New therapies for allergic rhinitis

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 02/13/2019 - 13:51
Display Headline
New therapies for allergic rhinitis
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

David F. Graft, MD
Department of Asthma and Allergic Diseases, Park Nicollet Clinic; Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, and of Family Practice and Community Health, University of Minnesota

Address: David F. Graft, MD, Department of Asthma and Allergic Diseases, Park Nicollet Clinic, 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard, Minneapolis, MN 55416

Dr. Graft servies as a consultant and has conducted research in multicenter trials for Schering-Plough and Hoechst Marion Roussel, and has received honoraria as a speaker for Astra, Glaxo-Wellcome, Hoechst Marion Roussel, Pfizer, and Schering-Plough.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
165-168
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

David F. Graft, MD
Department of Asthma and Allergic Diseases, Park Nicollet Clinic; Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, and of Family Practice and Community Health, University of Minnesota

Address: David F. Graft, MD, Department of Asthma and Allergic Diseases, Park Nicollet Clinic, 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard, Minneapolis, MN 55416

Dr. Graft servies as a consultant and has conducted research in multicenter trials for Schering-Plough and Hoechst Marion Roussel, and has received honoraria as a speaker for Astra, Glaxo-Wellcome, Hoechst Marion Roussel, Pfizer, and Schering-Plough.

Author and Disclosure Information

David F. Graft, MD
Department of Asthma and Allergic Diseases, Park Nicollet Clinic; Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, and of Family Practice and Community Health, University of Minnesota

Address: David F. Graft, MD, Department of Asthma and Allergic Diseases, Park Nicollet Clinic, 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard, Minneapolis, MN 55416

Dr. Graft servies as a consultant and has conducted research in multicenter trials for Schering-Plough and Hoechst Marion Roussel, and has received honoraria as a speaker for Astra, Glaxo-Wellcome, Hoechst Marion Roussel, Pfizer, and Schering-Plough.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(3)
Page Number
165-168
Page Number
165-168
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
New therapies for allergic rhinitis
Display Headline
New therapies for allergic rhinitis
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Should everyone over age 75 take a multivitamin?

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 02/13/2019 - 13:43
Display Headline
Should everyone over age 75 take a multivitamin?
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Cindy Moore, MS, RD, LD, FADA
Director, Nutrition Therapy, Cleveland Clinic

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
155-156
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Cindy Moore, MS, RD, LD, FADA
Director, Nutrition Therapy, Cleveland Clinic

Author and Disclosure Information

Cindy Moore, MS, RD, LD, FADA
Director, Nutrition Therapy, Cleveland Clinic

Article PDF
Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(3)
Page Number
155-156
Page Number
155-156
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Should everyone over age 75 take a multivitamin?
Display Headline
Should everyone over age 75 take a multivitamin?
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

On this we agree: The value of healthy debate in medicine

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 02/13/2019 - 10:11
Display Headline
On this we agree: The value of healthy debate in medicine
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

John D. Clough, MD
Editor in Chief

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
152
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

John D. Clough, MD
Editor in Chief

Author and Disclosure Information

John D. Clough, MD
Editor in Chief

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(3)
Page Number
152
Page Number
152
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
On this we agree: The value of healthy debate in medicine
Display Headline
On this we agree: The value of healthy debate in medicine
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Azithromycin Eruption in Infectious Mononucleosis: A Proposed Mechanism of Interaction

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/10/2019 - 11:46
Display Headline
Azithromycin Eruption in Infectious Mononucleosis: A Proposed Mechanism of Interaction
Article PDF
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
163-166
Article PDF
Article PDF
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Page Number
163-166
Page Number
163-166
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Azithromycin Eruption in Infectious Mononucleosis: A Proposed Mechanism of Interaction
Display Headline
Azithromycin Eruption in Infectious Mononucleosis: A Proposed Mechanism of Interaction
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Topical Imiquimod for Recalcitrant Facial Flat Warts

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/10/2019 - 11:46
Display Headline
Topical Imiquimod for Recalcitrant Facial Flat Warts
Article PDF
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
160-162
Article PDF
Article PDF
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Page Number
160-162
Page Number
160-162
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Topical Imiquimod for Recalcitrant Facial Flat Warts
Display Headline
Topical Imiquimod for Recalcitrant Facial Flat Warts
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Topical Doxepin Relieves Post-Zoster Pain [letter]

