant couples use combined strategies including HAART, PrEP, and either condomless intercourse limited to the time around ovulation, or sperm washing prior to IVF or IUI.
Sperm washing has been around for about 2 decades, but current techniques appear to significantly cut the risk of HIV transmission, based on epidemiologic data. Among 11,500 IVF or IUI cycles in which uninfected females used washed sperm from their HIV-infected male partners, there have been no cases of HIV transmission to women or their children, the CDC authors emphasized. The use of HAART and PrEP can add an extra layer of protection, they added.
Serodiscordant couples may also consider or prefer natural conception. An HIV-infected male on HAART whose plasma viral load is undetectable can expect to infect his female partner only about 0.16 times for every 10,000 exposures during condomless intercourse, the report noted. Limiting condomless intercourse to the time of ovulation and using PrEP by the uninfected female can further minimize the risk of sexual transmission, the authors added. Experienced medical providers can help HIV-discordant couples further evaluate the “unique risk profile” of each approach to conception, they concluded.
Dr. Kawwass and her associates had no conflicts of interest.
When HIV-discordant couples wish to conceive, several strategies can effectively prevent men from infecting their female partners, according to an analysis in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Using sperm from an HIV-negative donor remains the safest choice, but current methods of sperm washing make in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intrauterine insemination (IUI) a low-risk alternative, especially when used together with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), wrote Jennifer F. Kawwass, MD, and her associates in the division of reproductive health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66:554-7).
Previously, the CDC recommended against insemination with semen from HIV-infected men. The new report reverses that position, citing epidemiologic and laboratory evidence that conception can occur safely when HIV-discordant couples use combined strategies including HAART, PrEP, and either condomless intercourse limited to the time around ovulation, or sperm washing prior to IVF or IUI.
Sperm washing has been around for about 2 decades, but current techniques appear to significantly cut the risk of HIV transmission, based on epidemiologic data. Among 11,500 IVF or IUI cycles in which uninfected females used washed sperm from their HIV-infected male partners, there have been no cases of HIV transmission to women or their children, the CDC authors emphasized. The use of HAART and PrEP can add an extra layer of protection, they added.
Serodiscordant couples may also consider or prefer natural conception. An HIV-infected male on HAART whose plasma viral load is undetectable can expect to infect his female partner only about 0.16 times for every 10,000 exposures during condomless intercourse, the report noted. Limiting condomless intercourse to the time of ovulation and using PrEP by the uninfected female can further minimize the risk of sexual transmission, the authors added. Experienced medical providers can help HIV-discordant couples further evaluate the “unique risk profile” of each approach to conception, they concluded.
Dr. Kawwass and her associates had no conflicts of interest.
FROM MMWR
Study validates endometriosis fertility index
VANCOUVER – The Endometriosis Fertility Index accurately predicts a woman’s chances to conceive naturally with endometriosis, according to findings from a prospective cohort study.
“We’re quite confident that this is a very good system to give women a reasonable idea of their chances of conceiving naturally versus a recommendation to have IVF,” Aaron Budden, Bmed, Mmed, of the Royal Hospital for Women in Sydney, said at the World Congress on Endometriosis.
The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was first published in 2010 (Fertil Steril. 2010 Oct;94[5]:1609-15). In the recent study, researchers found that live birth rates after 3 years closely matched the rates calculated by the tool. “This is one of the most useful systems I’ve ever seen, because it takes into account historical events, as well as the time of endometriosis surgery,” Dr. Budden said.
The researchers enrolled 141 consecutive women who had undergone fertility-saving laparoscopic excision of stage III or stage IV endometriosis and attempted to conceive naturally. During follow-up, the researchers contacted the patients to determine live births, and calculated the EFI score based on a woman’s age, duration of infertility, previous pregnancy, American Society for Reproductive Medicine endometriosis classification, and their least adnexal function score. “The least function score is based off the functional capacity of the fallopian tube, fimbriae, and ovary, where the score is calculated by which of these is least functional on both right and left side,” Dr. Budden said.
