A Tool to Assess Patient and Surrogate Knowledge About the POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) Program

ContextIt is especially important that patients are well informed when making high-stakes, preference-sensitive decisions like those on the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form. However, there is currently no way to easily evaluate whether patients understand key concepts when making these important decisions.ObjectivesTo develop a POLST knowledge survey.MethodsExpert (n = 62) ratings of key POLST facts were used to select items for a POLST knowledge survey. The survey was administered to nursing facility residents (n = 97) and surrogate decision-makers (n = 112). A subset (n = 135) were re-administered the survey after a standardized advance care planning discussion to assess the scale's responsiveness to change.ResultsThe 19-item survey demonstrated adequate reliability (α = 0.72.). Residents' scores (x = 11.4, standard deviation 3.3) were significantly lower than surrogate scores (x = 14.7, standard deviation 2.5) (P < 0.001). Scores for both groups increased significantly after administration of a standardized advance care planning discussion (P < 0.001). Although being a surrogate, age, race, education, cognitive functioning, and health literacy were significantly associated with higher POLST Knowledge Survey scores in univariate analyses, only being a surrogate (P < 0.001) and being white (P = 0.028) remained significantly associated with higher scores in multivariate analyses.ConclusionThe 19-item POLST Knowledge Survey demonstrated adequate reliability and responsiveness to change. Findings suggest the survey could be used to identify knowledge deficits and provide targeted education to ensure adequate understanding of key clinical decisions when completing POLST.     

Double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of clonazepam and alprazolam for panic disorder

To test the reported antipanic efficacy of clonazepam, the authors randomized 72 subjects with panic disorder to 6 weeks of treatment with either alprazolam, clonazepam, or placebo. Endpoint analysis demonstrated a significant beneficial effect of both active treatments, but not placebo treatment, on the frequency of panic attacks, overall phobia ratings, and the extent of disability. Comparison of the two active treatments revealed no significant differences and no consistent tendency for one agent to be favored over another, although power to detect small differences was limited. Sedation and ataxia were the most common side effects reported, but these effects were mild and transient and did not interfere with treatment outcome. The results of this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial are consistent with previous reports of clonazepam's antipanic efficacy.     

Allergic contact dermatitis from phenylephrine in eyedrops.

Phenylephrine is widely used as an ophthalmic drug. However, there are only very few reports on allergic contact dermatitis induced by phenylephrine. In addition, little is known on cross reactivity patterns between the sympathomimetics phenylephrine, epinephrine and ephedrine which share a similar chemical structure. We report on a man who developed allergic contact dermatitis to Neosynerphin POS eyedrops containing phenylephrine hydrochloride. Cross reactivity between phenylephrine, epinephrine and ephedrine was studied by patch testing. Patch tests were performed with the European standard, an ophthalmics and preservatives series, Neosynerphin POS eyedrops, phenylephrine hydrochloride 10% aq., epinephrine and ephedrine (both 1.0 % aq.). Test sites were read after 48, 72 and 168 hours according to the recommendations of the ICDRG. Neosynerphin POS and phenylephrine hydrochloride 10 % aq. gave positive reactions, whereas epinephrine and ephedrine tested negative. Although phenylephrine is an epinephrine analog delayed type hypersensitivity to phenylephrine did not result in cross reactivity with chemically related epinephrine and ephedrine.     

Practical management of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with gefitinib.

PURPOSE: The use of gefitinib, the first drug approved to inhibit the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, is indicated in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with tumors progressive after chemotherapy. The unique mechanism of action of this agent leads to distinctive patterns of response and toxicity in persons with lung cancer. Many of the principles of management relevant to gefitinib are distinct from those with conventional cytotoxic drugs. To meet this need, we present practical guidelines on the use of gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This article reviews gefitinib's indications, dosing, response phenomena, and patterns of relapse in individuals with radiographic response. RESULTS: We present our recommendations for the management of rash and diarrhea caused by this agent. CONCLUSION: This information can guide practitioners and help them inform their patients about what to expect when they receive gefitinib.     

Characterization of the Medical Symptom Validity Test in evaluation of clinically referred memory disorders clinic patients.

We prospectively evaluated performance of 63 referrals to a memory disorders clinic who received the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT) as part of their standard neuropsychological evaluation. The patients were grouped based on independent medical diagnoses and presence or absence of a potential financial incentive to under-perform. Twenty-seven patients (42.9%) scored below cutoffs on the MSVT symptom validity indices. Two individuals in the potential financial incentive group showed clear signs of invalid responding (18.2%). Twenty-two of the remaining 25 patients who failed the symptom validity indices corresponded to the dementia profile. Three individuals did not correspond to the dementia profile but are thought to have performed validly representing a 4.8% false positive rate. When considering all MSVT indices, the base rate of invalid responding in the potential financial incentive to under-perform group increased to 27.3%. Combining all groups our base rate of invalid responding was 4.8%. Specific performances are presented.