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/10/2019 - 11:46
Display Headline
Topical Doxepin Relieves Post-Zoster Pain [letter]
Article PDF
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
146
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Page Number
146
Page Number
146
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Topical Doxepin Relieves Post-Zoster Pain [letter]
Display Headline
Topical Doxepin Relieves Post-Zoster Pain [letter]
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Phaeohyphomycosis in a Premature Infant

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/10/2019 - 11:46
Display Headline
Phaeohyphomycosis in a Premature Infant
Article PDF
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
137-140
Article PDF
Article PDF
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Issue
Cutis - 65(3)
Page Number
137-140
Page Number
137-140
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Phaeohyphomycosis in a Premature Infant
Display Headline
Phaeohyphomycosis in a Premature Infant
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Screening Mammography in Women Aged 70 to 79 Years

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 11:09
Display Headline
Screening Mammography in Women Aged 70 to 79 Years

CLINICAL QUESTION: Is screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years beneficial?

BACKGROUND: There is limited direct evidence either for or against screening mammography in elderly women. This analysis had 2 purposes: estimate the effects of continued screening in women aged 70 to 79 years and predict whether it may be more cost-effective to screen only women with higher bone mineral density (BMD) because of their greater risk of developing breast cancer. population studied n The authors included a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 healthy women, all of whom had BMD testing at age 65 and biennial screening mammography until age 69.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: This decision and cost-effectiveness analysis compared 3 strategies: (1) discontinue screening mammography after age 69; (2) continue biennial screening until age 79 years only for women whose distal radial BMD is in the top 3 quartiles (check BMD strategy); and (3) continue biennial screening for all women to age 79. The primary analysis included costs for screening mammography ($116), working-up abnormal mammograms, and treating invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ, but not for the BMD test. Probabilities included age-adjusted breast cancer incidence and 10-year mortality rates, all-cause mortality rate, percentage of mortality reduction from screening (27%), abnormal mammogram rate, and the breast cancer risk associated with different BMD quartiles. Costs and health benefits were discounted 3% in the primary analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for quality-adjusted life after diagnosis of breast cancer, discount rates, BMD test cost, mortality reduction from mammography, 10-year breast cancer mortality rate, and breast cancer risk reduction associated with low BMD.

An appropriately comprehensive spectrum of direct costs and effects were included and based on actual data when possible.1 The effect of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality reduction was taken from a meta-analysis of women aged 50 to 74 years. Neither indirect costs nor the disutility of having a mammogram were included, and sensitivity analyses were not performed for costs other than for the BMD tests. The analysis did not include other strategies, such as annual mammography or using other clinical information to stratify women who might benefit more (eg, with the presence of other risk factors for breast cancer) or less (eg, presence of comorbidities) from screening.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: The authors measured the number of deaths due to breast cancer averted, average increase in overall and quality-adjusted life expectancy, and cost per year of life saved (YLS) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved.

RESULTS: Compared with discontinuing mammography at age 69 years, continued biennial screening in women with BMD in the top 3 quartiles would prevent 9.4 deaths (number needed to screen [NNS]=1064) and add an average 2.1 days to life expectancy at an incremental cost of $67,000 per year of life saved. Compared with the check BMD strategy, continued biennial mammography in all 10,000 women would prevent an additional 1.4 deaths (NNS=7143) and add only 0.3 days of life expectancy at an incremental cost of $118,000 per year of life saved. If a woman’s life utility is 0.8 after being diagnosed with treatable breast cancer, the cost per QALY saved in the check BMD strategy is $1,200,000, and the strategy of screening all women is more harmful because it leads to an incremental decrease in average life expectancy of 0.2 days. The analysis was also sensitive to discount rates (eg, for a discount rate of 15% the cost per YLS in the check BMD strategy is $313,000). Finally, if the cost of the BMD test ($50) is included, the strategies of check BMD and screen all women are equally cost-effective ($75,000 per YLS).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Continuing biennial screening mammography is of borderline cost-effectiveness in healthy women aged 70 to 79 years whose BMD is in the highest 3 quartiles (interventions that cost <$50,000 per YLS are generally felt to be cost-effective). It is not cost-effective, and may even be harmful, in women with lower BMD, unless they have other risk factors for breast cancer (which may include estrogen replacement therapy). It is also not cost-effective in elderly women who value the present much more than the future (ie, who have higher discount rates) or who would have a considerably lower quality of life if diagnosed with treatable breast cancer.

