Beyond competency-based continuing professional development.

Competency based medical education (CBME) has become the default for undergraduate and post-graduate medical education (PGME) but its role in continuing professional development (CPD) is under discussion. Some critical differences between CPD and PGME are identified and these differences applied to: the relative roles of competence and performance; existing criticisms of CBME; heutagogy as a learning theory; and post-modernism as an underlying philosophical perspective. The argument is made that the characteristics of CPD fit with performance based medical education, a heutagogical learning theory, a focus on capabilities, rather than competencies; and a post-modern perspective.

Clinical Equipoise for Trials of Novel Biologic Therapies, Therapeutic Success Rates, and Predictors of Success: A Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The demand for more rapid access to novel biologic therapies than randomized controlled trials can deliver is a topic of ongoing study and debate. We aimed to inform this debate by estimating therapeutic success from phase III trials comparing novel biologic therapies with standard of care and identifying predictors of success. METHODS: This was a meta-analysis of phase III trials evaluating novel biologic therapies in advanced breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers. Therapeutic success was defined as statistically significant results for the primary end point favoring novel biologic therapies. RESULTS: Of 119 included phase III trials (76,726 patients), therapeutic success was 41%, with a statistically significant relative reduction in disease progression and death for novel biologic therapies over standard of care of 20% and 8%. Therapeutic success did not improve over time (pre-2010, 33%; 2010 to 2014, 44%; P = .2). Predictors of success were a biomarker-selected population (odds ratio, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.05 to 10.95) and progression-free survival end point compared with overall survival (odds ratio, 5.22; 95% CI, 2.41 to 11.39). Phase III trials with a biomarker-selected population showed a larger 28% progression-free survival benefit than phase III trials overall (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.75) but similar 8% overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.94). Therapeutic success of phase III trials with and without a preceding phase II trial were 43% and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic success of novel biologic therapies in phase III trials, including therapies with a matching predictive biomarker, was modest and has not significantly improved over time. Equipoise remains and supports the ongoing ethical and scientific requirement for phase III randomized controlled trials to estimate treatment efficacy and assess the value of potential biomarkers.

Randomized crossover study evaluating the effect of gemcitabine infusion dose rate: evidence of auto-induction of gemcitabine accumulation.

PURPOSE: Controversy exists over the optimal dose rate for administration of gemcitabine. There is a strong pharmacologic rationale for increased intracellular accumulation with prolonged infusions, but this failed to translate into a significant benefit in a large randomized study. The purpose of this study was to compare the intracellular pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine given for 30 minutes or for 100 minutes in a crossover design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 33 patients to a standard dose of 1,000 mg/m2 over either 30 minutes or 100 minutes. At the second week, they were transferred to the alternate schedule. Blood samples were collected at various times after the gemcitabine infusion. Gemcitabine and difluorodeoxyuridine were measured in plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and gemcitabine-triphosphate was measured by HPLC in leukocytes. RESULTS: Intracellular accumulation was greater during the 100-minute infusion, which was consistent with previous data. This effect was confounded by an increase in gemcitabine-triphosphate accumulation between weeks 1 and 2, which was consistent with self-induction of gemcitabine accumulation. There was significant heterogeneity: 27% of patients had greater WBC accumulation during the 30-minute infusion (regardless of treatment order). Patients with relatively greater levels of gemcitabine-triphosphate in WBCs tended to have less under-dosing and a greater reduction in midcycle neutrophils. However, this observation did not correlate with plasma gemcitabine levels. CONCLUSION: This work identifies significant variations in intracellular gemcitabine-triphosphate accumulation between and within individuals, and it provides evidence that this variation has potential clinical significance. The observed self-induction of gemcitabine metabolism has broad implications for the dosing of nucleoside analogs.