Showing posts with label patients. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patients. Show all posts

Friday, 27 September 2013

Kelly Close: State Of Diabetes Treatment, Companies In The Sector And Challenges Patients Face

As president and founder of Close Concerns, a healthcare information firm focused on diabetes and obesity, Kelly Close says her passion comes from her extensive professional work as well as her personal experience, contracting Type 1 diabetes 25 years ago. Prior to starting Close Concerns, she worked in the financial sector, including stints as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, as an equity research analyst covering medical technology at Merrill Lynch, and as a management consultant at McKinsey & Co., where a majority of her work focused on for-profit and nonprofit healthcare organizations. Ms. Close and her colleagues at Close Concerns attend more than 40 scientific, regulatory and economic conferences around the world focused on diabetes and obesity, analyze key medical literature, and cover more than 50 private and public companies and nonprofit organizations. Recognized as an expert on the diabetes and obesity markets, and as a frequent speaker on the public health implications of these conditions, Ms. Close is a tireless advocate for patients. In this interview Ms. Close discusses the state of the industry and challenges that patients face.

Can you describe your mission?

It's to make everyone - researchers, clinicians, scientists, companies, and patients - smarter about diabetes and obesity in order to improve patient outcomes. Our team studies new research, and we synthesize news and insights on therapies and technologies on diabetes and obesity.

Why diabetes and obesity?

I have a deep personal interest in diabetes, so my goal once on Wall Street was always to narrow my focus from writing about medical technology (and helping biotech and pharma analysts) to working on all parts of diabetes, in a way you can't do as an analyst. In other words, I wanted to work on medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotech all at once. Then, there's obesity. Well, the association between obesity and Type 2 diabetes has long been recognized. You can't separate the two; they are inextricably linked. Cases of diabetes have risen nearly tenfold since I was diagnosed in 1986. There were about 30 million people globally with diabetes then. Today there are 30 million in the US alone, with nearly 400 million globally, with much of the trend due to the increasing prevalence of risk factors, including obesity. And around 80% of Type 2 diabetics are either overweight or obese.

Tell me a little about your information services.

Our first publication in 2003 was Diabetes Close Up, where we simply updated news about different companies and conferences that we attended. In 2007, we started Closer Look, which goes out several times a week - sometimes daily - and the two publications now keep researchers and members of the industry abreast of scientific breakthroughs. Our online newsletter, diaTribe, began in 2005 as a free service, with the goal of keeping patients up-to-date on the latest research, products, and advice from the diabetes scientific community. And through dQ&A, our sister company that we started in 2009, we offer corporate clients market research and consulting services.

When I began Close Concerns, 18 million Americans had diabetes, and the sector had $14-billion in revenue. Today, in 2013, the industry has expanded to more than $40-billion, and there's widespread agreement that diabetes and obesity have turned into global epidemics that cannot be sustained. We absolutely must change diabetes management to make sure patient treatment, therapy and advice are optimized from the time of diagnosis throughout the entire spectrum of the condition.

What are some of the challenges you see today?

It's never been a more challenging time in terms of reimbursement and patient access to medicines and healthcare professionals. In much of the world, patients still don't have access to insulin or other medications. On the other hand, extensive progress has been made on the actual tools that are available. Access is so much more challenging, however, regardless of whether we are talking first world or third world. Doctors, for example, may reach a common diagnosis of diabetes, but the pressure they face with patients is prescribing the correct treatment, determining what patients will adhere to, and what insurance will cover. And that is patients with insurance. Medicare is missing the forest for the trees on some of its new reimbursement decisions in the U.S., and globally, patients certainly are not getting the treatment, therapy and advice they need to keep them healthy. Finally, there are major issues with patient advocacy - it must be much stronger, but lingering stigmas about this disease continue.

What about treatment challenges today?

The positives are that medications have improved dramatically and the technology exists to see which medications work and don't work. Today, the emphasis is on early, optimized treatments, given that nearly 50% of Type 2 diabetics are not at their glycemic target even here in the U.S. Because there are many more oral medications available before a patient is moved to insulin, the best healthcare providers no longer take a wait-and-see approach if a patient can't control their HbA1c (a three-month average measurement of glucose in the blood); they prescribe a new medication, often a combination of drugs. Another bonus of having many more drugs available today is that treatments can be customized for a patient, which is the promise of personalized medicine - again, this varies with access. Adherence is such a challenge that it will be great to move several medications to one - one pill and one co-pay for patients in the U.S. and, ideally, better adherence. Adherence studies have been very hard to do historically, and this is one of the biggest challenges ever. Historically, taking insulin has also been very challenging. We hope this will become easier all over the globe and that the stigma of taking insulin will begin to dissipate.

Can you talk about emerging trends in technology?

Absolutely. One really dispiriting area is that in the U.S., we see pricing pressure and reduced access to good technology. This is driven by CMS wanting to save money, and while it may sound good for patients, we worry that it winds up resulting in less product innovation, fewer funds going to R&D, less customer education and customer service, etc. We're seeing better insulin pumps coming out all the time, combined with continuous glucose monitoring. Monitors used to be inaccurate and unreliable, but the technology is much improved and readings from meters are getting closer to readings from actual blood tests. The data we've seen on the Dexcom (NASDAQ:DXCM) G4 Platinum, for example, is better than some glucose monitors. But lots of people still dose their insulin based on counting carbohydrates, and there are lots of reasons why scores can be incorrect.

What's the status of oral insulin?

I thought we'd never see it because there are so many challenges associated with it. But I'm much more optimistic than ever before. It's still very early stage, but Novo Nordisk (NYSE:NVO) is working on it, and that's a very positive sign. We're beginning to see positive data come out, and the flat truth is just that we need more alternatives to injected insulin. MannKind (NASDAQ:MNKD) and its inhaled insulin therapy, AFREZZA, has driven our optimism. It has taken a long time to get to a second-generation inhaled insulin that is practical, easy to use and effective, but the data, especially that on hypoglycemia, look good.

What are your thoughts on the potential of GLP-1?

This is the first new class of therapeutics to come to market that doesn't cause hypoglycemia and doesn't cause weight gain. That's awesome because insulin has had all of those problems. Novo Nordisk's GLP-1 reached $1 billion in sales a year before the company expected - again, this has been easier for patients to take and provides a valuable step between traditional orals and insulin. What's really compelling in combination therapy is the potential for GLP-1 plus insulin. SGLT2 inhibitors are also interesting - we'll definitely see fixed-dose combinations here too, eventually. Earlier this year, the FDA approved Johnson & Johnson's (NYSE:JNJ) SGLT2 inhibitor, Invokana, which has efficacy closer to GLP-1 and, judging by the early data, a safety profile closer to DPP-4 inhibitors, which have the best side-effect profile of all. We'll see - we'll be eager to watch the emerging data.

Have you seen any interesting new data in GLP-1 research?

Transition Therapeutics (NASDAQ:TTHI; TSX:TTH) announced some really exciting data in the summer for TT401, which targets GLP-1 and glucagon receptors for obese diabetic patients and may provide clinical effects superior to those of GLP-1 agonists. (BT note: the proof-of-concept data prompted partner Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY) to acquire an option on the drug candidate to complete clinical development.) We're also really looking forward to seeing more data on iDegLira, which is the combination of next-generation insulin degludec, which the FDA recently delayed, surprisingly, and on Victoza, from Novo Nordisk. BMS/AZ is also working on a Bydureon pen as well as a once-monthly formulation, and Intarcia is working on implantable GLP-1. There's no doubt this class will continue to grow as the applications become even easier and as the efficacy and safety data continue to grow.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)


View the original article here

Friday, 20 September 2013

Online consultations can save valuable time for patients and doctors

Doctors Looking at Computer Online consultations can save patients a visit to the surgery and doctors' time. Photograph: Alamy

Patients need to be able to consult their doctor online. Having to take half a day off work for a 10-minute consultation is a high price to pay when the technology exists that would allow it to be done online from the patient's home or work. For some patients, the travel involved in getting to an appointment is harmful in itself. I have seen patients with physical disabilities in pain from the long distances they have had to travel to see their specialist. In a few cases, the appointment itself has risks – cystic fibrosis patients can give each other infections when sat together in the same waiting room.