The researchers included women with stage III and stage IV endometriosis because this group is often referred for in vitro fertilization (IVF). “But we found that in women with an advanced stage of endometriosis, those with EFI scores of 9 and 10 still had quite a significant chance of conceiving at 3 years, compared to women who had EFI scores of 0 to 2,” Dr. Budden said.
More than a third of the women (35%) had stage III endometriosis, and 65% had stage IV. The mean follow-up period was 56 months. Overall, 46% achieved live births.
In women with an EFI score of 9-10, the success rate was 67% at 3 years. Nearly half (48%) of women with scores of 7-8 were successful at 3 years, as were 38% with scores of 5-6, and 17% with scores of 3-4. Among women with scores of 0-2, there were no live births at 3 years.
About 58% of the women in the study had undergone previous laparoscopic surgery. The researchers found that live births were associated with complete resection of disease (hazard ratio, 2.33; P = .036) and no previous laparoscopy (HR, 2.36; P less than .001).
“One of the things we have to say is that your best chance at conceiving is if you excise all the endometriosis and you do it the first time, rather than needing a second surgery,” Dr. Budden said.
The tool can also be used to help identify patients most likely to benefit from assisted reproduction. Women with EFI scores of 0-2 had a 0% chance of conceiving naturally when followed out to 5 years, but a 39% chance with IVF. “That’s a group that you would thoroughly recommend going to IVF rather than trying to conceive naturally,” Dr. Budden said in an interview.
The study was funded by a variety of non-industry sources. Dr. Budden reported having no financial disclosures.
VANCOUVER – The Endometriosis Fertility Index accurately predicts a woman’s chances to conceive naturally with endometriosis, according to findings from a prospective cohort study.
“We’re quite confident that this is a very good system to give women a reasonable idea of their chances of conceiving naturally versus a recommendation to have IVF,” Aaron Budden, Bmed, Mmed, of the Royal Hospital for Women in Sydney, said at the World Congress on Endometriosis.
The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was first published in 2010 (Fertil Steril. 2010 Oct;94[5]:1609-15). In the recent study, researchers found that live birth rates after 3 years closely matched the rates calculated by the tool. “This is one of the most useful systems I’ve ever seen, because it takes into account historical events, as well as the time of endometriosis surgery,” Dr. Budden said.
The researchers enrolled 141 consecutive women who had undergone fertility-saving laparoscopic excision of stage III or stage IV endometriosis and attempted to conceive naturally. During follow-up, the researchers contacted the patients to determine live births, and calculated the EFI score based on a woman’s age, duration of infertility, previous pregnancy, American Society for Reproductive Medicine endometriosis classification, and their least adnexal function score. “The least function score is based off the functional capacity of the fallopian tube, fimbriae, and ovary, where the score is calculated by which of these is least functional on both right and left side,” Dr. Budden said.
The researchers included women with stage III and stage IV endometriosis because this group is often referred for in vitro fertilization (IVF). “But we found that in women with an advanced stage of endometriosis, those with EFI scores of 9 and 10 still had quite a significant chance of conceiving at 3 years, compared to women who had EFI scores of 0 to 2,” Dr. Budden said.
More than a third of the women (35%) had stage III endometriosis, and 65% had stage IV. The mean follow-up period was 56 months. Overall, 46% achieved live births.
In women with an EFI score of 9-10, the success rate was 67% at 3 years. Nearly half (48%) of women with scores of 7-8 were successful at 3 years, as were 38% with scores of 5-6, and 17% with scores of 3-4. Among women with scores of 0-2, there were no live births at 3 years.
About 58% of the women in the study had undergone previous laparoscopic surgery. The researchers found that live births were associated with complete resection of disease (hazard ratio, 2.33; P = .036) and no previous laparoscopy (HR, 2.36; P less than .001).
“One of the things we have to say is that your best chance at conceiving is if you excise all the endometriosis and you do it the first time, rather than needing a second surgery,” Dr. Budden said.
The tool can also be used to help identify patients most likely to benefit from assisted reproduction. Women with EFI scores of 0-2 had a 0% chance of conceiving naturally when followed out to 5 years, but a 39% chance with IVF. “That’s a group that you would thoroughly recommend going to IVF rather than trying to conceive naturally,” Dr. Budden said in an interview.
