This paper presents the full debate held on October 1, 2014, which focused on the following resolution: “Publications which promote political agendas have no place in scientific and medical journals, and academics should refrain from publishing in such journals.”
The debate moderator was Professor Shimon Glick. Taking the pro stance was Professor A. Mark Clarfield; the con stance was held by Professor Rael D. Strous. Following the first part of the debate, Dr Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, gave his thoughts on the topic. This was followed by the opportunity for rebuttal by Professors Clarfield and Strous. The debate was summarized and closed by Professor Glick.
This paper provides a slightly edited text of the debate, for ease of reading.
This paper is provided for the convenience of our readers and represents a full edited transcription of the Rambam Grand Rounds Lecture by Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet. The lecture was given on October 2, 2014. The Editorial Board wishes to express its gratitude to Dr. Horton for giving permission to present his Rambam Grand Rounds lecture in Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal, in both the original video format and in this printed form.
The Jewish principle concerning a decision with regard to a dangerous treatment is as following: A patient who is estimated to die within 12 months because of a fatal illness is permitted to undergo a treatment that on the one hand may extend his life beyond 12 months, but on the other hand may hasten his death. There are, however, several limitations to this ruling related to the chances of success with the proposed treatment, the nature of the treatment, whether it is intended to be curative or merely to postpone the danger and death, whether the treatment is absolutely necessary, and others. One is not obligated to undergo a dangerous treatment, but one is permitted to do so. The permissibility to forfeit a short life expectancy in order to achieve more prolonged life applies only with the patient’s consent. That consent is valid and is not considered a form of attempted suicide. Neither is a refusal to submit to treatment considered an act of suicide; the patient has the right to refuse a dangerous procedure. In all situations where a permissive ruling is granted for a patient to endanger his short life expectancy, the ruling should be arrived at after careful reflection and with the approval of the rabbinic authorities acting on the recommendation of the most expert physicians.
Professionalism is a core competency of physicians. Clinical knowledge and skills (and their maintenance and improvement), good communication skills, and sound understanding of ethics constitutes the foundation of professionalism. Rising from this foundation are behaviors and attributes of professionalism: accountability, altruism, excellence, and humanism, the capstone of which is professionalism. Patients, medical societies, and accrediting organizations expect physicians to be professional. Furthermore, professionalism is associated with better clinical outcomes. Hence, medical learners and practicing physicians should be taught and assessed for professionalism. A number of methods can be used to teach professionalism (e.g. didactic lectures, web-based modules, role modeling, reflection, interactive methods, etc.). Because of the nature of professionalism, no single tool for assessing it among medical learners and practicing physicians exists. Instead, multiple assessment tools must be used (e.g. multi-source feedback using 360-degree reviews, patient feedback, critical incident reports, etc.). Data should be gathered continuously throughout an individual’s career. For the individual learner or practicing physician, data generated by these tools can be used to create a “professionalism portfolio,” the totality of which represents a picture of the individual’s professionalism. This portfolio in turn can be used for formative and summative feedback. Data from professionalism assessments can also be used for developing professionalism curricula and generating research hypotheses. Health care leaders should support teaching and assessing professionalism at all levels of learning and practice and promote learning environments and institutional cultures that are consistent with professionalism precepts.
On May 28, 2014, colleagues from the Mayo Clinic visited Rambam Health Care Campus to gather and exchange ideas and knowledge. American and Israeli caregivers and scientists shared with each other the daily challenges of their practice in many and varied settings. This issue is dedicated to the presentations given and the collaborative efforts we are building as a result of that visit. We hope this issue will serve as an example of the fruitfulness of international collaboration to enhance and propagate medical knowledge worldwide.
Essential monoclonal gammopathy is usually an asymptomatic condition, the characteristics of which have been defined over approximately 70 years of study. It has a known population-attributable risk of undergoing clonal evolution to a progressive, symptomatic B-cell neoplasm. In a very small fraction of patients, the monoclonal immunoglobulin has biophysical characteristics that can lead to tissue deposition syndrome (e.g. Fanconi renal syndrome) or, by chance, have characteristics of an autoantibody that may inactivate critical proteins (e.g. acquired von Willebrand disease). In this report, we describe the very uncommon forms of ocular injury that may accompany essential monoclonal gammopathy, which include crystalline keratopathy, crystal-storing histiocytosis, hypercupremic keratopathy, and maculopathy. The first three syndromes result from uncommon physicochemical alterations of the monoclonal immunoglobulin that favor crystallization or exaggerated copper binding. The last-mentioned syndrome is of uncertain pathogenesis. These syndromes may result in decreased visual acuity. These ocular findings may lead, also, to the diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy.