In my opinion, it's important to offer online consultations when they are appropriate. But for the best of reasons, many in the NHS remain deeply sceptical about consulting online. Time-pressed doctors and GPs are not sure what an online consultation actually is. They fear it might take up even more of their time.

Many doctors believe online consultation means sending emails – but we already know this doesn't work well. The back-and-forth nature of email means that getting detailed answers is slow and frustrating for doctor and patient alike. But we do know the right way to do online consultations: asynchronously, where a patient fills out a structured online questionnaire that the doctor checks at a later date; and synchronously, where both parties talk to each other at the same time, using video technology such as Skype.

At the moment, many face-to-face consultations involve the GP or doctor asking the patient the same set of routine questions at points through the year. "How have you been since I last saw you? Are you still taking the meds? Are there any side effects?" The list is long for safety reasons, but the repetition is unnecessary. This type of consultation can be easily switched to an online asynchronous method – saving a visit to the surgery and doctors' time, and allowing for a richer doctor-patient discussion. Back in 2010, the Mayo Clinic in the US found that online consultations could reduce the need for face-to-face appointments with GPs by 40%.

Doctors can devise the questions themselves and there are tried-and-tested programmes such as Instant Medical History (IMH).

IMH, part of the Mayo Clinic study, tailors the detail of follow-on questions to the speciality of the clinician, for example asking more questions about breathing for a chest specialist than for a GP. One obvious downside of online appointments is that the doctor cannot examine the patient, but not every appointment requires an examination – and if the doctor feels one is necessary they can call the patient in. In synchronous video consultations, a Skype conversation in the patient's home can give a doctor a valuable view of a patient's living conditions – information they might have previously missed.

No patient should be forced into using online consultations – but many want to be offered the option. Moving just a small proportion of these face-to-face consultations online can make a big difference for patients. Furthermore, online consultations allow more efficient and frequent interaction with a specialist and the advice received is available for sharing with the local GP. This completes the circle of care and means patients can access the best care wherever they live.

However, for online consultations to work effectively for both patient and doctor, they must be introduced correctly. If GPs and hospital staff give the impression they're not fully behind online consulting, patients will sense it and avoid the option. Similarly, if patients suspect that it has been introduced purely as a cost-saving measure, they will react badly.

GPs and doctors must move away from thinking they are too busy to consult online – indeed, it is precisely because they are so busy that they need online consultations.

Dr Mohammad Al-Ubaydli is chief executive and founder of Patients Know Best, a patient-controlled medical records system

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.


View the original article here

Thursday, 12 September 2013

How football is helping unlock dementia patients' memories

tackle Images of footballers can serve as a trigger for conversation and reminisence among male dementia patients. Photograph: Scott Heppell/AP

A dementia care unit is being built close to Sunderland football club's Stadium of Light. The Roker ward – named after the club's former ground Roker Park – at Monkwearmouth hospital, will provide 14 beds for men aged over 65.

The new unit will replace a ward in Cherry Knowle hospital in Ryhope, which has passed its sell-by date. The ward at Cherry Knowle has been trialling sport as a focus for reminiscence therapy and the results were good enough to convince the ward managers that this was something that should be adopted in the new building.

Finding meaningful ways to connect and engage with dementia patients is always challenging. Football provides an alternative focus for men who are reluctant to join in other group and reminiscence based activities. Memories of players, matches and sports events from 30, 50 or 60 years ago can remain clear when prompted. The Sporting Memories Network travelled to Ryhope and worked with ward staff, giving them ideas about how they could use images of famous footballers and sports stars from days gone by as a trigger for conversation, debate and reminiscence. Those debates and discussions often focus on recalling favourite players, great victories, away trips and the inevitable defeats.

"It's often difficult to engage older men in meaningful activities," says ward manager Geoff Willis. "But using sporting memories as a framework has worked for us, most clients are keen to share their memories about football. They become animated and passionate and have so much to tell you.

"We held themed events over the summer; we had a Royal Ascot afternoon with form guides, betting slips and refreshments which saw patients placing fun bets for chocolates. And we also hosted a Wimbledon-themed day to coincide with the men's singles finals with all the trimmings including strawberries and cream.

"Events like this have impressed relatives. They have commented on how animated their loved ones became on these special afternoons."   

The Sporting Memories Network ensures that new materials are made available on a regular basis to keep the sessions and conversations fresh. That's where we hit on the idea of publishing a weekly reminiscence newspaper.

A couple of weeks ago one of the very last Saturday night sports papers published its final printed version in Sheffield before moving to a digital platform. Going out to buy the Pink'un or Green'un on a Saturday evening was a tradition for sports fans across the country for many years. So we supply dementia wards with (our version of) the Sporting Pink, which is filled with archive sporting images and match reports for the staff to use for reminiscence.

Dr Michael Clark from the Personal Social Services Research Unit at LSE evaluated a pilot project the Sporting Memories Network ran across care homes in Leeds. His report noted a positive impact not only on the wellbeing of residents but also on the staff, as they too enjoyed hearing about great football games of the past. The pilot was funded by a Skills for Care workforce development innovation fund grant and attracted the support of local clubs and organisations but also came to the attention of the government. The network's work with football and sports clubs was mentioned in the first annual report on the prime minister's dementia challenge.

Sports stars including Chris Kamara, Robbie Savage, David Coulthard and Ross Brawn have shared some of their own favourite memories and have been joined by celebrities, fans and professional bodies such as the Professional Footballers' Association and British Racing Drivers' Club in supporting the network. The bank of memories shared is then used by staff facilitating sports reminiscence activities.

Tony Jameson-Allen is a director of the Sporting Memories Network, a community interest company established to develop reminiscence activities that improve the wellbeing of older people and those living with dementia through tapping into the passion, knowledge and love of sport.

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.


View the original article here

Thursday, 5 September 2013

'Take up the challenge of GP commissioning. The patients need you'

chalice 'When Dr Mark Porter became chairman of the British Medical Association last year, I warned him the job could be a poisoned chalice.' says Dick Vinegar. Photograph: Con Tanasiuk / Design Pics Inc.

Dear Dr Chaand Nagpaul,

Congratulations on your election as chairman of the General Practitioners Committee. When Dr Mark Porter became chairman of the British Medical Association last July, I warned him the job could be a poisoned chalice. Yours could prove to be the same, or worse, mainly because some of your members seem to be more hostile to change than the generality of doctors in the BMA. And you have to manage that change, not just, negatively, "to row back on damaging changes" imposed by the Department of Health.

Clearly, the most important change is the extra power given to GPs when the former health secretary Andrew Lansley replaced primary care trusts with GP-driven clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). This needs overseeing by you because, clearly, as in other professions, some GPs are good at managing, while others are definitely not. I see your role as nudging them all along, to give encouragement to the participating GPs – and, dare I say it, the patients. You must, in the nicest possible way, get the right GPs to invigorate the CCGs. What you must stop your members doing is throwing up their hands and moaning "I didn't become a doctor just to do this administrative stuff." Take up the challenge of GP commissioning. The patients need you.

Another thing patients need from GPs – particularly octogenarians like me with multiple comorbidities – is continuity. I have been banging on about this for some months now. We, your core customers, need to trust someone in the NHS to fight our corner over time. The NHS is getting more and more fragmented and confusing, while we are getting less able to understand complexity. Our GP is the only friendly face available to help. We need someone to recommend the right treatment, track our progress through the hospital, and to make sure that if we fall ill at night or weekends, that the out-of-hours service is fit for purpose.

I was worried when I read in the Francis report that the GPs in Mid Staffordshire did not sound the alarm about the dreadful treatment their patients were suffering in hospital.

And I was shocked to hear quite recently that, in 2004 the Labour government had done a deal with GPs, whereby the GPs had renounced all responsibility for out-of-hours care. (I have, incidentally, done a straw poll among my octogenarian contemporaries, and have found that the majority were as ignorant and shocked by the renunciation as I was. Among them was an ex-chairman of a large mental health trust.)

You may accuse me of hankering after a long-gone golden age of "family doctoring", but I am concerned that the modern day GP, run off his/her feet by the demands of the DoH and of ageing patients like me, has renounced continuity, and is turning into somebody more like a hospital doctor, who treats episodic ailments, washes their hands and goes away.

