Dominant negative mutations in STAT3, a critical signaling molecule and transcription factor in multiple organ systems, lead to a rare monogenic disease called the STAT3 loss-of-function, autosomal dominant hyper-IgE syndrome (STAT3LOF AD-HIES). The original name for this syndrome, Job’s syndrome, was derived from the observation that patients had a propensity to develop skin boils, reminiscent of the affliction cast upon the biblical Job. Many fascinating observations have been made regarding the pathogenesis of the disease and the role STAT3 plays in human health and disease. Additionally, quite a few phenotypic descriptions from the Book of Job are similar to those seen in patients with STAT3LOF AD-HIES, beyond just the boils. This complex multisystem genetic disorder is a challenge clinically and scientifically, but it also brings into question how we approach genetic syndromes beyond just the technical aspects of research and treatment.
This Supplement of Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal presents the abstracts from the Fourteenth Annual Rambam Research Day. These abstracts represent the newest basic and clinical research coming out of Rambam Health Care Campus—research that is the oxygen for education and development of tomorrow’s generation of physicians. Hence, the research presented on Rambam Research Day is the foundation for understanding patient needs and improving treatment modalities. Bringing research from the bench to the bedside and from the bedside to the community is at the heart of Maimonides’ scholarly and ethical legacy.
The porphyrias are a group of rare metabolic disorders, inherited or acquired, along the heme biosynthetic pathway, which could manifest with neurovisceral and/or cutaneous symptoms, depending on the defective enzyme. Neurovisceral porphyrias are characterized by acute attacks, in which excessive heme production is induced following exposure to a trigger. An acute attack usually presents with severe abdominal pain, vomiting, and tachycardia. Other symptoms which could appear include hypertension, hyponatremia, peripheral neuropathy, and mild mental symptoms. In severe attacks there could be severe symptoms including seizures and psychosis. If untreated, the attack might become very severe, affecting the peripheral, central, and autonomic nervous system, leading to paralysis, respiratory failure, hyponatremia, coma, and even death. From the biochemical point of view, acute attacks are involved with increased levels of precursors in the heme biosynthetic pathway, up to the deficient step. Of these precursors, aminolevulinic acid (ALA) is considered to be neurotoxic. Treatment is directed to reduce ALA production by reducing the activity of the enzyme aminolevulinate synthase (ALAS)—most effectively by heme therapy. Cutaneous symptoms are a consequence of elevated porphyrins in the blood stream. These porphyrins react to light; therefore sun-exposed areas are affected, producing fragile erosive skin lesions in porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT) or non-scarring stinging and burning symptoms in erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP). Unlike the most common neurovisceral porphyria, acute intermittent porphyria (AIP), variegate porphyria (VP), and hereditary coproporphyria (HCP) can have cutaneous symptoms as well. Differentiating them from other cutaneous porphyrias is essential for accurate diagnosis, treatment, and patient recommendations.
OBJECTIVE: Right-sided endocarditis (RSE) accounts for 5%–10% of all cases of infective endocarditis (IE) and frequently has different etiological, pathogenetic, and clinical presentations compared with left-sided endocarditis (LSE). The aims of this study were to evaluate the epidemiologic and clinical characteristics and prognosis of RSE patients and to compare them with those of LSE patients. This study’s importance relates to the local understanding of RSE and LSE, since Israeli demographics are different compared to the Unites States and Europe with regard to intravenous drug abuse and rheumatic valvular disease prevalence.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 215 patients with infective endocarditis was performed. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were duration of hospitalization, recurrent hospitalization, recurrent infective endocarditis, and one-year mortality.
RESULTS: Of the 215 patients in the study, 176 had LSE and 39 had RSE. The RSE patients were younger than the LSE patients (48.1±18.9 years versus 61.8±17.0 years, P<0.001). The most common pathogen in both groups was Staphylococcus aureus, which occurred more in the RSE group (51%) versus the LSE group (19%). In-hospital mortality was lower among patients with RSE (2.6% versus 17%, P<0.037).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated an increasing percentage of RSE compared to LSE among patients with IE. Pacemaker lead infection has become the leading cause of RSE in intravenous drug users (IVDU), although less common in Southern Israel. The etiological and clinical differences between RSE and LSE are noteworthy. Patients with RSE have a better prognosis than those with LSE.
Giant cell arteritis (GCA) and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) are both more common among people of North European decent than among Mediterranean people. Women are 2–3 times more commonly affected. Giant cell arteritis and PMR are extremely rare before age 50 years. Polymyalgia rheumatica may be “isolated” or associated with GCA. There is increased expression of inflammatory cytokines in temporal arteries of PMR patients, without overt histological evidence of arteritis. One-third of “isolated” PMR patients have vascular uptake in positron emission tomography (PET) scans, suggesting clinically unrecognized, “hidden” GCA. Typical manifestations of GCA are headache, tenderness over temporal arteries, jaw claudication, PMR, acute vision loss, and low-grade fever. Bilateral aching of the shoulders with morning stiffness is typical for PMR. In both conditions sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein are elevated, and anemia and thrombocytosis may occur. Color duplex ultrasonography of the temporal arteries may aid in GCA diagnosis. Temporal artery biopsy showing vasculitis, often with giant cells, confirms GCA diagnosis. In cases with negative biopsy one must rely on the clinical presentation and laboratory abnormalities. The diagnosis of PMR is made primarily on clinical grounds. Other conditions that may mimic GCA or PMR must be excluded. Glucocorticoids are the treatment of choice for both conditions. Prompt treatment is crucial in GCA, to prevent irreversible complications of acute vision loss and stroke. Addition of low-dose aspirin may further prevent these complications. The average duration of treatment is 2–3 years, but some patients require a prolonged course of treatment, and some may develop disease-related or treatment-related complications. No steroid-sparing agent has been proven to be widely effective thus far, but some promising therapeutic agents are currently being studied.