The study was funded by a variety of non-industry sources. Dr. Budden reported having no financial disclosures.
VANCOUVER – The Endometriosis Fertility Index accurately predicts a woman’s chances to conceive naturally with endometriosis, according to findings from a prospective cohort study.
“We’re quite confident that this is a very good system to give women a reasonable idea of their chances of conceiving naturally versus a recommendation to have IVF,” Aaron Budden, Bmed, Mmed, of the Royal Hospital for Women in Sydney, said at the World Congress on Endometriosis.
The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was first published in 2010 (Fertil Steril. 2010 Oct;94[5]:1609-15). In the recent study, researchers found that live birth rates after 3 years closely matched the rates calculated by the tool. “This is one of the most useful systems I’ve ever seen, because it takes into account historical events, as well as the time of endometriosis surgery,” Dr. Budden said.
The researchers enrolled 141 consecutive women who had undergone fertility-saving laparoscopic excision of stage III or stage IV endometriosis and attempted to conceive naturally. During follow-up, the researchers contacted the patients to determine live births, and calculated the EFI score based on a woman’s age, duration of infertility, previous pregnancy, American Society for Reproductive Medicine endometriosis classification, and their least adnexal function score. “The least function score is based off the functional capacity of the fallopian tube, fimbriae, and ovary, where the score is calculated by which of these is least functional on both right and left side,” Dr. Budden said.
The researchers included women with stage III and stage IV endometriosis because this group is often referred for in vitro fertilization (IVF). “But we found that in women with an advanced stage of endometriosis, those with EFI scores of 9 and 10 still had quite a significant chance of conceiving at 3 years, compared to women who had EFI scores of 0 to 2,” Dr. Budden said.
More than a third of the women (35%) had stage III endometriosis, and 65% had stage IV. The mean follow-up period was 56 months. Overall, 46% achieved live births.
In women with an EFI score of 9-10, the success rate was 67% at 3 years. Nearly half (48%) of women with scores of 7-8 were successful at 3 years, as were 38% with scores of 5-6, and 17% with scores of 3-4. Among women with scores of 0-2, there were no live births at 3 years.
About 58% of the women in the study had undergone previous laparoscopic surgery. The researchers found that live births were associated with complete resection of disease (hazard ratio, 2.33; P = .036) and no previous laparoscopy (HR, 2.36; P less than .001).
“One of the things we have to say is that your best chance at conceiving is if you excise all the endometriosis and you do it the first time, rather than needing a second surgery,” Dr. Budden said.
The tool can also be used to help identify patients most likely to benefit from assisted reproduction. Women with EFI scores of 0-2 had a 0% chance of conceiving naturally when followed out to 5 years, but a 39% chance with IVF. “That’s a group that you would thoroughly recommend going to IVF rather than trying to conceive naturally,” Dr. Budden said in an interview.
The study was funded by a variety of non-industry sources. Dr. Budden reported having no financial disclosures.
AT WCE 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Women who scored 9-10 on the EFI had a 67% live birth rate at 3 years without IVF.
Data source: Prospective analysis of 141 women in Australia.
Disclosures: The study was funded by a variety of non-industry sources. Dr. Budden reported having no financial disclosures.
Noninvasive therapy cut COPD readmissions
WASHINGTON – The addition of noninvasive ventilation to home oxygen therapy regimens correlated with increased time to readmission or death among patients with exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), according to a study presented at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
Among 116 patients observed with COPD, the 57 patients given home oxygen and noninvasive ventilation reported an average time to readmission of 4.3 months, compared with 1.4 months among the 59 patients given only home oxygen, according to Patrick B. Murphy, PhD, of St. Thomas’ Hospital, London (JAMA. 2017 May 21. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.4451), who presented this research on the same day it was published in JAMA.
Dr. Murphy said the findings are encouraging for patients with COPD suffering from exacerbations from the disease.
“Patients with established chronic respiratory failure secondary to COPD have poor outcomes with limited treatment options available,” the investigators noted. “The results of the current trial are reassuring, suggesting that home noninvasive ventilation added to home oxygen therapy in this population improved the overall clinical outcome without adding to the health burden of the patient.”