General practice is a noble profession, with continuity of care as the jewel in its crown, and my own GPs are unstinting in their care of myself and my contemporaries, in or out of hours. But I worry that some of your other members, particularly the noisy political ones, do not see things this way.

Jeremy Hunt has said he would like to see out-of-hours responsibility returned to GPs, and has been vilified for saying it. However, it seems to me that just by saying this, he has offered you an open goal. You should agree, and tell him what it would cost in terms of extra GPs. You have said that you "will fight for general practice to get its fair and increased share of the NHS cake". This is your opportunity. It should not be too difficult to persuade him that money spent on GPs goes further than money spent on A&E departments. And that GPs are better at triage than non-medical 111 staff armed with dodgy triage software.

There is a real chance right now to make a big difference for GPs, and more importantly, your patients.

Best of luck,

Dick Vinegar

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.


View the original article here

Why doesn't the NHS know how many patients have chemotherapy?

Whether it's picking up a weekly grocery shop or booking a holiday, online transactions are the stuff of everyday life, but too often the health service operates as if the technological revolution never happened.

"We have had this revolution in the rest of our lives, which has been a combination of putting us in control, making us do more of the clerical work which we thoroughly enjoy, basically rationalising the costs and old ways of doing things," says Tim Kelsey, the first NHS national director for patients and information. "It still shocks and surprises me that doctors – a group of extremely intelligent professionals – will do all this online stuff, be among the most vigilant users of TripAdvisor, and then turn up at the NHS and nothing is there."

Kelsey says he sees obvious lessons for modernising NHS services from other industries, such as finance and aviation, where the use of data and technology has led to a huge increase customer satisfaction and a vast cut in costs. Figures from the International Air Transport Association show the increase in paperless travel from 19% in 2004 to 100% by 2008 is saving its 240 member airlines up to £2bn a year. Across the wider air industry, the association estimates the figure to be £9bn.

There's equally good evidence for such savings in healthcare, Kelsey says. The Veterans Administration, a fully digitised health system for former US military service personnel, has cut bed days by 25% by automating some processes and enabling patients to do more for themselves.

These are significant gains: one of the most persuasive arguments in favour of using data and innovative technology within the NHS is to help solve the problem of a predicted £30bn funding gap.

"I think over the next five to 10 years – which is the sort of time period we are talking about for the £30bn deficit – I would be betting we will be targeting about half of that through savings generated by technology productivity." Whether Kelsey's assumption is right will become apparent this autumn, when the results of NHS England's detailed analysis of technology and data across the health system are finalised.

Deploying technology and generating better data is not first and foremost about saving money, Kelsey says, but instead about improving the overall quality of healthcare.

"Until now, we have not collected data which would tell us how many people are treated with chemotherapy in the NHS – quite apart from whether they are treated well or badly," he says. "The famous example of the cardiac surgeons, who published data on themselves and as a result found that mortality rates declined by an average of a third, is not actually a story or about good or bad doctors. It's really a story about how, through better use of data, the cardiac community was able to move the curve upwards. It was that the whole lot of them got better."

Earlier this summer Kelsey announced an agreement between NHS England, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners to extract data from primary care and linking it with hospital data. "For the first time anywhere in the world clinicians and patients in England will be able to monitor the outcomes across the pathway of care, in so far as it travels between primary care and hospitals. That's a massive breakthrough," he explains.

Though the cost of investing in data and technology is often claimed to be prohibitive, the primary care is already digitised. NHS England is focusing on giving patients online access to their GP record, and the ability to book a prescription online.

Hospitals, however, are at varying stages of digitisation, largely because the failed Connecting for Health scheme did not manage to link medical records across secondary care. Still only 12% of hospitals have an e-prescribing system in place. But Kelsey says not a single hospital in the NHS should be failing to invest in data and technology today.

So what is the biggest hurdle to clear in modernising our NHS? "The obstacle is us," Kelsey says. "Us: if we are patients, not being passive recipients of variable quality care, [but] being much more demanding where we can. And doctors and managers being far less willing to accept working in a service which doesn't meet the standards they would expect in the rest of their lives."

Transparency has long been Kelsey's professional raison d'etre. He is the former government director of transparency and open data, and co-founder of Dr Foster, the online hospital guide which spearheaded the publication of comparative hospital death rates and other measures of healthcare quality.

So it comes as little surprise when Kelsey says the single most important thing he would like to achieve for the NHS is transparency over outcomes, in a healthcare system where data is used to improve services.

"I think the quality of data is fundamentally linked to the quality of health services," he says. "And although a lot of people can't quite see the connection, essentially it goes back to the basic reality that if you can't measure it, how the hell can you manage it?"

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.


View the original article here

Thursday, 29 August 2013

'Take up the challenge of GP commissioning. The patients need you'

chalice 'When Dr Mark Porter became chairman of the British Medical Association last year, I warned him the job could be a poisoned chalice.' says Dick Vinegar. Photograph: Con Tanasiuk / Design Pics Inc.

Dear Dr Chaand Nagpaul,

Congratulations on your election as chairman of the General Practitioners Committee. When Dr Mark Porter became chairman of the British Medical Association last July, I warned him the job could be a poisoned chalice. Yours could prove to be the same, or worse, mainly because some of your members seem to be more hostile to change than the generality of doctors in the BMA. And you have to manage that change, not just, negatively, "to row back on damaging changes" imposed by the Department of Health.

Clearly, the most important change is the extra power given to GPs when the former health secretary Andrew Lansley replaced primary care trusts with GP-driven clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). This needs overseeing by you because, clearly, as in other professions, some GPs are good at managing, while others are definitely not. I see your role as nudging them all along, to give encouragement to the participating GPs – and, dare I say it, the patients. You must, in the nicest possible way, get the right GPs to invigorate the CCGs. What you must stop your members doing is throwing up their hands and moaning "I didn't become a doctor just to do this administrative stuff." Take up the challenge of GP commissioning. The patients need you.

Another thing patients need from GPs – particularly octogenarians like me with multiple comorbidities – is continuity. I have been banging on about this for some months now. We, your core customers, need to trust someone in the NHS to fight our corner over time. The NHS is getting more and more fragmented and confusing, while we are getting less able to understand complexity. Our GP is the only friendly face available to help. We need someone to recommend the right treatment, track our progress through the hospital, and to make sure that if we fall ill at night or weekends, that the out-of-hours service is fit for purpose.

I was worried when I read in the Francis report that the GPs in Mid Staffordshire did not sound the alarm about the dreadful treatment their patients were suffering in hospital.

And I was shocked to hear quite recently that, in 2004 the Labour government had done a deal with GPs, whereby the GPs had renounced all responsibility for out-of-hours care. (I have, incidentally, done a straw poll among my octogenarian contemporaries, and have found that the majority were as ignorant and shocked by the renunciation as I was. Among them was an ex-chairman of a large mental health trust.)

You may accuse me of hankering after a long-gone golden age of "family doctoring", but I am concerned that the modern day GP, run off his/her feet by the demands of the DoH and of ageing patients like me, has renounced continuity, and is turning into somebody more like a hospital doctor, who treats episodic ailments, washes their hands and goes away.

General practice is a noble profession, with continuity of care as the jewel in its crown, and my own GPs are unstinting in their care of myself and my contemporaries, in or out of hours. But I worry that some of your other members, particularly the noisy political ones, do not see things this way.

Jeremy Hunt has said he would like to see out-of-hours responsibility returned to GPs, and has been vilified for saying it. However, it seems to me that just by saying this, he has offered you an open goal. You should agree, and tell him what it would cost in terms of extra GPs. You have said that you "will fight for general practice to get its fair and increased share of the NHS cake". This is your opportunity. It should not be too difficult to persuade him that money spent on GPs goes further than money spent on A&E departments. And that GPs are better at triage than non-medical 111 staff armed with dodgy triage software.

There is a real chance right now to make a big difference for GPs, and more importantly, your patients.

Best of luck,

Dick Vinegar

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.


View the original article here

Why doesn't the NHS know how many patients have chemotherapy?

Whether it's picking up a weekly grocery shop or booking a holiday, online transactions are the stuff of everyday life, but too often the health service operates as if the technological revolution never happened.