Autoinflammatory diseases (AID) are characterized by seemingly unprovoked self-limited attacks of fever and systemic inflammation potentially leading to amyloidosis. Familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) is the most common AID and therefore the most studied. Besides FMF, the other main hereditary AID are tumor necrosis factor-associated periodic fever syndrome (TRAPS), mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), and cryopyrin-associated periodic fever syndrome (CAPS). These hereditary diseases result from a mutant gene that is involved in the regulation of inflammation, resulting in a characteristic clinical phenotype. The differential diagnosis of AID can be challenging due to a wide overlap in clinical manifestations. Moreover, a considerable proportion of patients present with autoinflammatory symptoms but without a pathogenetic variant on genetic analysis. Furthermore, non-hereditary AID, such as the periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, pharyngitis, adenitis (PFAPA) syndrome, which is the most common AID in children worldwide, must be excluded in certain circumstances. Herein we shall review the main AID and describe a practical approach to diagnosis in a patient with a clinical suspicion of AID.
The authors present a systematic review of randomized and observational, retrospective and prospective studies to compare between robotic surgery as opposed to laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal surgery for the treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications. The comparison focuses on operative times, surgical outcomes, and surgical complications associated with the various surgical techniques. PubMed was the main search engine utilized in search of study data. The review included studies of various designs that included at least 25 women who had undergone robotic gynecologic surgery. Fifty-five studies (42 comparative and 13 non-comparative) met eligibility criteria. After careful analysis, we found that robotic surgery was consistently connected to shorter post-surgical hospitalization when compared to open surgery, a difference less significant when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Also, it seems that robotic surgery is highly feasible in gynecology. There are quite a few inconsistencies regarding operative times and estimated blood loss between the different approaches, though in the majority of studies estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic surgery group. The high variance in operative times resulted from the difference in surgeon’s experience. The decision whether robotic surgery should become mainstream in gynecological surgery or remain another surgical technique in the gynecological surgeon’s toolbox requires quite a few more randomized controlled clinical trials. In any case, in order to bring robotic surgery down to the front row of surgery, training surgeons is by far the most important goal for the next few years.
To evaluate the decrease in luteinizing hormone (LH) levels following gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist administration in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, data were retrospectively collected from 305 consecutive IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles of patients who underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins and were treated with GnRH antagonist for the prevention of premature luteinization. We compared the percent change in LH concentration from stimulation start to that observed before ovulation triggering in patients with or without anovulation. Anovulatory patients were younger, with higher body mass index (BMI), and demonstrated higher ovarian reserve parameters as compared to ovulatory patients. The decline in LH concentration was almost two-fold greater in anovulatory versus ovulatory patients. Numbers of oocytes, fertilizations, cleavage stage embryos, and transferred embryos were similar; however, implantation rates were higher in anovulatory versus ovulatory patients. Older patients (age ≥39) showed a smaller decline in LH levels as compared to younger ones (age <39) and exhibited poor IVF outcomes. There is a wide range of pituitary responses to GnRH antagonists. Anovulatory patients are more susceptible to GnRH antagonists and therefore demonstrate over-suppression of the pituitary. Older patients demonstrate a reduced pituitary response to GnRH antagonists than younger ones. Cycle scheduling with estradiol pretreatment did not influence LH decline, nor IVF treatment outcomes.
The author, a practicing physician, was diagnosed with throat cancer and lost his vocal cords. He endured the side effects of radiation, repeated surgeries, and the effects of prolonged hospitalizations; confronted medical mistakes and discrimination after losing his vocal cords; and struggled to regain his speech and find new meaning and purpose for his life. Facing the hardship and trials of becoming a laryngectomee illustrated to him how dependent and helpless a patient can become. Being unable to speak, eat, and breathe normally, while dealing with a potentially terminal illness, makes the patient very vulnerable, both physically and emotionally. A skillful, competent, error-free, empathetic, and caring approach that recognizes what the patient is experiencing can expedite recovery and well-being and help the patient return to a productive and meaningful life.
Over the past decade the phenomenon of cannabis as a legitimate form of treatment for pain has overwhelmed the medical community, especially in the field of pain. From a status of a schedule 1 substance having no currently accepted medical use and being considered to have high potential for abuse, its use has mushroomed to over 50,000 legal medical users per year in Israel alone. There appear to be many reasons behind this phenomenon—medical, sociological, and economical. Thus, what is cannabis? An abusive substance or a medication? Should it be incorporated into current biomedical practice, and how should it be administered? Finally, what is the evidence for the beneficial and detrimental effects of cannabis? This article reviews and discusses the current literature regarding the beneficial and the detrimental effects of medical cannabis in the treatment of pain. We further discuss the problems and challenges facing the medical community in this domain and offer a practical approach to deal with these challenges.
