American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the diagnosis and treatment of gastroparesis

This literature review and the recommendations herein were prepared for the American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice Committee. The paper was approved by the Committee on May 16, 2004, and by the AGA Governing Board on September 23, 2004.     

Rescuing the physician-scientist workforce: the time for action is now

The 2014 NIH Physician-Scientist Workforce (PSW) Working Group report identified distressing trends among the small proportion of physicians who consider research to be their primary occupation. If unchecked, these trends will lead to a steep decline in the size of the workforce. They include high rates of attrition among young investigators, failure to maintain a robust and diverse pipeline, and a marked increase in the average age of physician-scientists, as older investigators have chosen to continue working and too few younger investigators have entered the workforce to replace them when they eventually retire. While the policy debates continue, here we propose four actions that can be implemented now. These include applying lessons from the MD-PhD training experience to postgraduate training, shortening the time to independence by at least 5 years, achieving greater diversity and numbers in training programs, and establishing Physician-Scientist Career Development offices at medical centers and universities. Rather than waiting for the federal government to solve our problems, we urge the academic community to address these goals by partnering with the NIH and national clinical specialty and medical organizations.In June 2014, the NIH Physician-Scientist Workforce (PSW) Working Group completed a year of data collection and deliberation, and released a report about the status of the PSW (1). The report is a combination of good news and bad news. The good news is that, despite the decline in the NIH budget, the size of the PSW has remained relatively stable. The bad news is that the current demographics, diversity, and career progression of this workforce raise concerns about the future. For a start, although apparently stable in size, the PSW is even smaller than many of us realized, and the apparent stability has hidden important demographic trends. In American Medical Association surveys of the nearly 1 million (and rising) MD physicians in the United States, only 14,000 (1.5%) consider research to be their primary focus (1). Even fewer have NIH grant support; only 8,200 physicians are principal investigators on NIH grants, split evenly between MDs and MD-PhDs (1). The number of extramural NIH-funded physician-scientists with research program (R series) awards has been essentially constant for the past 20 years, while the number of nonphysician (PhD) NIH-funded investigators has increased by half over the same period, reaching 19,400 in 2012 (1). As a result, the percentage of NIH awardees who are physicians has fallen to 30%. Although public policies have encouraged an increase in the number of medical schools and medical students in the US, and medical school admission policies have placed value on undergraduate research, the percentage of physicians focused on research has fallen.At the same time that the PSW has remained stable in size, data in the report show that the average age of the workforce is rising, as older investigators remain employed and younger investigators have not emerged in sufficient numbers. The average age at which a physician-scientist received his or her first NIH R01 grant in 2011 was 44 years for MD-PhDs and 45 years for MDs: approximately 10 years older than in 1980 (2). R01-funded investigators (physicians and nonphysicians) younger than 37 years have all but disappeared, and the time from graduating medical school to obtaining a first faculty position has increased to over 10 years for MD-PhDs and even longer for MDs without a PhD. Women and minorities are underrepresented, having opted not to enter or remain in the workforce. Thus, gathering places for physician-scientists look mostly like clubs for older white men. Without corrective action, the PSW appears headed for a population crash as older investigators retire. We recognize that younger physician-scientists have not entirely disappeared; they just take longer to obtain faculty appointments and independent NIH grants. This situation creates an extended waiting period that we call the holding zone, which contributes to the disturbing demographics (Figure 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1The physician-scientist pipeline: long and leaky.The figure highlights a number of issues, including career attrition at every stage and the existence of a protracted period when well-trained physicians in their 30s are serving in subordinate positions awaiting the next step in their career progression. To draw attention to their plight, we call this period the holding zone. The illustration is based on the experience of MD-PhD program graduates, but many of the issues reflect the obstacles for any would-be physician-scientist. Attrition rates from MD-PhD programs are low, with most of those who withdraw completing medical school or graduate school. Very few MD-PhD program graduates (5% or fewer) choose to forego postgraduate clinical training as residents and fellows. In our experience, career attrition takes many forms and becomes cumulative at each stage, reflecting the proportion of individuals who either never return to research, opt for full-time clinical practice outside of academia, join academia as an assistant professor but spend their time caring for patients, or are appointed to the tenure track but end up devoting minimal time to research (1). A declaration of success depends in part on the definition of success. Outcome data show that approximately 80% of MD-PhD program graduates are working in academia, industry, or research institutes — including the NIH — but not all are doing research (3). Data on NIH award rates, conversions from K grants to R grants, and the proportion of individuals appointed to MSTP T32 grants can be found in the PSW report (1). The NIH continues to track principal investigators on grants but is just starting to track physician-scientists who play essential roles as other key personnel.     