In this 12-month, phase III, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, the average age of the patients was 67 years, and the average body mass index was 21.6 mg/k2. The patients had an average partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCo2) level of 59, indicating persistent hypercapnia.
The investigators gave those in the intervention group one of three noninvasive home ventilators – nasal, oronasal, or total face mask – to use for a minimum of 6 hours nightly. Patients in both groups received 15 hours of oxygen therapy daily.
Doctors gathered data from patients after 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months.
After 12 months, risk of readmission or death in the intervention group was 63.4%, while those in the oxygen-only group reported a risk of 80.4%. Despite a 17% risk reduction, a similar number of patients died during the experiment in both groups: five in the noninvasive intervention group and four in the control group, according to the investigators.
At the end of the trial, 16 patients (28%) in the intervention group and 19 (32%) in the control group died.
Dr. Murphy and his peers asserted that these deaths do not take away from the success of the treatment, as the focus of the study was to find a way to reduce readmissions, not necessarily mortality.
“The driver of the clinical improvement in the home oxygen therapy plus home noninvasive ventilation group was readmission avoidance with no significant difference in mortality,” they wrote. “This study has major clinical relevance because readmission avoidance is beneficial to the patient in terms of preservation of lung function and health-related quality of life, as well as providing a direct and indirect cost saving.”
The study was limited by the lack of a double-blind design; however, investigators said that a sham device may have made patients’ respiratory failure worse.
Some patients in the control group were later given ventilation treatment for safety reasons. Eighteen patients were given noninvasive ventilation, although reportedly after the primary endpoint was reached.
Philips Respironics, ResMed, the ResMed Foundation, and the Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Charity funded the study. Dr. Murphy and his coinvestigators reported receiving some manner of financial support from ResMed, Philips Respironics, and B&D Electromedical.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
Vera A. De Palo, MD, FCCP, MBA, comments: A goal for any patient with a chronic disease is the best possible quality of life. Increasing hospital-free and exacerbation-free days helps to improve that quality of life. The authors report that the addition of noninvasive ventilation therapy increased the time to readmission due to COPD exacerbation. This adds another tool to the armamentarium to help improve outcomes for our COPD patients.
Vera A. De Palo, MD, FCCP, MBA, comments: A goal for any patient with a chronic disease is the best possible quality of life. Increasing hospital-free and exacerbation-free days helps to improve that quality of life. The authors report that the addition of noninvasive ventilation therapy increased the time to readmission due to COPD exacerbation. This adds another tool to the armamentarium to help improve outcomes for our COPD patients.
Vera A. De Palo, MD, FCCP, MBA, comments: A goal for any patient with a chronic disease is the best possible quality of life. Increasing hospital-free and exacerbation-free days helps to improve that quality of life. The authors report that the addition of noninvasive ventilation therapy increased the time to readmission due to COPD exacerbation. This adds another tool to the armamentarium to help improve outcomes for our COPD patients.
WASHINGTON – The addition of noninvasive ventilation to home oxygen therapy regimens correlated with increased time to readmission or death among patients with exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), according to a study presented at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
Among 116 patients observed with COPD, the 57 patients given home oxygen and noninvasive ventilation reported an average time to readmission of 4.3 months, compared with 1.4 months among the 59 patients given only home oxygen, according to Patrick B. Murphy, PhD, of St. Thomas’ Hospital, London (JAMA. 2017 May 21. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.4451), who presented this research on the same day it was published in JAMA.
Dr. Murphy said the findings are encouraging for patients with COPD suffering from exacerbations from the disease.
“Patients with established chronic respiratory failure secondary to COPD have poor outcomes with limited treatment options available,” the investigators noted. “The results of the current trial are reassuring, suggesting that home noninvasive ventilation added to home oxygen therapy in this population improved the overall clinical outcome without adding to the health burden of the patient.”
In this 12-month, phase III, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, the average age of the patients was 67 years, and the average body mass index was 21.6 mg/k2. The patients had an average partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCo2) level of 59, indicating persistent hypercapnia.
