ABSTRACT
Introduction: Lifestyle is the root cause of most chronic disease, disability, and death. Lifestyle Medicine (LM) is an established, board certifiable field of medicine. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) is a multidisciplinary field which focuses on function and quality of life. The symbiosis of PM&R and LM is increasingly being recognized. Objective: To gauge the awareness of, use of, and interest in LM of PM&R residents and ask if they think PM&R physicians should be leaders in LM. Methods: Cross sectional survey of PM&R residents across PM&R programs in the USA. Results: Fifty-three percent of PM&R residents were familiar with LM. 85 and 84% of their medical schools and residencies had no LM education. PM&R residents "sometimes" included LM principles in their patient encounters. 88 and 89% of PM&R residents thought that medical schools and residencies should have LM education and 78% thought that PM&R physicians should be leaders of LM. Conclusions: This is the first study assessing the views on LM of PM&R residents. Despite the fact that PM&R residents lacked LM education, over half knew about LM. The vast majority felt that there should be more LM education in medical school and residency, and that PM&R physicians should be leaders of LM.
ABSTRACT
Background: The role of upfront ASCT for NDTE MM remains under evaluation with high MRD rates following novel induction and consolidation (cons) strategies. K maintenance represents an alternative strategy to lenalidomide maintenance. The CARDAMON trial investigated K maintenance following KCd induction plus either ASCT or KCd cons. Methods: NDTE pts received 4 x KCd induction (K 20/56 mg/m2 biweekly, C 500 mg D 1,8,15, d 40mg weekly) before 1:1 randomisation to ASCT or 4 x KCd cons followed by 18 cycles K maintenance (56mg/m2 D1,8,15). Flow cytometric MRD (10-5) was assessed post induction, pre-maintenance and at 6 months maintenance. Primary endpoints were ≥VGPR post induction and 2-year PFS from randomisation. Secondary endpoints included improvements in disease response and MRD conversion following ASCT/ cons and maintenance. Results: 281 patients were registered, with 218 randomised to either ASCT or cons. The median PFS for ASCT was not yet reached vs 3.4 years for cons, with cons failing to show non-inferiority (difference in 2-year PFS 6.5%, 70% CI 1.0% to 11.1%). 196 patients received K maintenance (99 ASCT, 97 cons), 17 remain on treatment. A median of 16 cycles (1-18) were given over a median of 15.9 months (0-21.5). COVID-19 led to maintenance treatment interruptions in 41 (8 ASCT, 6 Cons) and treatment discontinuation in 15 (9 ASCT, 6 Cons). The median K dose given was 50.6mg/m2 and was similar across both arms (51.2 vs 49.4mg/m2, p=0.03). K maintenance was discontinued for PD in 14.1% (ASCT) vs 22.7% (cons), and for adverse events (AEs) in 7.1% (ASCT) vs 4.1% (cons). Most common AEs were hypertension and infections and more ≥G3 AEs were noted in ASCT vs cons (p=0.01). Patient/ clinician withdrawals from maintenance were low but occurred more in the ASCT arm (9.1% vs 1%). MRD neg patients post ASCT/ Cons had a longer PFS than MRD pos (p=0.002);with a higher MRD neg rate in the ASCT arm (53.6% vs 35.1% in Cons, p=0.01). MRD neg patients at 6 months post maintenance also had longer PFS (p=0.004 cf MRD pos patients);again with higher MRD neg rates in the ASCT arm (58.1% ASCT vs 40.5% Cons, p=0.02). There was no difference in PFS for MRD neg patients according to treatment arm from PBSCH, post-ASCT/ Cons or 6 months maintenance timepoints. Overall, 27.8% of MRD pos patients converted to MRD neg post ASCT/ Cons with more converting with ASCT (39.1% ASCT vs 16.1%, p=0.004). 23.5% of MRD pos patients converted to neg during maintenance (30.6% ASCT, 17.8%: p=0.2). Maintenance of MRD negativity over the first 6 months was similar between ASCT and Cons arms (p=0.3). There was no evidence that the timing of achievement of MRD negativity impacted PFS. Conclusions: K maintenance at 56mg/m2 weekly was deliverable and tolerable, with continued higher MRD neg rates at 6 months post-ASCT compared to post-Cons. However more ≥G3 AEs and discontinuations for AEs/ patient choice were noted for K maintenance after ASCT.
ABSTRACT
Introduction/Background This pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial (cRCT) enrolls patients with multiple chronic diseases (MCDs) who are at highest risk for destabilization (unplanned hospitalizations, increased disability). Patients with multiple chronic diseases are often excluded from clinical trials because of their multiple medical conditions and worse health outcomes, which significantly confound Results. Few evidenced- based strategies exist to comprehensively address the needs of these patients. Objective(s) Among 1920 adult patients with multiple chronic diseases defined as a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) > 4, who are established primary care patients of 16 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in NYC (n=8) and Chicago (n=8), which serve predominantly low income, Black and Latino patients, this pragmatic cluster RCT evaluates the comparative effectiveness of two approaches to preventing significant destabilization ('tipping points') that leads to unplanned hospitalization and increased disability. Methods Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs, n=16) are cluster-randomized to: 1) Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) (Usual Care);or 2) PCMH plus a Health Coach (PCMH + HC) intervention that employs a positive affect/ self-affirmation strategy to motivate patients to set life goals, improve self-management and handle psychosocial and other stressors (Experimental). Primary and secondary outcomes include: unplanned hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits aggregated by PCORnet Clinical Research Networks, Health Information Exchange (New York City), and hospital alerts (Chicago), at baseline, 6, 12, 24-months and changes in disability. With the COVID-19 pandemic, we shifted to remote recruitment, and added oral consenting, egift cards and mailed letters. Results The PCMH + HC arm is designed to identify and prevent destabilization leading to hospitalization or ED visits that are more often triggered by psychosocial issues-family, community and environmental-than by medical issues. The study is powered to detect a 33% relative reduction in% hospitalized (a 5% absolute reduction) in PCMH + HC compared to PCMH only. Additionally, we expect that reducing hospitalization will result in reduced disability. Conclusion This intervention is designed to help participants manage life events that lead to 'tipping points' or overwhelming situations that result in unplanned hospitalizations and increased disability. FQHCs with PCMH recognition focus on care coordination. Patients need assistance to deal with many social and health related challenges they face and need help in communicating with health care providers and navigating a complex health care system. The PCMH + HC intervention will determine if adding health coaches helps patients to better manage their sources of stress, improve self-care and reduce unplanned hospitalizations. The impact of COVID-19 on changes to study processes and patient outcomes will be examined.
ABSTRACT
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the North Carolina Local Food Council has strengthened its role as a cohesive and effective organization during a public-health crisis to share challenges, devise solutions, and build resilience across local food systems in North Carolina. The Council includes representatives from 21 organizations working across the state, as well as three representatives from regional local food councils. The Council's response to the pandemic addressed three key areas of action: (1) Coordinate responses across multiple sectors;(2) Enhance collaboration across the food supply chain;and (3) Facilitate data collection and public messaging. This paper describes the positive impacts the Council has had across North Carolina on consumers and producers of local food as a result of this collaborative network and long-established relationships across the state. Now, more than ever, the relationships and collaborative efforts of statewide organizations and partners are needed. The Council's crisis response has been strong because of the long-standing relationships of its members and its ability to share resources quickly, allowing it to work toward coordinated responses. The work of the North Carolina Local Food Council can serve as a model for other states that have state-level local food councils or want to develop them. In addition, the Council's work demonstrates how collaborations among statewide partners can foster resilience within local food systems, particularly during a public health crisis.