Perceived challenges and attitudes to regimen and product selection from Italian haemophilia treaters: the 2013 AICE survey

Despite great advances in haemophilia care in the last 20 years, a number of questions on haemophilia therapy remain unanswered. These debated issues primarily involve the choice of the product type (plasma‐derived vs. recombinant) for patients with different characteristics: specifically, if they were infected by blood‐borne virus infections, and if they bear high or low risk of inhibitor development. In addition, the most appropriate treatment regimen in non‐inhibitor and inhibitor patients compel physicians operating at the haemophilia treatment centres (HTCs) to take important therapeutic decisions, which are often based on their personal clinical experience rather than on evidence‐based recommendations from published literature data. To know the opinion on the most controversial aspects in haemophilia care of Italian expert physicians, who are responsible for common clinical practice and therapeutic decisions, we have conducted a survey among the Directors of HTCs affiliated to the Italian Association of Haemophilia Centres (AICE). A questionnaire, consisting of 19 questions covering the most important topics related to haemophilia treatment, was sent to the Directors of all 52 Italian HTCs. Forty Directors out of 52 (76.9%) responded, accounting for the large majority of HTCs affiliated to the AICE throughout Italy. The results of this survey provide for the first time a picture of the attitudes towards clotting factor concentrate use and product selection of clinicians working at Italian HTCs.     

Practical Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Gallbladder Cancer

At present, surgical treatment is the only curative option for gallbladder (GB) cancer. Many efforts therefore have been made to improve resectability and the survival rate. However, GB cancer has a low incidence, and no randomized, controlled trials have been conducted to establish the optimal treatment modalities. The present guidelines include recent recommendations based on current understanding and highlight controversial issues that require further research. For T1a GB cancer, the optimal treatment modality is simple cholecystectomy, which can be carried out as either a laparotomy or a laparoscopic surgery. For T1b GB cancer, either simple or an extended cholecystectomy is appropriate. An extended cholecystectomy is generally recommended for patients with GB cancer at stage T2 or above. In extended cholecystectomy, a wedge resection of the GB bed or a segmentectomy IVb/V can be performed and the optimal extent of lymph node dissection should include the cystic duct lymph node, the common bile duct lymph node, the lymph nodes around the hepatoduodenal ligament (the hepatic artery and portal vein lymph nodes), and the posterior superior pancreaticoduodenal lymph node. Depending on patient status and disease severity, surgeons may decide to perform palliative surgeries.

Graphical Abstract

相似文献   

Position statement on opportunistic genomic screening from the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors (UK and Ireland)

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics released recommendations for reporting incidental findings (IFs) in clinical exome and genome sequencing. These suggest ‘opportunistic genomic screening'' should be available to both adults and children each time a sequence is done and would be undertaken without seeking preferences from the patient first. Should opportunistic genomic screening be implemented in the United Kingdom, the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors (AGNC), which represents British and Irish genetic counsellors and nurses, feels strongly that the following must be considered (see article for complete list): (1) Following appropriate genetic counselling, patients should be allowed to consent to or opt out of opportunistic genomic screening. (2) If true IFs are discovered the AGNC are guided by the report from the Joint Committee on Medical Genetics about the sharing of genetic testing results. (3) Children should not be routinely tested for adult-onset conditions. (4) The formation of a list of variants should involve a representative from the AGNC as well as a patient support group. (5) The variants should be for serious or life-threatening conditions for which there are treatments or preventative strategies available. (6) There needs to be robust evidence that the benefits of opportunistic screening outweigh the potential harms. (7) The clinical validity and utility of variants should be known. (8) There must be a quality assurance framework that operates to International standards for laboratory testing. (9) Psychosocial research is urgently needed in this area to understand the impact on patients.     

脊柱结核并发HIV感染/AIDS患者诊断及治疗专家共识

脊柱结核并发HIV感染/AIDS患者因免疫功能低下,治疗的难度成倍增加。为规范脊柱结核并发HIV感染/AIDS患者的诊疗流程,使更多同行了解此类疾病治疗细节,并在治疗时有可靠依据,中国防痨协会骨关节结核专业分会、中国西部骨结核联盟、中国华北骨结核联盟、《中国防痨杂志》编辑委员会共同制定了《脊柱结核并发HIV感染/AIDS患者诊断及治疗专家共识》。本共识从脊柱结核并发HIV感染/AIDS患者的流行病学背景开始论述,对其常见临床表现、实验室检查、诊断标准、药物及手术治疗方法、手术治疗过程中的职业暴露和注意事项,以及研究方向等方面做了深入的阐述与讨论。