"We have had this revolution in the rest of our lives, which has been a combination of putting us in control, making us do more of the clerical work which we thoroughly enjoy, basically rationalising the costs and old ways of doing things," says Tim Kelsey, the first NHS national director for patients and information. "It still shocks and surprises me that doctors – a group of extremely intelligent professionals – will do all this online stuff, be among the most vigilant users of TripAdvisor, and then turn up at the NHS and nothing is there."

Kelsey says he sees obvious lessons for modernising NHS services from other industries, such as finance and aviation, where the use of data and technology has led to a huge increase customer satisfaction and a vast cut in costs. Figures from the International Air Transport Association show the increase in paperless travel from 19% in 2004 to 100% by 2008 is saving its 240 member airlines up to £2bn a year. Across the wider air industry, the association estimates the figure to be £9bn.

There's equally good evidence for such savings in healthcare, Kelsey says. The Veterans Administration, a fully digitised health system for former US military service personnel, has cut bed days by 25% by automating some processes and enabling patients to do more for themselves.

These are significant gains: one of the most persuasive arguments in favour of using data and innovative technology within the NHS is to help solve the problem of a predicted £30bn funding gap.

"I think over the next five to 10 years – which is the sort of time period we are talking about for the £30bn deficit – I would be betting we will be targeting about half of that through savings generated by technology productivity." Whether Kelsey's assumption is right will become apparent this autumn, when the results of NHS England's detailed analysis of technology and data across the health system are finalised.

Deploying technology and generating better data is not first and foremost about saving money, Kelsey says, but instead about improving the overall quality of healthcare.

"Until now, we have not collected data which would tell us how many people are treated with chemotherapy in the NHS – quite apart from whether they are treated well or badly," he says. "The famous example of the cardiac surgeons, who published data on themselves and as a result found that mortality rates declined by an average of a third, is not actually a story or about good or bad doctors. It's really a story about how, through better use of data, the cardiac community was able to move the curve upwards. It was that the whole lot of them got better."

Earlier this summer Kelsey announced an agreement between NHS England, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners to extract data from primary care and linking it with hospital data. "For the first time anywhere in the world clinicians and patients in England will be able to monitor the outcomes across the pathway of care, in so far as it travels between primary care and hospitals. That's a massive breakthrough," he explains.

Though the cost of investing in data and technology is often claimed to be prohibitive, the primary care is already digitised. NHS England is focusing on giving patients online access to their GP record, and the ability to book a prescription online.

Hospitals, however, are at varying stages of digitisation, largely because the failed Connecting for Health scheme did not manage to link medical records across secondary care. Still only 12% of hospitals have an e-prescribing system in place. But Kelsey says not a single hospital in the NHS should be failing to invest in data and technology today.

So what is the biggest hurdle to clear in modernising our NHS? "The obstacle is us," Kelsey says. "Us: if we are patients, not being passive recipients of variable quality care, [but] being much more demanding where we can. And doctors and managers being far less willing to accept working in a service which doesn't meet the standards they would expect in the rest of their lives."

Transparency has long been Kelsey's professional raison d'etre. He is the former government director of transparency and open data, and co-founder of Dr Foster, the online hospital guide which spearheaded the publication of comparative hospital death rates and other measures of healthcare quality.

So it comes as little surprise when Kelsey says the single most important thing he would like to achieve for the NHS is transparency over outcomes, in a healthcare system where data is used to improve services.

"I think the quality of data is fundamentally linked to the quality of health services," he says. "And although a lot of people can't quite see the connection, essentially it goes back to the basic reality that if you can't measure it, how the hell can you manage it?"

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.


View the original article here

Tuesday, 27 August 2013

'Take up the challenge of GP commissioning. The patients need you'

chalice 'When Dr Mark Porter became chairman of the British Medical Association last year, I warned him the job could be a poisoned chalice.' says Dick Vinegar. Photograph: Con Tanasiuk / Design Pics Inc.

Dear Dr Chaand Nagpaul,

Congratulations on your election as chairman of the General Practitioners Committee. When Dr Mark Porter became chairman of the British Medical Association last July, I warned him the job could be a poisoned chalice. Yours could prove to be the same, or worse, mainly because some of your members seem to be more hostile to change than the generality of doctors in the BMA. And you have to manage that change, not just, negatively, "to row back on damaging changes" imposed by the Department of Health.

Clearly, the most important change is the extra power given to GPs when the former health secretary Andrew Lansley replaced primary care trusts with GP-driven clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). This needs overseeing by you because, clearly, as in other professions, some GPs are good at managing, while others are definitely not. I see your role as nudging them all along, to give encouragement to the participating GPs – and, dare I say it, the patients. You must, in the nicest possible way, get the right GPs to invigorate the CCGs. What you must stop your members doing is throwing up their hands and moaning "I didn't become a doctor just to do this administrative stuff." Take up the challenge of GP commissioning. The patients need you.

Another thing patients need from GPs – particularly octogenarians like me with multiple comorbidities – is continuity. I have been banging on about this for some months now. We, your core customers, need to trust someone in the NHS to fight our corner over time. The NHS is getting more and more fragmented and confusing, while we are getting less able to understand complexity. Our GP is the only friendly face available to help. We need someone to recommend the right treatment, track our progress through the hospital, and to make sure that if we fall ill at night or weekends, that the out-of-hours service is fit for purpose.

I was worried when I read in the Francis report that the GPs in Mid Staffordshire did not sound the alarm about the dreadful treatment their patients were suffering in hospital.

And I was shocked to hear quite recently that, in 2004 the Labour government had done a deal with GPs, whereby the GPs had renounced all responsibility for out-of-hours care. (I have, incidentally, done a straw poll among my octogenarian contemporaries, and have found that the majority were as ignorant and shocked by the renunciation as I was. Among them was an ex-chairman of a large mental health trust.)

You may accuse me of hankering after a long-gone golden age of "family doctoring", but I am concerned that the modern day GP, run off his/her feet by the demands of the DoH and of ageing patients like me, has renounced continuity, and is turning into somebody more like a hospital doctor, who treats episodic ailments, washes their hands and goes away.

General practice is a noble profession, with continuity of care as the jewel in its crown, and my own GPs are unstinting in their care of myself and my contemporaries, in or out of hours. But I worry that some of your other members, particularly the noisy political ones, do not see things this way.

Jeremy Hunt has said he would like to see out-of-hours responsibility returned to GPs, and has been vilified for saying it. However, it seems to me that just by saying this, he has offered you an open goal. You should agree, and tell him what it would cost in terms of extra GPs. You have said that you "will fight for general practice to get its fair and increased share of the NHS cake". This is your opportunity. It should not be too difficult to persuade him that money spent on GPs goes further than money spent on A&E departments. And that GPs are better at triage than non-medical 111 staff armed with dodgy triage software.

There is a real chance right now to make a big difference for GPs, and more importantly, your patients.

Best of luck,

Dick Vinegar

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.


View the original article here

Why doesn't the NHS know how many patients have chemotherapy?

Whether it's picking up a weekly grocery shop or booking a holiday, online transactions are the stuff of everyday life, but too often the health service operates as if the technological revolution never happened.

"We have had this revolution in the rest of our lives, which has been a combination of putting us in control, making us do more of the clerical work which we thoroughly enjoy, basically rationalising the costs and old ways of doing things," says Tim Kelsey, the first NHS national director for patients and information. "It still shocks and surprises me that doctors – a group of extremely intelligent professionals – will do all this online stuff, be among the most vigilant users of TripAdvisor, and then turn up at the NHS and nothing is there."

Kelsey says he sees obvious lessons for modernising NHS services from other industries, such as finance and aviation, where the use of data and technology has led to a huge increase customer satisfaction and a vast cut in costs. Figures from the International Air Transport Association show the increase in paperless travel from 19% in 2004 to 100% by 2008 is saving its 240 member airlines up to £2bn a year. Across the wider air industry, the association estimates the figure to be £9bn.

There's equally good evidence for such savings in healthcare, Kelsey says. The Veterans Administration, a fully digitised health system for former US military service personnel, has cut bed days by 25% by automating some processes and enabling patients to do more for themselves.

