A Decade of Teaching and Learning in Internal Medicine Ambulatory Education: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory training in internal medicine residency programs has historically been considered less robust than inpatient-focused training, which prompted a 2009 revision of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Program Requirements in Internal Medicine. This revision was intended to create a balance between inpatient and outpatient training standards and to spur innovation in the ambulatory setting. OBJECTIVE: We explored innovations in ambulatory education in internal medicine residency programs since the 2009 revision of the ACGME Program Requirements in Internal Medicine. METHODS: The authors conducted a scoping review of the literature from 2008 to 2017, searching PubMed, ERIC, and Scopus databases. Articles related to improving educational quality of ambulatory components of US-based internal medicine residency programs were eligible for inclusion. Articles were screened for relevance and theme categorization and then divided into 6 themes: clinic redesign, curriculum development, evaluating resident practice/performance, teaching methods, program evaluation, and faculty development. Once a theme was assigned, data extraction and quality assessment using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) score were completed. RESULTS: A total of 967 potentially relevant articles were discovered; of those, 182 were deemed relevant and underwent full review. Most articles fell into curriculum development and clinic redesign themes. The majority of included studies were from a single institution, used nonstandardized tools, and assessed outcomes at the satisfaction or knowledge/attitude/skills levels. Few studies showed behavioral changes or patient-level outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While a rich diversity of educational innovations have occurred since the 2009 revision of the ACGME Program Requirements in Internal Medicine, there is a significant need for multi-institution studies and higher-level assessment.

Literacy, race, and PSA level among low-income men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels are higher and the cancer stage more advanced for African Americans than for whites. An earlier study found that after adjustment for literacy, race was no longer a significant predictor of advanced stage at presentation. We investigated whether, after adjusting for literacy, race was a significant independent predictor of greater PSA levels among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer from four outpatient care facilities in Chicago were interviewed and given a literacy assessment (n = 308). The PSA level at diagnosis was obtained from the medical charts. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of high PSA levels (greater than 20 ng/mL) at presentation. RESULTS: African-American men were three times more likely to have low literacy skills (sixth grade or less: 22.9% versus 7.1%; P <0.001) than were white men. In turn, men with low literacy skills were more than twice as likely to have a PSA level greater than 20 ng/mL at diagnosis (33.3% versus 13.5%; P = 0.009). On multivariate analyses, significant predictors of high PSA levels included low literacy (adjusted odds ratio 2.5, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.2) and older age (age 65 to 74 years, adjusted odds ratio 2.6, 95% confidence interval 2.1 to 3.1 versus older than 74 years, adjusted odds ratio 3.4, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 6.6), but not African-American race. CONCLUSIONS: In the current era in which PSA testing is common, low literacy may be an important and potentially overlooked factor associated with higher PSA levels at prostate cancer diagnosis among African-American and white men.

Clinical features and correlates of gemcitabine-associated lung injury: findings from the RADAR project.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine is a commonly used chemotherapeutic agent structurally and pharmacologically similar to cytarabine. Recently, instances of severe gemcitabine-associated lung injury have been reported. Herein, investigators affiliated with the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) pharmacovigilance program evaluated clinical characteristics of gemcitabine-associated severe acute lung injury from clinical trial reports, medical literature case reports, and spontaneous reports to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS). METHODS: Clinical data were obtained by reviewing adverse event case reports for gemcitabine-associated lung injury as reported in the medical literature and in the FDA AERS database. Upper limit estimates of ADE rate were derived from review of published clinical trials reporting gemcitabine-associated lung injury rates of 10% or higher. RESULTS: A total of 178 reports of gencitabine-associated lung injury were identified; in AERS, there were 55 cases from clinical trials and 92 spontaneous reports. A comprehensive search revealed 31 medical literature reports. Clinical features of gemcitabine-associated lung injury included dyspnea, fever, pulmonary infiltrate, and cough with recognition of toxicity occurring after a median duration of 48 (range, 1-529) days after initiation of gemcitabine. The taxanes, docetaxel and paclitaxel, were frequently reported as coadministered therapies. Eleven Phase II or Phase III clinical trials with 317 patients identified gemcitabine-associated lung injury rates of greater than 10%, with the highest rates (22% and 42%) being observed in Phase III clinical trials where Hodgkin disease patients were treated with a regimen that included gemcitabine and bleomycin. CONCLUSIONS: High rates of gemcitabine-associated severe lung injury were observed when gemcitabine was combined with other therapies known to also cause lung injury. Physicians should have a high index of suspicion for this toxicity and report the relevant clinical findings to the FDA's AERS.