The investigators gave those in the intervention group one of three noninvasive home ventilators – nasal, oronasal, or total face mask – to use for a minimum of 6 hours nightly. Patients in both groups received 15 hours of oxygen therapy daily.
Doctors gathered data from patients after 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months.
After 12 months, risk of readmission or death in the intervention group was 63.4%, while those in the oxygen-only group reported a risk of 80.4%. Despite a 17% risk reduction, a similar number of patients died during the experiment in both groups: five in the noninvasive intervention group and four in the control group, according to the investigators.
At the end of the trial, 16 patients (28%) in the intervention group and 19 (32%) in the control group died.
Dr. Murphy and his peers asserted that these deaths do not take away from the success of the treatment, as the focus of the study was to find a way to reduce readmissions, not necessarily mortality.
“The driver of the clinical improvement in the home oxygen therapy plus home noninvasive ventilation group was readmission avoidance with no significant difference in mortality,” they wrote. “This study has major clinical relevance because readmission avoidance is beneficial to the patient in terms of preservation of lung function and health-related quality of life, as well as providing a direct and indirect cost saving.”
The study was limited by the lack of a double-blind design; however, investigators said that a sham device may have made patients’ respiratory failure worse.
Some patients in the control group were later given ventilation treatment for safety reasons. Eighteen patients were given noninvasive ventilation, although reportedly after the primary endpoint was reached.
Philips Respironics, ResMed, the ResMed Foundation, and the Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Charity funded the study. Dr. Murphy and his coinvestigators reported receiving some manner of financial support from ResMed, Philips Respironics, and B&D Electromedical.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
WASHINGTON – The addition of noninvasive ventilation to home oxygen therapy regimens correlated with increased time to readmission or death among patients with exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), according to a study presented at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
Among 116 patients observed with COPD, the 57 patients given home oxygen and noninvasive ventilation reported an average time to readmission of 4.3 months, compared with 1.4 months among the 59 patients given only home oxygen, according to Patrick B. Murphy, PhD, of St. Thomas’ Hospital, London (JAMA. 2017 May 21. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.4451), who presented this research on the same day it was published in JAMA.
Dr. Murphy said the findings are encouraging for patients with COPD suffering from exacerbations from the disease.
“Patients with established chronic respiratory failure secondary to COPD have poor outcomes with limited treatment options available,” the investigators noted. “The results of the current trial are reassuring, suggesting that home noninvasive ventilation added to home oxygen therapy in this population improved the overall clinical outcome without adding to the health burden of the patient.”
In this 12-month, phase III, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, the average age of the patients was 67 years, and the average body mass index was 21.6 mg/k2. The patients had an average partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCo2) level of 59, indicating persistent hypercapnia.
The investigators gave those in the intervention group one of three noninvasive home ventilators – nasal, oronasal, or total face mask – to use for a minimum of 6 hours nightly. Patients in both groups received 15 hours of oxygen therapy daily.
Doctors gathered data from patients after 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months.
After 12 months, risk of readmission or death in the intervention group was 63.4%, while those in the oxygen-only group reported a risk of 80.4%. Despite a 17% risk reduction, a similar number of patients died during the experiment in both groups: five in the noninvasive intervention group and four in the control group, according to the investigators.
At the end of the trial, 16 patients (28%) in the intervention group and 19 (32%) in the control group died.
Dr. Murphy and his peers asserted that these deaths do not take away from the success of the treatment, as the focus of the study was to find a way to reduce readmissions, not necessarily mortality.
“The driver of the clinical improvement in the home oxygen therapy plus home noninvasive ventilation group was readmission avoidance with no significant difference in mortality,” they wrote. “This study has major clinical relevance because readmission avoidance is beneficial to the patient in terms of preservation of lung function and health-related quality of life, as well as providing a direct and indirect cost saving.”
The study was limited by the lack of a double-blind design; however, investigators said that a sham device may have made patients’ respiratory failure worse.
Some patients in the control group were later given ventilation treatment for safety reasons. Eighteen patients were given noninvasive ventilation, although reportedly after the primary endpoint was reached.