In rare cases, the monoclonal immunoglobulin that characterizes essential monoclonal gammopathy interacts with a self-antigen with functional consequences and a resulting clinical syndrome. This event is presumably random and results from the clone of B lymphocytes making a monoclonal immunoglobulin that simulates an autoimmune antibody. Thus, by chance, the monoclonal immunoglobulin has sufficient affinity for an epitope on a normal protein that functional consequences ensue. One such rare event is the synthesis and secretion of a monoclonal immunoglobulin that binds to human insulin. Inactivation of insulin by antibody results in (1) an early postprandial hyperglycemia, (2) followed by either or both (i) a reactive overshot in insulin secretion, as a result of hypertrophied or hyperplastic islet beta cells, later falling glucose levels, and (ii) an unpredictable dissociation of insulin from the complex, and, several hours later, (3) a resultant increase in free insulin levels and severe hypoglycemia with clinical consequences, ranging from sweating, dizziness, headache, and tremors to confusion, seizures, and unconsciousness. These attacks are invariably responsive to glucose administration. This very uncommon manifestation of a monoclonal gammopathy can occur in patients with essential monoclonal gammopathy or myeloma. The monoclonal anti-insulin immunoglobulin in monoclonal gammopathy has a low affinity for insulin, but has a high capacity for insulin-binding, resulting in the syndrome of episodic hypoglycemic attacks. This phenomenon of an insulin-binding monoclonal immunoglobulin simulates the acquired insulin autoimmune syndrome, although the latter is mediated by a polyclonal antibody response in the majority of cases studied, and has linkage to HLA class II alleles.
Background: Postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is a common form of chronic orthostatic intolerance. The remarkable increase in heart rate (HR) upon standing is the hallmark of this syndrome. Treatment of POTS patients is challenging and includes drugs that slow the HR. Ivabradine is a selective If channel blocker designed to slow the HR, as an anti-anginal agent. In view of its ability to slow the HR, we posited that ivabradine may be an ideal medication for treating POTS patients. This report provides the results of an investigation in which we studied ivabradine’s effect on the hemodynamics and sympathovagal balance in POTS patients.
Methods: An open-label trial, without a placebo control, was performed in eight patients with POTS of two years’ standing. Characterization of symptoms, hemodynamics, autonomic function tests, and HR and blood pressure (BP) variability were determined while patients were in a supine position and during a 20-minute head-up tilt before and after a single oral dose of 7.5 mg ivabradine.
Results: Ivabradine slowed the HR of POTS patients at rest by 4±1 bpm (P<0.05). During a 5-minute head-up tilt, the HR decreased from 118±4 bpm to 101±5 bpm (P<0.01). Ivabradine did not affect the BP when patients were at rest in a supine position or in head-up tilt position. Cardiovascular vagal and sympathetic tone, extrapolated from the time and frequency domains of the HR and BP variability, were also not affected by ivabradine.
Conclusions: Ivabradine is an effective drug for slowing the HR of POTS patients at rest and during tilting, without producing significant adverse effects. Moreover, ivabradine exerts its effects without influencing the sympathovagal balance.
The number needed to treat (NNT) is a simple measure of a treatment’s impact, increasingly reported in randomized trials and observational studies. It has been found to be incorrectly calculated in several studies involving varying follow-up times. We discuss the NNT in these contexts and illustrate the concept using several published studies. The computation of the NNT is founded on the cumulative incidence of the outcome. Instead, several published studies use simple proportions that do not account for varying follow-up times, or use incidence rates per person-time. We show how these approaches can lead to erroneous values of the NNT and misleading interpretations. For example, a trial of 3,845 very elderly hypertensives randomized to a diuretic or placebo reported a NNT of 94 treated for 2 years to prevent one stroke, though the correct approach results in a NNT of 63. We also note that meta-analyses involve trials of differing lengths, but often report a single NNT. For example a meta-analysis of 22 trials of the anticholinergic tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reported a NNT of 16 patients “over one year,” even if the trials varied in duration from 3 to 48 months, with the more specifically computed NNTs varying widely from 72, 15, and 250 for the 3-month, 12-month, and 48-month trials, respectively. Finally, we describe the value of the NNT in assessing benefit–risk, such as low-dose aspirin use in secondary prevention, where prevention of mortality was assessed against the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. As the “number needed to treat” becomes increasingly used in the comparative effectiveness and safety of therapies, its accurate estimation and interpretation become crucial to avoid distorting clinical, economic, and public health decisions.
