Citations

Background Physician burnout is of growing concern. Burnout among physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians has shown a significant increase, positioning PM&R as one of the most “burned out” of specialties. Little has been written about potential factors contributing to physiatrist burnout or potential interventions. Objective To determine the prevalence of burnout among physiatrists and identify risk factors for burnout and potential strategies to decrease burnout among physiatrists. Design Prospective cross‐sectional survey. Setting National survey of board certified physiatrists. Participants: One thousand five hundred thirty‐six physiatrists certified by the American Board of PM&R. Outcome The Mini‐Z Burnout Survey, 1 question from the Maslach Burnout Scale on callousness toward patients, and several potential drivers of burnout. The probability of burnout, identified by question 3 on the Mini‐Z, was the dependent variable. Other questions on the Mini‐Z were explored as independent variables using logistic regression. Results Seven hundred seventy physiatrists (50.7%) fulfilled the definition of burnout. Only 38% of physiatrists reported not becoming more callous toward patients. The top 3 causes of burnout identified by physiatrists were increasing regulatory demands, workload and job demands, and practice inefficiency and lack of resources. Higher burnout rate was associated with high levels of job stress and working more hours per week. Lower burnout rates were associated with higher job satisfaction, control over workload, professional values aligned with those of department leaders, and sufficient time for documentation. There was no significant association between burnout and sex, years in practice, practice focus, or practice area. Conclusion Burnout is a significant problem among PM&R physicians and is pervasive throughout the specialty. Opportunities exist to address major contributing drivers of burnout relating to practice patterns and efficiency of care within PM&R. These opportunities are, to varying degrees, under the control of hospital leaders, practice administrators, and practitioners.

Background. Neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia of infancy (NEHI) is a rare respiratory disorder. During infancy, it typically presents with hypoxemia, tachypnea, and respiratory distress, and is commonly misdiagnosed as common childhood illnesses such as pneumonia, reactive airway disease, or bronchiolitis. Lack of awareness about this relatively new and rare disorder in primary care and acute care settings lead to delayed diagnosis and unnecessary use of antibiotics. Case Presentation. We present a case of a 7-month-old girl, born prematurely at 32 weeks with tachypnea and respiratory distress who was initially diagnosed with viral pneumonia, then upper respiratory infection, and finally with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, while the child never had any fever or upper respiratory symptoms. Failure of outpatient treatment with oral antibiotic and bronchodilator, with the persistence of respiratory symptoms such as retractions, bilateral crackles, and hypoxemia led to hospitalization for intravenous antibiotics. Given persistent symptoms, further evaluation was performed, and she was diagnosed with NEHI based on characteristic chest CT findings. Conclusions. Viral respiratory infections are the most frequent cause of respiratory illnesses in the first years of life. Primary care providers should be aware of less frequent causes of persistent respiratory symptoms in infancy like NEHI and other interstitial lung diseases in children. This may prevent unnecessary use of antibiotics and delayed diagnosis.

Ataxia is a constellation of symptoms that involves a lack of coordination, imbalance, and difficulty walking. Hereditary ataxia occurs when a person is born with defective genes, and this degenerative disorder may progress for several years. There is no effective cure for ataxia, so we need to search for new treatments. Recently, interest in riluzole in the treatment of ataxia has emerged. We conducted this systematic review to analyze the safety and efficacy of riluzole for treating hereditary ataxia in recent clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review using PubMed and Google Scholar as databases in search of this relationship. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) protocols to conduct this study. For inclusion criteria, we included full-text clinical trials on humans written in English and found three clinical trials. We excluded case reports, literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses for this analysis. We aimed to evaluate the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) score, the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) score, and the safety of the medication. Two out of the three clinical trials showed statistically significant clinical improvement in the ICARS and SARA scores, while the other trial did not show improvement in the clinical or radiological outcomes. The drug was safe in all clinical trials. Overall, the results of this analysis of riluzole for the treatment of hereditary ataxia are encouraging. Further clinical trials are needed to investigate the efficacy of riluzole on hereditary ataxia.