Philips Respironics, ResMed, the ResMed Foundation, and the Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Charity funded the study. Dr. Murphy and his coinvestigators reported receiving some manner of financial support from ResMed, Philips Respironics, and B&D Electromedical.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
FROM ATS 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The average time until readmission or death was 4.3 months for patients using both oxygen therapy and ventilation, compared with an average of 1.4 months for patients using only oxygen therapy.
Data source: Phase III, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of 116 COPD patients gathered from 13 U.K. medical centers between February, 2010, and April, 2015.
Disclosures: Philips Respironics, ResMed, the ResMed Foundation, and the Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Charity funded the study. Dr. Patrick B. Murphy and his coinvestigators reported receiving some manner of financial support from ResMed, Philips Respironics, and B&D Electromedical.
Alectinib in ALK+ NSCLC is a watershed moment
CHICAGO – In what’s being hailed as practice-changing findings, the anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor alectinib (Alecensa) was associated with more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS), compared with crizotinib (Xalkori), the current standard of care, in patients with treatment-naive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) positive for ALK.
Additionally, in the global, phase III trial, alectinib was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression to CNS metastases, a common complication of advanced ALK+ NSCLC, reported Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, on behalf of investigators in the ALEX trial.
“I view this as a watershed moment for the treatment of ALK mutant–positive lung cancer,” commented ASCO expert John Heymach, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Unlike other head-to-head studies of similar drugs that frequently show only incremental benefit, the ALEX results showed a dramatic difference in outcomes for patients treated with alectinib, he said.
By comparison, the median PFS difference between chemotherapy and crizotinib in the PROFILE 1014 in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC trial was 10.9 vs. 7.0 months, Dr. Heymach pointed out.
The ALEX investigators enrolled 303 patients with untreated ALK-positive NSCLC confirmed by a central immunohistochemistry lab and randomly assigned them to treatment with either oral alectinib 600 mg twice daily or crizotinib 250 mg b.i.d.
At the primary data cutoff in February 2017, median PFS, the primary endpoint, was 11.1 months for patients treated with crizotinib, versus not reached for those treated with alectinib, translating into a hazard ratio for alectinib of 0.47 (P less than .0001).
Based on an independent review, the median PFS was determined to be 10.4 months for crizotinib, vs. 25.7 months with alectinib (HR, 0.50; P not shown).
The cumulative incidence of CNS progression, a secondary endpoint, was 41.4% in the crizotinib arm, vs. 9.41% in the alectinib arm (cause-specific HR, 0.16; P not shown).
In each arm, 97% of patients had any adverse event, and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar between the arms, at 29% for crizotinib and 28% for alectinib.
Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, or dose interruption were more frequent with crizotinib.
In the question and answer portion of the briefing, Dr. Shaw was asked whether crizotinib still had a role in this population.
“Going forward, I think that it’s pretty clear, if you have a newly diagnosed patient with metastatic ALK-positive lung cancer, that likely alectinib would be the preferred first choice,” she said.
The ALEX trial is supported by Roche. Dr. Shaw disclosed consulting or an advisory role with the company, and multiple coauthors disclosed similar relationships.
CHICAGO – In what’s being hailed as practice-changing findings, the anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor alectinib (Alecensa) was associated with more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS), compared with crizotinib (Xalkori), the current standard of care, in patients with treatment-naive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) positive for ALK.
Additionally, in the global, phase III trial, alectinib was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression to CNS metastases, a common complication of advanced ALK+ NSCLC, reported Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, on behalf of investigators in the ALEX trial.
“I view this as a watershed moment for the treatment of ALK mutant–positive lung cancer,” commented ASCO expert John Heymach, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Unlike other head-to-head studies of similar drugs that frequently show only incremental benefit, the ALEX results showed a dramatic difference in outcomes for patients treated with alectinib, he said.
By comparison, the median PFS difference between chemotherapy and crizotinib in the PROFILE 1014 in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC trial was 10.9 vs. 7.0 months, Dr. Heymach pointed out.
The ALEX investigators enrolled 303 patients with untreated ALK-positive NSCLC confirmed by a central immunohistochemistry lab and randomly assigned them to treatment with either oral alectinib 600 mg twice daily or crizotinib 250 mg b.i.d.