These are significant gains: one of the most persuasive arguments in favour of using data and innovative technology within the NHS is to help solve the problem of a predicted £30bn funding gap.

"I think over the next five to 10 years – which is the sort of time period we are talking about for the £30bn deficit – I would be betting we will be targeting about half of that through savings generated by technology productivity." Whether Kelsey's assumption is right will become apparent this autumn, when the results of NHS England's detailed analysis of technology and data across the health system are finalised.

Deploying technology and generating better data is not first and foremost about saving money, Kelsey says, but instead about improving the overall quality of healthcare.

"Until now, we have not collected data which would tell us how many people are treated with chemotherapy in the NHS – quite apart from whether they are treated well or badly," he says. "The famous example of the cardiac surgeons, who published data on themselves and as a result found that mortality rates declined by an average of a third, is not actually a story or about good or bad doctors. It's really a story about how, through better use of data, the cardiac community was able to move the curve upwards. It was that the whole lot of them got better."

Earlier this summer Kelsey announced an agreement between NHS England, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners to extract data from primary care and linking it with hospital data. "For the first time anywhere in the world clinicians and patients in England will be able to monitor the outcomes across the pathway of care, in so far as it travels between primary care and hospitals. That's a massive breakthrough," he explains.

Though the cost of investing in data and technology is often claimed to be prohibitive, the primary care is already digitised. NHS England is focusing on giving patients online access to their GP record, and the ability to book a prescription online.

Hospitals, however, are at varying stages of digitisation, largely because the failed Connecting for Health scheme did not manage to link medical records across secondary care. Still only 12% of hospitals have an e-prescribing system in place. But Kelsey says not a single hospital in the NHS should be failing to invest in data and technology today.

So what is the biggest hurdle to clear in modernising our NHS? "The obstacle is us," Kelsey says. "Us: if we are patients, not being passive recipients of variable quality care, [but] being much more demanding where we can. And doctors and managers being far less willing to accept working in a service which doesn't meet the standards they would expect in the rest of their lives."

Transparency has long been Kelsey's professional raison d'etre. He is the former government director of transparency and open data, and co-founder of Dr Foster, the online hospital guide which spearheaded the publication of comparative hospital death rates and other measures of healthcare quality.

So it comes as little surprise when Kelsey says the single most important thing he would like to achieve for the NHS is transparency over outcomes, in a healthcare system where data is used to improve services.

"I think the quality of data is fundamentally linked to the quality of health services," he says. "And although a lot of people can't quite see the connection, essentially it goes back to the basic reality that if you can't measure it, how the hell can you manage it?"

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.


View the original article here

Tuesday, 20 August 2013

Exploring trends in perinatally infected HIV patients now approaching adulthood

Main Category: HIV / AIDS
Also Included In: Pediatrics / Children's Health;  Pregnancy / Obstetrics
Article Date: 20 Aug 2013 - 0:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Exploring trends in perinatally infected HIV patients now approaching adulthood
not yet ratednot yet rated

The advent of antiretroviral therapy (ART) has transformed HIV from a death sentence into a chronic disease. In one of the largest studies of perinatally infected HIV (PHIV) patients to date, Agwu, et al, found that the proportion of patients on ART has increased and rates of viremia and advanced immunosuppression have decreased. But the rates of both markers in older patients are higher, according to an article in the Fall issue of The Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (JPIDS).

The retrospective study of the HIV Research Network followed 521 patients over an eight-year span, from 2002 to 2010. The median age of care increased from 14 to 18 years. During that time, the proportion of those prescribed ART rose from 67.4% to 84.1% and virologic suppression rose from 35.5% to 63%. Looking at two time scales - the age of the patient vs. the calendar year - the authors saw that the earlier calendar year of patient entry was a greater predictor of higher viremia and advanced immunosuppression over time. This indicates that advances in ART therapy have bisected this population, with those who came after the advent of ART entering adolescence with better virologic control.

Changes in Advanced Immunosuppression and Detectable HIV Viremia Among Perinatally HIV-Infected Youth in the Multisite United States HIV Research Network

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our hiv / aids section for the latest news on this subject.

J Ped Infect Dis (2013) doi: 10.1093/jpids/pit008; First published online: March 12, 2013

Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. "Exploring trends in perinatally infected HIV patients now approaching adulthood." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 20 Aug. 2013. Web.
20 Aug. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


'Exploring trends in perinatally infected HIV patients now approaching adulthood'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here

Personalized drug dosing necessary for older heart patients

Main Category: Cardiovascular / Cardiology
Also Included In: Seniors / Aging;  Heart Disease
Article Date: 20 Aug 2013 - 0:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Personalized drug dosing necessary for older heart patients
not yet ratednot yet rated

Older heart patients present unique challenges for determining the optimal dosages of medications, so a new study from researchers at Duke Medicine offers some rare clarity about the use of drugs that are used to treat patients with heart attacks.

For certain heart patients older than age 75, a half-dose of the anti-platelet drug prasugrel works about as well as the typical dosage of clopidogrel, according to a team led by the Duke Clinical Research Institute that looked at a sub-study of a large clinical trial.

"As people live longer throughout the world, it's increasingly important to establish appropriate treatments for conditions such as acute coronary syndromes that commonly occur later in life," said Matthew T. Roe, M.D., MHS, associate professor of medicine at Duke and lead author of a study published Aug. 20, 2013, in the journal Circulation.

"These patients are very vulnerable to side effects, including bleeding, if therapies are not properly dosed," Roe said. "Additionally, existing practice guidelines have few specific recommendations for older patients with acute coronary syndromes as little evidence has been accrued from prior clinical trials in this population."

People older than age 75 comprise less than 10 percent of the U.S. population, but account for 35 percent of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), which includes a recent heart attack or unstable chest pain. ACS is typically treated with anti-platelet therapies.

Earlier studies, for example, had shown that the platelet inhibitor prasugrel reduced the risk of adverse outcomes compared with clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing coronary stent implantation. Those studies used a 60-mg initial dose followed by a 10-mg/day maintenance dose.

At that dosage level, however, patients older than age 75 had an increased risk of intracranial and fatal bleeding, as did younger patients weighing 132 pounds or less. The results led to warnings by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the use of the 10 mg/day maintenance dose of prasugrel in those populations, and consideration of a reduced dose (5 mg/day) to mitigate bleeding complications.

To examine whether older patients might benefit from a lower dosage of prasugrel, the Duke-led researchers analyzed more than 2,000 older patients who participated in a large trial called TRILOGY ACS that compared prasugrel with clopidogrel to manage acute coronary syndromes without coronary stent implantation or coronary bypass surgery.

The findings from this study, the first long-term data on outcomes specifically from elderly patients treated with the reduced dose of prasugrel, determined that a smaller dosage of 5-mg/day of prasugrel presented no greater risk of bleeding problems than the commonly prescribed 75-mg dose of clopidogrel in the elderly population.

"The findings from our study indicate how difficult it is to identify the right dose of anti-clotting medications for the elderly, to improve outcomes after a heart attack," said co-author Magnus Ohman, professor of medicine at Duke and chairman of the TRILOGY ACS study. "While a lower dose seemed intuitive, it was safe but not more effective. Future dedicated studies need to continue to find the right therapies for the vulnerable elderly patients."

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our cardiovascular / cardiology section for the latest news on this subject.

The Association of Early Physician Follow-up and 30-Day Readmission after Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction among Older Patients

In addition to Roe and Ohman, study authors include Shaun Goodman; Susanna Stevens; Judith Hochman; Shmuel Gottlieb; Bikur Cholim; Felipe Martinez; Anthony Dalby; William Boden; Harvey White; Dorairaj Prabhakaran; Kenneth Winters; Philip Aylward; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Darren McGuire; Diego Ardissino; Keith A.A. Fox; and Paul Armstrong. CIRCULATIONAHA.113.004569; Published online before print August 14, 2013, doi: 10.1161/?CIRCULATIONAHA.113.004569

The drug companies Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo, which market and make prasugrel, funded the TRILOGY ACS study.

Roe receives grant funding and/or consulting fees from Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo. Ohman receives grant funding and travel expenses from the Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo. More detailed disclosures are provided in the published study.