AbstractBackgroundThere is a need to better understand the overall state of sub‐specialization in physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R).ObjectiveTo examine the status and trends in subspecialty certification for each of the seven subspecialties approved for American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) diplomates.Design/SettingRetrospective analysis of deidentified information from the ABPMR database.ParticipantsPhysicians certified by ABPMR through 2019.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresFor each subspecialty, we examined: (1) the number of certificates issued to ABPMR diplomates; (2) the recertification rate; (3) the yearly trends for total active, new, and expired certificates; and (4) for ABPMR‐administered subspecialties, recertification rates for those entering the subspecialty through fellowship completion versus a “grandfathered” practice pathway.ResultsOf 11,421 ABPMR diplomates in the United States in 2019, a total of 3560 (31.2%) had 3985 active subspecialty certificates. Pain Medicine (PM) was the most common subspecialty certification (15.5% of all ABPMR diplomates) followed by Sports Medicine (SM, 6.6%), Brain Injury Medicine (BIM, 4.8%), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (SCIM, 4.2%), Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM, 2.5%), Neuromuscular Medicine (NMM, 0.7%), and Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM, 0.5%). For diplomates with more than one subspecialty certification, PM and SM was the most frequent combination. Both the recertification rate and the end of practice track eligibility influenced certification trends differently for individual subspecialties. The average number of new certificates added annually for every subspecialty was higher before than after the temporary practice track‐based eligibility ended; the difference was statistically significant (p < .05) for SCIM, PM, SM, and NMM. The recertification rate for all subspecialties combined was 73.4%. For the subspecialties (SCIM, PRM) for which these data were available, fellowship candidates had higher recertification rates than those grandfathered through a practice track.ConclusionThis report informs stakeholders about the state and evolution of subspecialty certification in PM&R over time.

Background Sedatives are frequently administered in an ICU and are often dependent on patient population and ICU type. These differences may affect patient-centered outcomes. Objective Our primary objective was to identify differences in sedation practice among three different ICU types at an academic medical center. Methods This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of adult patients (≥18 years) requiring a continuous sedative for ≥6 h and admitted to a medical ICU, surgical ICU, and medical/surgical ICU at a single academic medical center in Rochester Minnesota from June 1, 2018 to May 31, 2020. We extracted baseline characteristics; sedative type, dose, and duration; concomitant therapies; and patient outcomes. Summary statistics are presented. Results A total of 2154 patients met our study criteria (1010 from medical ICU, 539 from surgical ICU, 605 from medical/surgical ICU). Propofol was the most frequently used sedative in all ICU settings (74.1% in medical ICU, 53.8% in surgical ICU, 68.9% in medical/surgical ICU, and 67.5% in all ICUs). The mortality rate was highest in the medical/surgical ICU (40.2% in medical ICU, 26.0% in surgical ICU, 40.7% in medical/surgical ICU, and 36.8% in all ICUs). 90.7% of all patients required mechanical ventilation (92.9% in medical ICU, 88.5% in surgical ICU, and 89.1% in medical/surgical ICU). Overall, patients spent more time in light sedation than deep sedation, 75% versus 10.3%, during their ICU admission. Patients in the medical ICU spent a greater proportion of time positive for delirium than the other ICU settings (35.7% in medical ICU, 9.8% in surgical ICU, and 20% in medical/surgical ICU). Similar amounts of opioids (morphine milligram equivalents) were used during the continuous sedative infusion between the three settings. Conclusions We observed that patients in the medical ICU spent more time deeply sedated with multiple agents which was associated with a higher proportion of delirium.