Caveat medicus: consequences of federal investigations of marketing activities of pharmaceutical suppliers of prostate cancer drugs.

In the course of recent health care fraud investigations against TAP Pharmaceuticals (Lake Forest, IL) and AstraZeneca International (London, United Kingdom), each pled guilty to one violation of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, settled claims related to alleged violations of the False Claims Act without admitting guilt, and paid fines, settlements for liabilities, and reimbursements of dollar 850 million and dollar 355 million, respectively. In a unique aspect of these cases, federal investigators brought criminal charges against 14 TAP employees and investigated the billing practices of several urologists. These investigations resulted in guilty pleas from both urologists and industry employees relative to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act or the False Claims Act and probationary sentences with payments of fines and restitution to the government for urologists who cooperated with federal investigations. One uncooperative urologist was found guilty of violating the Federal False Claims Act and sentenced to 6 months of home arrest, excluded from Medicare for 5 years, required to provide 600 hours of free medical care to indigent patients and patients covered by Medicare or Medicaid, and paid fines and restitution to the government. The cases against TAP and AstraZeneca have been followed by federal and state investigations of allegedly illegal marketing practices of other pharmaceutical firms and have resulted in negotiated settlements of dollar 3.8 billion and dollar 71.5 million, respectively. Believing that an Average Wholesale Price-based reimbursement system was an important driving factor for these marketing activities, Medicare has shifted to an Average Sales Price-based reimbursement system. This is expected to greatly impact the practice of outpatient oncology nationwide.

Patient preferences in prostate cancer: a clinician's guide to understanding health utilities.

Prostate cancer treatments have positive and negative outcomes that must be taken into account when deciding how to proceed with a patient's care. One way to quickly determine a patient's preferences in this situation is to ascertain their health utilities for various health states. Health utilities are underutilized but powerful tools in aiding shared decision making between patients and physicians. This review is intended to inform physicians about the different techniques available, help the physician choose among them, and aid initial development of utilities for use in the clinic by way of the tables' references. A brief history, summary of applications and current directions of health utilities, and collection of references are provided to increase the reader's overall knowledge of health utilities and encourage their use in the clinic. Ultimately, the use and choice of one of these direct preference-based measures depends on the needs of the physician.

The Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project.

CONTEXT: In 1998, a multidisciplinary team of investigators initiated RADAR (Research on Adverse Drug events And Reports), a clinically based postmarketing surveillance program that systematically investigates and disseminates information describing serious and previously unrecognized adverse drug and device reactions (ADRs). OBJECTIVE: To describe the structure, operations, and preliminary findings from the RADAR project and related dissemination efforts by pharmaceutical suppliers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). DESIGN: After identifying a serious and unexpected clinical event suitable for further investigation, RADAR collaborators postulated clinical hypotheses and derived case series and incidence estimates from physician queries, published and unpublished clinical trials, published case reports, FDA databases, and manufacturer sales figures. RESULTS: RADAR investigators identified 16 types of serious ADRs among 1699 patients, of whom 169 (10%) died as a result of the reaction. Initial cases were identified by 7 RADAR investigators, 4 collaborating physicians, 2 attorneys, and by reviewing 3 published reports. Additional sources included queries of occupational health programs and medical directors of interventional cardiology laboratories (3 types of ADRs), published manuscripts and clinical trials (11 types of ADRs), review of medical records at a RADAR site (2 types of ADRs), unpublished clinical trial reports (3 types of ADRs), and reports from attorneys, family members, or patients (4 types of ADRs). Incidence estimates, ranging from 0.4% to 33%, were derived from 5 clinical trial reports, 2 physician queries, and 2 observational databases. Laboratory support for hypotheses included identification of 3 neutralizing antibodies and 3 histopathological findings. ADR reports were disseminated as 8 revised package inserts, 7 "dear doctor" letters, and 9 peer-reviewed articles. CONCLUSION: A new, clinically based, hypothesis-driven approach to postmarketing surveillance may supplement existing regulatory surveillance systems and improve patient safety.