Duke University Medical Center

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Duke University Medical Center. "Personalized drug dosing necessary for older heart patients." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 20 Aug. 2013. Web.
20 Aug. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


'Personalized drug dosing necessary for older heart patients'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here

Anglia Ruskin experts want introduction of new treatment model for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients

Main Category: Breast Cancer
Article Date: 20 Aug 2013 - 1:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Anglia Ruskin experts want introduction of new treatment model for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients
not yet ratednot yet rated

Breast cancer specialists at Anglia Ruskin University are proposing the introduction of a new model to provide safer treatment for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the most common form of non-invasive breast cancer.

Writing in the latest edition of The Lancet Oncology journal, Professor John Benson and Professor Gordon Wishart state that therapies such as radiotherapy and tamoxifen, which can impair quality of life and increase health-care costs, are not necessary for all patients.

DCIS is an early form of breast cancer which is commonly detected by screening programmes and is not life-threatening. The surgeons believe that recent research into molecular markers can be used to develop a model to identify the low risk cases that may avoid harmful treatment and high risk cases where therapy can be maximised.

Over the past 30 years, clinicians have benefited from the use of predictive models to treat early invasive breast cancer, which incorporate not only tumour size, grade, and lymph node status, but also variables such as age and molecular markers such as the oestrogen and HER2 receptor. Professor Benson and Professor Wishart say that a similar approach would help with decision-making for DCIS patients after initial breast-conserving surgery (lumpectomy).

The most contentious issue surrounds radiotherapy and whether all patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery should receive it. The authors believe that if toxic effects of radiotherapy exceed any oncological gains amongst DCIS patients, it is likely to lead to a higher all-cause mortality rate.

Gordon Wishart, Professor of Cancer Surgery at Anglia Ruskin, said: "A recent review of the NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme raised awareness of the detection of low risk cancers that may never reduce a patient's life expectancy.

"A proportion of cases detected with routine screening would not have progressed to a life-threatening form of breast cancer during the patient's lifetime, and overdiagnosis of breast cancer is a cause for concern. In fact, within older age groups life expectancy is likely to be determined not by a diagnosis of DCIS, but by competing causes of death.

"Some of the key molecular events that characterise progression of DCIS to invasive cancer have been identified, and the next logical step is to develop and validate predictive models. These models should allow individualisation of treatments, meaning withholding not only radiotherapy and hormonal therapies, but even surgery for certain patients.

"A comprehensive management strategy should integrate clinicopathological features and molecular profiling, and take into account patient-related factors such as age, other illnesses, breast size and personal preference.

"Present treatment options for DCIS are acknowledged as being excessive for many patients, and the aim of molecular profiling is to ensure that additional treatments such as radiotherapy are restricted to patients at highest risk of invasive recurrence."

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our breast cancer section for the latest news on this subject.

Predictors of recurrence for ductal carcinoma in situ after breast-conserving surgery

The Lancet Oncology, Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages e348 - e357, August 2013 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70135-9

Prof John R Benson DM, Prof Gordon C Wishart MD

Anglia Ruskin University

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

University, Anglia Ruskin. "Anglia Ruskin experts want introduction of new treatment model for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 20 Aug. 2013. Web.
20 Aug. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


'Anglia Ruskin experts want introduction of new treatment model for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here

Too-low diastolic blood pressure can be deadly for CKD patients

Main Category: Urology / Nephrology
Article Date: 20 Aug 2013 - 1:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Too-low diastolic blood pressure can be deadly for CKD patients
not yet ratednot yet rated

Having too-low diastolic blood pressure (DBP) may be deadly for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Blood pressure (BP) recommendations are stricter for patients with CKD than for the general population and focus on lowering actual BP (the measurement of both systolic BP [SBP] and DBP) without consideration for achieving a DBP that is too low.

Researchers reviewed health records for 651,749 U.S. veterans with CKD to assess the association between BP and death. Both actual BP and measurements of SBP and DBP considered separately were assessed.

The researchers found that having a systolic blood pressure of 130 to 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of 70 to 89 mm Hg was associated with the lowest risk for death. Patients with a DBP less than 70 mm Hg, regardless of their SBP, had higher mortality rates.

An accompanying editorial highlights some of the limitations of the study. Among them, the authors suggest that it may not be BP combination but instead the characteristics of the persons with that combination that lead to greater mortality risk.

Blood Pressure and Mortality in U.S. Veterans With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Cohort Study, Csaba P. Kovesdy, MD; Anthony J. Bleyer, MD; Miklos Z. Molnar, MD, PhD; Jennie Z. Ma, PhD; John J. Sim, MD; William C. Cushman, MD; L. Darryl Quarles, MD; and Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, MD, PhD, Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(4):233-242. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-4-201308200-00004

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our urology / nephrology section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

American College of Physicians. "Too-low diastolic blood pressure can be deadly for CKD patients." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 20 Aug. 2013. Web.
20 Aug. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


'Too-low diastolic blood pressure can be deadly for CKD patients'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here

Adding tofacitinib to treatment with DMARDs improves pain and function in patients with active RA

Main Category: Arthritis / Rheumatology
Article Date: 20 Aug 2013 - 1:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Adding tofacitinib to treatment with DMARDs improves pain and function in patients with active RA
not yet ratednot yet rated

Adding tofacitinib to treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may help improve symptoms in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Nonbiologic DMARDs, including methotrexate, are commonly used to treat RA. However, DMARDs alone do not always adequately treat the disease.

Tofacitinib is a novel, oral, Janus kinase inhibitor that treats RA. Researchers sought to determine the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib taken in combination with nonbiologic DMRDs.

Patients with inadequately controlled RA (n = 792) despite treatment with nonbiologic DMARDs were randomly assigned to one of four twice-daily treatment sequences: 5 mg of tofacitinib; 10 mg of tofacitinib; placebo advanced to 5 mg of tofacitinib; or placebo advanced to 10 mg of tofacitinib.

The study showed that when used in combination with various nonbiologic DMARDs, tofacitinib, 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, rapidly reduced the signs and symptoms of RA and improved physical function. Adverse events included decreases in neutrophil counts, increases in high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and small increases in serum creatinine and aminotransaminase levels.

Tofacitinib in Combination With Nonbiologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Trial, Joel Kremer, MD; Zhan-Guo Li, MD, PhD; Stephen Hall, MD; Roy Fleischmann, MD; Mark Genovese, MD; Emilio Martin-Mola, MD, PhD; John D. Isaacs, PhD; David Gruben, PhD; Gene Wallenstein, PhD; Sriram Krishnaswami, PhD; Samuel H. Zwillich, MD; Tamas Koncz, MD; Richard Riese, MD, PhD; and John Bradley, MD, Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(4):253-261. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-4-201308200-00006

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our arthritis / rheumatology section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

American College of Physicians. "Adding tofacitinib to treatment with DMARDs improves pain and function in patients with active RA." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 20 Aug. 2013. Web.
20 Aug. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


'Adding tofacitinib to treatment with DMARDs improves pain and function in patients with active RA'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here

New Risk Score Predicts 10-Year Dementia Risk for Type 2 Diabetes Patients

Main Category: Diabetes
Also Included In: Alzheimer's / Dementia
Article Date: 20 Aug 2013 - 0:00 PDT Current ratings for:
New Risk Score Predicts 10-Year Dementia Risk for Type 2 Diabetes Patients
not yet ratednot yet rated

Researchers at Kaiser Permanente and the University Medical Centre Utrecht in the Netherlands have created the first risk score that predicts the 10-year individualized dementia risk for patients with type 2 diabetes, as reported in the inaugural issue of Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The researchers developed and validated the Diabetes-Specific Dementia Risk Score by examining data from nearly 30,000 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 60 and older over a 10-year period. They found eight factors that were most predictive of dementia - including microvascular disease, diabetic foot and cerebrovascular disease - and assigned each a value related to their association with dementia to create an overall score for patients. The researchers found that individuals in the lowest category of the 20-point risk score had a 5.3 percent chance of developing dementia over the next 10 years, while those in the highest category had a 73 percent chance. Compared with those in the lowest category, those in the highest were 37 times more likely to get dementia, according to the study.

"Patients with type 2 diabetes are twice as likely to develop dementia as those without the disease, but predicting who has the highest future risk is difficult," said Rachel Whitmer, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland, California, who led the study. "While a few dementia risk scores exist, this is the first one that has been developed specifically for individuals with type 2 diabetes and encompasses diabetes-specific characteristics."