Abstract TGFβ plays a pivotal role in the pathobiology of myelofibrosis (MF) by not only promoting bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) but also by enhancing the dormancy of normal but not MF hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). TGFβ has also previously been reported to inhibit normal megakaryocyte (MK) production (Bruno et al Blood 1998). TGFβ1 promotes the synthesis of collagen by normal human mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). Treatment of MSCs with AVID200, a potent TGFβ1/3 protein trap, significantly decreased MSC proliferation, phosphorylation of SMAD2, and collagen expression. Robust expression of pSMAD2 was observed in the absence of exogenous TGFβ in normal donor or MF-MKs, Addition of AVID200 to MKs decreased pSMAD2 without affecting total SMAD2/3 and led to increased numbers of MKs. Treatment of MF MNCs with AVID200 also led to increased numbers of progenitor cells with wild type JAK2 and a reduction of mutated colonies. A phase 1b trial of AVID200 (NCT03895112) was performed and completed in INT-2/high risk MF patients resistant/intolerant to ruxolitinib (rux); baseline platelet count of ≥ 25 x 10 9/L, and grade 2/3 BMF. Subjects received AVID200 intravenously on Day 1 of a 21 day cycle. Response was assessed by IWG/ELN criteria after 6 cycles of AVID200. Subjects attaining at least a CI or SD with a decrease in BMF by ≥1 grade, continued AVID200. We previously presented the results of the dose escalation study (Mascarenhas ASH 2020) demonstrating that AVID200 was well tolerated without dose limiting toxicities at 3 tested dose levels (Lots A and B) in dose cohorts of 180 mg (A), 550 mg (A)/70 mg (B), and 180 mg (B). Here we report updated safety and efficacy results of the phase 1b dose expansion stage at the two highest doses tested (70 mg (B) and 180 mg (B). Twenty-two subjects were enrolled (1 withdrew before receiving treatment) and 9 were treated with AVID200 in the dose escalation phase and 12 in the dose expansion phase [Table1]. Median time after rux discontinuation was 7.4 months (0.5-59.9). The most common mutations observed at baseline in this cohort included JAK2V617F (71%), TET2 (29%) ASXL1 (24%) and CALR (19%). (Fig 1) No DLTs were observed and Grade 3/4 AEs were observed in 16 (76.2%) subjects. Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs were observed in 8 (38.1%) subjects and included one subject in each case (epistaxis, mucositis, extraocular muscle paresis, fatigue, rash, duodenal hemorrhage, gastric hemorrhage, urinary tract infection, and syncope). Grade 3/4 hematologic AEs were anemia (6; 28.3%) and thrombocytopenia (2; 14.3%) [Table 2]. No fatal events were observed. The median number of cycles received was 5 (range 2 - 13) and 7 (33%) patients received more than 6 cycles. For dose levels 2-3 at cycle 7, a CI was attained in one subject at dose level 2 [anemia, spleen and TSS], 5 subjects had SD, 3 subjects had PD and two subjects with 10% and 15% blasts at screening developed MPN-BP while on study based on central review. Reasons for discontinuation by local PI included PD (n=8), lack of response (n=5), study completed (n=2), other (n=2), patient decision (n=1). Median % change in palpable spleen length was +10% (range -70% to +150%) and TSS change was -50% (-100% to +185.7%) The median platelet count at baseline was 114 x 10 9/L (range: 28-695) and 215 x 10 9/L (range: 66-263) after cycle 6 in 7 evaluable subjects (Fig 2A). Notably, 17 subjects had an increase in platelets from baseline during treatment and two subjects normalized their platelet counts. Maximum changes in platelets from baseline across all cycles was +63.8% [range -15.7%, +505.5%] (Fig 2B). Paired bone marrow biopsy pathology samples for 12 subjects were available for central review and showed no significant changes in BMF score or MK histo topography at end of treatment compared to baseline. All patients had elevated plasma levels of TGF β1, but not TGFβ2/β3 levels as detected by ELISA, which were dramatically reduced 21 days after the last dose of AVID200. AVID200 a TGFβ1/3 protein trap is well tolerated and clinical responses at cycle 7 of therapy in this advanced MF patient population were limited as judged by IWG/MRT response criteria. However, AVID200 therapy resulted in significant reduction in serum TGFβ levels and improvements in platelet counts indicating that TGF β1 plays a pivotal role in MF leading to thrombocytopenia which can be reversed with AVID200 therapy. We conclude that AVID200 may best be employed in combination therapy approaches in thrombocytopenic MF patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Constellation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Promedior: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Geron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forbius: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaEssentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Galecto: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prelude: Consultancy; Kartos: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI Biopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Geron: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merus: Research Funding. Palmer: PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kuykendall: Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Pharmaessentia: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Abbvie: Honoraria; Blueprint: Honoraria. Mesa: Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharma: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rampal: Stemline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Memorial Sloan Kettering: Current Employment; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Disc Medicine: Consultancy; Blueprint: Consultancy; Pharmaessentia: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Constellation: Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy. Gerds: PharmaEssentia Corporation: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Yacoub: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ACCELERON PHARMA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Dynavex: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Cara: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Talpaz: Imago: Consultancy; Constellation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Grant/research support ; Celgene: Consultancy. Komrokji: Acceleron: Consultancy; Taiho Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; BMSCelgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PharmaEssentia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Geron: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kremyanskaya: Astellas: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Chimerix: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Salama: Mayo Clinic: Current Employment, Other: Mayo Clinic had the contractual work for the central pathology review for this study and I was one of the reviewing pathologists; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hoffman: Kartos Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; AbbVie Inc.: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: AVID200 is a TGFb trap and is in clinical testing for fibrotic diseases. It does not have an approved indication at this time.