At the primary data cutoff in February 2017, median PFS, the primary endpoint, was 11.1 months for patients treated with crizotinib, versus not reached for those treated with alectinib, translating into a hazard ratio for alectinib of 0.47 (P less than .0001).
Based on an independent review, the median PFS was determined to be 10.4 months for crizotinib, vs. 25.7 months with alectinib (HR, 0.50; P not shown).
The cumulative incidence of CNS progression, a secondary endpoint, was 41.4% in the crizotinib arm, vs. 9.41% in the alectinib arm (cause-specific HR, 0.16; P not shown).
In each arm, 97% of patients had any adverse event, and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar between the arms, at 29% for crizotinib and 28% for alectinib.
Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, or dose interruption were more frequent with crizotinib.
In the question and answer portion of the briefing, Dr. Shaw was asked whether crizotinib still had a role in this population.
“Going forward, I think that it’s pretty clear, if you have a newly diagnosed patient with metastatic ALK-positive lung cancer, that likely alectinib would be the preferred first choice,” she said.
The ALEX trial is supported by Roche. Dr. Shaw disclosed consulting or an advisory role with the company, and multiple coauthors disclosed similar relationships.
CHICAGO – In what’s being hailed as practice-changing findings, the anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor alectinib (Alecensa) was associated with more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS), compared with crizotinib (Xalkori), the current standard of care, in patients with treatment-naive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) positive for ALK.
Additionally, in the global, phase III trial, alectinib was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression to CNS metastases, a common complication of advanced ALK+ NSCLC, reported Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, on behalf of investigators in the ALEX trial.
“I view this as a watershed moment for the treatment of ALK mutant–positive lung cancer,” commented ASCO expert John Heymach, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Unlike other head-to-head studies of similar drugs that frequently show only incremental benefit, the ALEX results showed a dramatic difference in outcomes for patients treated with alectinib, he said.
By comparison, the median PFS difference between chemotherapy and crizotinib in the PROFILE 1014 in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC trial was 10.9 vs. 7.0 months, Dr. Heymach pointed out.
The ALEX investigators enrolled 303 patients with untreated ALK-positive NSCLC confirmed by a central immunohistochemistry lab and randomly assigned them to treatment with either oral alectinib 600 mg twice daily or crizotinib 250 mg b.i.d.
At the primary data cutoff in February 2017, median PFS, the primary endpoint, was 11.1 months for patients treated with crizotinib, versus not reached for those treated with alectinib, translating into a hazard ratio for alectinib of 0.47 (P less than .0001).
Based on an independent review, the median PFS was determined to be 10.4 months for crizotinib, vs. 25.7 months with alectinib (HR, 0.50; P not shown).
The cumulative incidence of CNS progression, a secondary endpoint, was 41.4% in the crizotinib arm, vs. 9.41% in the alectinib arm (cause-specific HR, 0.16; P not shown).
In each arm, 97% of patients had any adverse event, and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar between the arms, at 29% for crizotinib and 28% for alectinib.
Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, or dose interruption were more frequent with crizotinib.
In the question and answer portion of the briefing, Dr. Shaw was asked whether crizotinib still had a role in this population.
“Going forward, I think that it’s pretty clear, if you have a newly diagnosed patient with metastatic ALK-positive lung cancer, that likely alectinib would be the preferred first choice,” she said.
The ALEX trial is supported by Roche. Dr. Shaw disclosed consulting or an advisory role with the company, and multiple coauthors disclosed similar relationships.
AT ASCO 2017
Key clinical point: Alectinib was associated with more than double the progression-free survival of standard of care crizotinib in patients with non–small cell lung cancer positive for the anaplastic lymphoma kinase.
Major finding: Median PFS by independent review was 10.4 months with crizotinib vs. 25.7 months with alectinib.
Data source: The ALEX trial, a phase III trial of 303 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC.
Disclosures: The ALEX trial is supported by Roche. Dr. Shaw disclosed consulting or an advisory role with the company, and multiple coauthors disclosed similar relationships