All predictors included in the Diabetes-Specific Dementia Risk Score are easy to obtain and based primarily on medical history, so the risk score can be calculated during a routine medical visit or with electronic health records. No labor-intensive or expensive tests, such as cognitive function or brain imaging, are required.

"This risk score is crucial for the care of patients with diabetes since they are particularly susceptible to dementia. It provides clinicians with an easy and efficient tool to assess their patients' chances of developing dementia over the next 10 years," Whitmer said. "Early detection of diabetes patients who are at increased future risk of dementia could help to develop and target preventive treatment."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 25 million children and adults in the United States have diabetes with type 2 diabetes in particular accounting for more than 90 percent of these cases. In addition to being a risk factor for dementia, diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure, non-traumatic lower-limb amputations and new cases of blindness among adults in the United States.

"The risk score could be useful in the selection of high-risk patients for early intervention studies and for many applications of personalized medicine," said Geert Jan Biessels, MD, professor of neurology at the University Medical Centre Utrecht and co-author of the study. "Clinicians can use it to guide their decisions in terms of clinical attention to incipient cognitive impairment which makes people vulnerable to dangerous side-effects of diabetes treatment. The risk score will also help us to understand the causes of diabetes associated increased dementia risk, because we can examine those at high risk in early stages of the dementia process."

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our diabetes section for the latest news on this subject.

The study is reported in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology

Additional authors on the study include Lieza G. Exalto, MD, of the Department of Neurology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands; Andrew J. Karter, PhD, of the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, Calif.; Elbert S. Huang, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Chicago; Wayne J. Katon, MD, of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine; and Jerome R. Minkoff, MD, of the Kaiser Permanente Department of Endocrinology, Santa Rosa, Calif.

Research reported in this press release was supported by Kaiser Permanente Community Benefit, and by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under award number DK081796.

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Kaiser Permanente

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Permanente, Kaiser. "New Risk Score Predicts 10-Year Dementia Risk for Type 2 Diabetes Patients." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 20 Aug. 2013. Web.
20 Aug. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


'New Risk Score Predicts 10-Year Dementia Risk for Type 2 Diabetes Patients'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here

Physician continuity after patients leave hospital for heart failure can help survival rates

Main Category: Primary Care / General Practice
Also Included In: Cardiovascular / Cardiology
Article Date: 19 Aug 2013 - 9:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Physician continuity after patients leave hospital for heart failure can help survival rates
not yet ratednot yet rated

Patients with heart failure who see a physician in the first month after leaving hospital are more likely to survive than those who do not see a doctor, reports a new study in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal). The effect is slightly more pronounced in patients who see their regular physician rather than an unfamiliar physician.

In the United States and Canada, more than $20 billion is spent every year on patients who are readmitted to hospital within 30 days after discharge. Heart failure is one of the most common reasons for hospitalization and has a high risk of readmission and early death.

To determine whether continuity of care resulted in better outcomes for patients with heart failure, researchers looked at data on all adults aged 20 years and over in Alberta who were discharged after hospitalization for heart failure. Patients were elderly with various health issues and had used the health care system in the year before their hospitalization for heart failure.

"Intuitively, one might consider physician continuity important for heart-failure patients discharged from hospital, given their age, high comorbidity burdens and complex therapy regimens," writes Dr. Finlay McAlister, University of Alberta, Edmonton, with coauthors. "However, a robust evidence base and multiple guidelines with consistent messaging on key management principles have made physician continuity potentially less important."

Of the total 24 373 discharged patients, 5336 (22%) did not see a physician within the first month, 16 855 (69%) saw a familiar physician (one they had seen at least twice in the year prior) and 2182 (9%) saw an unfamiliar physician. The researchers found that patients who saw a familiar physician had a lower risk of urgent readmission and death compared with patients who saw an unfamiliar physician or who did not visit a doctor.

"Early follow-up was associated with a lower risk of death or urgent readmission over 6 months, compared with no visits in the first month after discharge, regardless of whether the follow-up was with familiar or unfamiliar physicians. However, when we examined follow-up patterns throughout the 6 months after discharge, continuity with a familiar physician was associated with a significantly lower risk of death or readmission than follow-up with an unfamiliar physician, with similar effect estimates for specialist and nonspecialist follow-up," the authors write.

"The absolute reduction of 3% to 8% in risk of death or urgent readmission ... observed over 3?"12 months in association with follow-up in the first month after discharge was in the same range as the absolute benefits seen in placebo-controlled randomized trials of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor or b-blocker therapy. ... Thus, we believe that physicians should strive to optimize continuity with their heart-failure patients after discharge and that strategies are needed in the health care system to ensure early follow-up after discharge with the patient's regular physician," the authors conclude.

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our primary care / general practice section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

CMAJ. "Physician continuity after patients leave hospital for heart failure can help survival rates." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 19 Aug. 2013. Web.
19 Aug. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


'Physician continuity after patients leave hospital for heart failure can help survival rates'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here

Monday, 19 August 2013

Rehospitalization less likely for psychiatric patients given smoking-cessation treatment

Main Category: Mental Health
Also Included In: Smoking / Quit Smoking;  Psychology / Psychiatry
Article Date: 18 Aug 2013 - 0:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Rehospitalization less likely for psychiatric patients given smoking-cessation treatment
not yet ratednot yet rated

Patients who participated in a smoking-cessation program during hospitalization for mental illness were able to quit smoking and were less likely to be hospitalized again for their psychiatric conditions, according to a new study led by a Stanford University School of Medicine scientist.

The findings counter a longstanding assumption, held by many mental-health experts, that smoking serves as a useful tool in treating some psychiatric patients.

Smoking among such patients has been embedded in the culture for decades, with cigarettes used as part of a reward system. Indeed, clinicians sometimes smoke alongside patients as a way of creating a rapport with them, said Judith Prochaska, PhD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center and lead author of the study.

The result is that psychiatric patients are among the country's most prolific smokers and among those most likely to die of smoking-related ailments, Prochaska said. Nearly half of the cigarettes sold in the United States are to people with psychiatric or addictive disorders, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The average life expectancy for people with severe mental illness is 25 years less than that of the general population, and their leading cause of death is chronic illness, mostly tobacco-related.

Prochaska said it has long been thought that if these patients quit smoking, it would be detrimental to their recovery - that they would lose a critical crutch for coping with stress. However, she pointed out that the daily cycle of nicotine withdrawal a smoker experiences creates a great deal of stress, and that mental-health providers are well-equipped to assist patients with developing healthier forms of coping.

The new study showed that a simple intervention that included periodic contact with a counselor, written and computerized materials, and the use of nicotine patches could support, rather than harm, the patients' mental health, she said.

"This is a very low-cost, brief intervention that helped patients quit smoking and offers evidence that it may have helped their mental health recovery," said Prochaska, who focuses on developing interventions to treat tobacco dependence in people with mental illness or addictive disorders.

She said the study, done in collaboration with researchers at UC-San Francisco, is the first to examine the impact of a stop-smoking intervention in adult psychiatric patients. It will be published online Aug. 15 in the American Journal of Public Health.

Michael Fiore, MD, MPH, director of the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention and a leader in national policy for tobacco treatment who was not involved in the study, said the paper "provides powerful evidence that evidence-based tobacco dependence treatments can substantially increase quit rates among psychiatric inpatients. We know that psychiatric patients smoke at very high rates and are at tremendous risk from their smoking. Thus, the findings hold promise to make an important, real-world contribution to the health of these patients."

Since 1993, tobacco use in U.S. hospitals has been banned, with the exception of inpatient psychiatry units, which can and often do permit smoking, and where staff may smoke with patients. Prochaska regularly gives talks in which she documents the long history of tobacco in psychiatry, sharing excerpts from a 1951 psychotherapy handbook that encourages practitioners to smoke during treatment sessions. Her work also has highlighted how the tobacco industry has sponsored research to promote the self-medication hypothesis - that patients with psychiatric disorders need to smoke to function - and marketed their products to patients with psychiatric disorders.