Pure red-cell aplasia and epoetin therapy.

BACKGROUND: Between 1988 and 1998, antibody-associated pure red-cell aplasia was reported in three patients who had undergone treatment with recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin). Between 1998 and 2000, 13 such cases were reported from France--12 in patients who had received the Eprex formulation of epoetin alfa and 1 in a patient who had received Neorecormon (a formulation of epoetin beta); both are products that are marketed outside the United States. METHODS: We obtained reports of epoetin-associated pure red-cell aplasia from the Food and Drug Administration and from the manufacturers of Eprex, Epogen (another formulation of epoetin alfa), and Neorecormon. The numbers of case reports and estimates of exposure-adjusted incidence were analyzed according to the product, the cause of anemia, the route of administration, the country in which pure red-cell aplasia was identified, and the date on which pure red-cell aplasia was reported. RESULTS: Between January 1998 and April 2004, 175 cases of epoetin-associated pure red-cell aplasia were reported for Eprex, 11 cases for Neorecormon, and 5 cases for Epogen. Over half these cases had occurred in France, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Spain. Between 2001 and 2003, the estimated exposure-adjusted incidence was 18 cases per 100,000 patient-years for the Eprex formulation without human serum albumin, 6 per 100,000 patient-years for the Eprex formulation with human serum albumin, 1 case per 100,000 patient-years for Neorecormon, and 0.2 case per 100,000 patient-years for Epogen. After procedures were adopted to ensure appropriate storage, handling, and administration of Eprex to patients with chronic kidney disease, the exposure-adjusted incidence decreased by 83 percent worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: After the peak incidence of Eprex-associated pure red-cell aplasia was reached in 2001, interventions designed in response to drug-monitoring programs worldwide resulted in a reduction of more than 80 percent in the incidence of pure red-cell aplasia due to Eprex.

Dissemination of information on potentially fatal adverse drug reactions for cancer drugs from 2000 to 2002: first results from the research on adverse drug events and reports project.

PURPOSE: To describe the clinical findings, occurrence rates, causality evidence, and dissemination media for serious cancer drug-associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported in the postmarketing setting. METHODS: ADRs were termed serious if they resulted in death or severe organ failure. ADR information for oncology drugs from package insert (PI) revisions, so-called Dear Doctor letters, and journal articles was evaluated to identify serious ADRs reported from 2000 to 2002. Timing and content of information disseminated was assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-five serious ADRs associated with 22 oncology drugs were identified after approval. Approximately half of these serious ADRs are associated with drugs approved before 1995. ADRs were described in articles in medical journals (17 ADRs), PI revisions (18 ADRs), and Dear Doctor letters (12 ADRs). PI revisions occurred less than 1 year after peer-reviewed publication for four ADRs. These revisions often differed for similar ADRs that occurred with drugs of the same class. Five of the seven ADRs lacking PI changes occurred with off-label use, for which PI change is not recommended by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy. No cancer drug was withdrawn from the market during the observation period. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that serious ADRs may be discovered as long as 36 years after a drug receives FDA approval. This suggests a need for continued vigilance and efficient strategies for dissemination of information about ADRs associated with cancer drugs.