Abstract Myelofibrosis (MF) is a clonal stem cell neoplasm characterized by abnormal JAK-STAT signaling, chronic inflammation, cytopenias, and risk of transformation to acute leukemia. Despite improvements in the therapeutic options for patients with MF, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation remains the only curative treatment. We previously demonstrated multiple immunosuppressive mechanisms in patients with MF, including increased expression of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) on T cells compared with healthy controls. Therefore, we conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase 2, single-arm study of pembrolizumab in patients with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System category of intermediate-2 or greater primary, post-essential thrombocythemia or post-polycythemia vera myelofibrosis that were ineligible for or were previously treated with ruxolitinib. The study followed a Simon 2-stage design and enrolled a total of 10 patients, 5 of whom had JAK2V617mutation, 2 had CALR mutation, and 6 had additional mutations. Most patients were previously treated with ruxolitinib. Pembrolizumab treatment was well tolerated, but there were no objective clinical responses, so the study closed after the first stage was completed. However, immune profiling by flow cytometry, T-cell receptor sequencing, and plasma proteomics demonstrated changes in the immune milieu of patients, which suggested improved T-cell responses that can potentially favor antitumor immunity. The fact that these changes were not reflected in a clinical response strongly suggests that combination immunotherapeutic approaches rather than monotherapy may be necessary to reverse the multifactorial mechanisms of immune suppression in myeloproliferative neoplasms. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03065400.

BackgroundOsteopathic physicians (DOs) represent over 30% of residents in allopathic (MD) Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) training programs. However, some have questioned the quality of osteopathic medical school training and the graduates of osteopathic medical schools. The performance of osteopathic physicians in allopathic PM&R training programs has not been assessed.ObjectiveTo compare allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) physician performance on American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) initial certifying examinations.DesignRetrospective cross‐sectional study.SettingBoard‐eligible PM&R physicians.ParticipantsMDs and DOs who completed an allopathic ACGME‐accredited PM&R residency training program.MethodsMD and DO pass rates and mean scaled scores on the ABPMR initial certifying examinations were compared. MD versus DO degrees and training program 6 years aggregate board pass rates were independent variables.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasureMD and DO pass rates and mean scaled scores on the ABPMR initial certifying examinations.ResultsOf the 2187 physicians who were first‐time ABPMR initial certifying examination takers, there were 1596 MDs (73%) and 591 DOs (27%). No statistically significant difference was found in pass rates between MDs and DOs on Part I (94.9% vs. 93.9%, P = .35) or Part II (87.8% vs. 88%, P = .83) of the ABPMR certifying examination. Analysis of mean scaled scores demonstrated higher MD scores on both Part I ( 526, SD = 31, vs. 516, SD = 67, P = .002) and Part II ( 6.73, SD = .83 vs. 6.62, SD = .77, P = .005), significant only in programs with a 90%‐100% pass rate. These differences, however, were of very small magnitude and likely not meaningful from a clinical or educational perspective.ConclusionThis study did not find meaningful differences in performance on the ABPMR certifying examinations between MDs and DOs.

BackgroundCertification by the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) requires passing both a written multiple choice examination (Part I) and an oral examination (Part II), but it has been unclear whether the two examinations measure the same or different dimensions of knowledge.ObjectiveTo evaluate the concordance between the Part I and Part II examinations for ABPMR initial certification with regard to candidate performance on the examinations and their subsets. Our question is whether the Part II examination provides additional assessment of a candidate beyond what Part I provides.DesignRetrospective psychometric evaluation of deidentified board examination scores.SettingABPMR database of Part I and Part II examination scores.ParticipantsCandidates for the ABPMR Part I and Part II examinations after 2005, with a more detailed analysis of candidates for the Part I examination from 2014 to 2016. Examination scores of candidates who took the Part II examination both before and after the examination was standardized in 2005 were also used for an additional analysis.MethodsCorrelations, simple linear regressions, and principal components analysis.Main Outcome MeasurementsCorrelation coefficients, variance analysis, and unexplained variance in the principal components analysis.ResultsThere is a weak to moderate correlation between performance on the Part I and Part II examinations: r = 0.33, P < .001. There is an additional dimension of assessment that is demonstrated on the Part II examination, with this being primarily in the domains of systems‐based practice and interpersonal communication skills.ConclusionThe Part I and Part II examinations, although with some overlap, contribute different and meaningful components to the overall evaluation of candidates for board certification in PM&R.Level of EvidenceIII.