Tobacco use has been thought to help calm patients and enable them to focus in therapy, she said. Certainly, a cigarette will calm someone who is in a state of nicotine withdrawal, and in hospitals that structure smoking breaks every four hours, the patients are being thrown into repeated withdrawal states that are uncomfortable and stressful. When hospitals adopt smoke-free policies, along with using nicotine-replacement products, the therapeutic environment is more balanced, she said. The challenges mental health clinicians have feared when banning smoking have not been borne out by studies.

Smoking also can interfere with treatment, affecting the metabolism of some psychiatric medications, Prochaska said. For instance, it increases the body's elimination of olanzepine, a drug used for psychosis or psychotic depression, by more than 90 percent, and of Haldol, a common schizophrenia drug, by 44 percent. Some patients may appear more alert and attentive simply because the tobacco smoke is reducing the sedating side effects of their psychiatric medications, she said.

To test the effects of treating tobacco use among hospitalized psychiatric patients, the researchers initiated an intervention among 224 patients at the Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute, a smoke-free, locked mental hospital for acute care at UCSF. All patients who smoked at least five cigarettes daily prior to hospitalization were invited to participate. Few were ready to quit smoking, yet 79 percent agreed to participate. The patients had a range of psychiatric diagnoses, including depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia; three in four were actively suicidal. Half were randomly assigned to a treatment group, and the other half received the usual care.

All patients were offered nicotine patches or gum during their smoke-free hospitalization. Patients in the control group received a pamphlet about the hazards of smoking, with information on how to quit.

Participants in the treatment group completed a computer-assisted program with tailored feedback, received a print manual, met for 15-30 minutes with a counselor, and were offered a 10-week supply of nicotine patches, available when the participant became ready to quit. All of the materials were tailored to patients' readiness to quit, and the computer-assisted intervention was repeated at three and six months post-hospitalization to support participants through the process of quitting smoking. A copy of the computer printout was mailed to patients' outpatient providers.

"A key aspect of the intervention is that we did not assume all patients were ready to quit," Prochaska said. "We met them where they were at and worked with them over time. When they became ready to quit, we were there for them, and they could get the patches to help with withdrawals."

Only a small number of patients - 16 percent - initially said they were prepared to quit when they enrolled in the study, though over time they became progressively more committed to the process, which is typical in these types of interventions, Prochaska said.

The participants all were contacted following hospital discharge at one week and at three-, six-, 12- and 18-month follow-ups. Quit rates were confirmed with breath samples or by a third party who knew the participant.

At the end of the 18 months, 20 percent of those in the treatment group had quit smoking, compared to just 7.7 percent in the control group, the researchers found. Moreover, there were fewer hospital readmissions among those in the treatment group - 44 percent, compared to 56 percent in the control group.

This is the first finding of its kind, and Prochaska said it needs to be replicated. But at a minimum, she added, treating patients' smoking did not harm their mental health recovery and may have even enhanced it.

"I think some of the therapeutic contact that addressed participants' tobacco dependence, and supported them with this major health goal, may have generalized to them feeling better about their mental health condition," she said.

The patients' diagnoses and the severity of their symptoms had no impact on intervention outcomes, the researchers found. "Assumptions we have made in the field - that these patients don't want to quit, are too ill to quit or that quitting will hurt their mental health recovery - none of that held up," she said.

What did influence outcomes were patients' perceptions at the study start of how successful they would be with quitting and how difficult it would be to not relapse, as well as their level of nicotine dependence - the same factors that affect smoking-cessation results in the general population.

Prochaska said reaction from the psychiatric community thus far has been positive. "I received a call from a clinician asking to make a referral - saying this is a great program. She then asked, 'Should we stop giving out cigarettes at our clinic?' I thanked her for the call and encouraged, 'Yes, please do.' The work is raising consciousness and has the potential to change practices. If we wonder in our field why our patients smoke at such high rates, we have to start by looking at how we've addressed tobacco. This is the one group that has been encouraged to smoke and discouraged from quitting by their providers. The tide is changing, and this is a very exciting time for the field."

Prochaska and her colleagues are now following up with a larger trial involving more than 900 patients at Stanford Hospital & Clinics, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Berkeley, and UCSF's Langley Porter.

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our mental health section for the latest news on this subject.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Efficacy of Initiating Tobacco Dependence Treatment in Inpatient Psychiatry: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The other co-authors of the study are Stephen Hall, MD, Kevin Delucchi, PhD, and Sharon Hall, PhD, all of UCSF. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301403

Stanford University Medical Center

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Stanford University Medical Center. "Rehospitalization less likely for psychiatric patients given smoking-cessation treatment." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 18 Aug. 2013. Web.
18 Aug. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


'Rehospitalization less likely for psychiatric patients given smoking-cessation treatment'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here

Subset of type 1 diabetes patients with strong response to therapy identified

Main Category: Diabetes
Article Date: 19 Aug 2013 - 1:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Subset of type 1 diabetes patients with strong response to therapy identified
not yet ratednot yet rated

Primary results from a new clinical trial show that patients with type 1 diabetes treated with the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (MacroGenics, Inc.) exhibit greater preservation of C-peptide, a biomarker of islet cell function, compared to controls. Further analyses identified a discrete subset of the treatment group that demonstrated especially robust responses ("responders"), suggesting that these patients could be identified prior to treatment. The trial, entitled "Autoimmunity-Blocking Antibody for Tolerance in Recently Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes" (AbATE), was conducted by the Immune Tolerance Network (ITN). The results are available online and will be published in the November issue of the journal Diabetes.

The AbATE study, led by Kevan Herold, MD (Yale University), tested teplizumab, which targets the CD3 receptor found on T cells, in patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes. CD3 is required for T-cell activation, which can lead to the destruction of insulin-producing beta cells. A previous ITN study with teplizumab showed that a single course of the drug slowed C-peptide decline in new-onset patients for a year, after which the effects waned. The aim of the AbATE study was to test whether C-peptide preservation could be prolonged by administering two courses of teplizumab, one year apart.

In this open-label, Phase II study, 77 new-onset patients (ages 8 to 30 years old) were randomized to receive either teplizumab or a control. Those in the treatment arm received the scheduled treatment consisting of two 14-day courses of teplizumab, one year apart. Both arms received intensive diabetes care from certified diabetes educators and were followed for two years. The primary endpoint compared C-peptide preservation between the two groups.

After two years, the teplizumab-treated group showed significantly greater preservation of C-peptide (75-percent higher responses compared to the control group).

Further analysis revealed that within the treatment arm two groups of patients could be distinguished based on their C-peptide levels: one group, considered "responders" (22/49), showed very little C-peptide decline over the course of the study (only a 6 percent reduction from baseline), while the "non-responders" (27/49) exhibited a similar rate of C-peptide decline as the control group (less than 40-percent reduction from baseline).

Investigators measured various biomarkers and cell types that might distinguish between these two groups. They found that, at trial entry, "responders" had lower hemoglobin A1c levels (a marker of glucose concentration in the blood) and used less insulin at baseline, compared to "non-responders". Differences in specific T-cell subsets also distinguished between the two groups at baseline, suggesting that immune status might contribute to drug responsiveness. However, further studies will be required to confirm these results.

"This overall approach to identifying characteristics of individuals most likely to respond to therapies shows great promise because the responders in this study experienced a robust and prolonged drug effect," said Dr. Herold. "This type of response has not been seen in other studies of immune therapies."

Type 1 diabetes is a disease marked by immune destruction of insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas. New-onset patients usually have 20 to 40 percent of their normal beta cell mass remaining, which is still capable of producing insulin. Preserving this remaining mass, even temporarily, could improve long-term clinical outcomes.

Immune modulators, like teplizumab, represent a promising means of inducing tolerance; however, no drug has been shown to prevent or reverse disease, and only a few have temporarily delayed disease progression. The ability to identify a subgroup of patients who may be more responsive to therapy could greatly enhance the clinical use of immune modulators and improve outcomes for those patients. Further analyses with specimens collected from the AbATE study are ongoing to understand the mechanism of response.

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our diabetes section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Network, Immune Tolerance. "Subset of type 1 diabetes patients with strong response to therapy identified." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 19 Aug. 2013. Web.
19 Aug. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


'Subset of type 1 diabetes patients with strong response to therapy identified'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here