Author and Disclosure Information

Winnie Xu, MD, MS
Pamela Vnenchak, MD
John Smucny, MD
Lafayette Family Medicine Residency New York E-mail: John_Smucny@mail.hcds.com

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 49(03)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
266-267
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Winnie Xu, MD, MS
Pamela Vnenchak, MD
John Smucny, MD
Lafayette Family Medicine Residency New York E-mail: John_Smucny@mail.hcds.com

Author and Disclosure Information

Winnie Xu, MD, MS
Pamela Vnenchak, MD
John Smucny, MD
Lafayette Family Medicine Residency New York E-mail: John_Smucny@mail.hcds.com

CLINICAL QUESTION: Is screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years beneficial?

BACKGROUND: There is limited direct evidence either for or against screening mammography in elderly women. This analysis had 2 purposes: estimate the effects of continued screening in women aged 70 to 79 years and predict whether it may be more cost-effective to screen only women with higher bone mineral density (BMD) because of their greater risk of developing breast cancer. population studied n The authors included a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 healthy women, all of whom had BMD testing at age 65 and biennial screening mammography until age 69.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: This decision and cost-effectiveness analysis compared 3 strategies: (1) discontinue screening mammography after age 69; (2) continue biennial screening until age 79 years only for women whose distal radial BMD is in the top 3 quartiles (check BMD strategy); and (3) continue biennial screening for all women to age 79. The primary analysis included costs for screening mammography ($116), working-up abnormal mammograms, and treating invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ, but not for the BMD test. Probabilities included age-adjusted breast cancer incidence and 10-year mortality rates, all-cause mortality rate, percentage of mortality reduction from screening (27%), abnormal mammogram rate, and the breast cancer risk associated with different BMD quartiles. Costs and health benefits were discounted 3% in the primary analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for quality-adjusted life after diagnosis of breast cancer, discount rates, BMD test cost, mortality reduction from mammography, 10-year breast cancer mortality rate, and breast cancer risk reduction associated with low BMD.

An appropriately comprehensive spectrum of direct costs and effects were included and based on actual data when possible.1 The effect of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality reduction was taken from a meta-analysis of women aged 50 to 74 years. Neither indirect costs nor the disutility of having a mammogram were included, and sensitivity analyses were not performed for costs other than for the BMD tests. The analysis did not include other strategies, such as annual mammography or using other clinical information to stratify women who might benefit more (eg, with the presence of other risk factors for breast cancer) or less (eg, presence of comorbidities) from screening.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: The authors measured the number of deaths due to breast cancer averted, average increase in overall and quality-adjusted life expectancy, and cost per year of life saved (YLS) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved.

RESULTS: Compared with discontinuing mammography at age 69 years, continued biennial screening in women with BMD in the top 3 quartiles would prevent 9.4 deaths (number needed to screen [NNS]=1064) and add an average 2.1 days to life expectancy at an incremental cost of $67,000 per year of life saved. Compared with the check BMD strategy, continued biennial mammography in all 10,000 women would prevent an additional 1.4 deaths (NNS=7143) and add only 0.3 days of life expectancy at an incremental cost of $118,000 per year of life saved. If a woman’s life utility is 0.8 after being diagnosed with treatable breast cancer, the cost per QALY saved in the check BMD strategy is $1,200,000, and the strategy of screening all women is more harmful because it leads to an incremental decrease in average life expectancy of 0.2 days. The analysis was also sensitive to discount rates (eg, for a discount rate of 15% the cost per YLS in the check BMD strategy is $313,000). Finally, if the cost of the BMD test ($50) is included, the strategies of check BMD and screen all women are equally cost-effective ($75,000 per YLS).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Continuing biennial screening mammography is of borderline cost-effectiveness in healthy women aged 70 to 79 years whose BMD is in the highest 3 quartiles (interventions that cost <$50,000 per YLS are generally felt to be cost-effective). It is not cost-effective, and may even be harmful, in women with lower BMD, unless they have other risk factors for breast cancer (which may include estrogen replacement therapy). It is also not cost-effective in elderly women who value the present much more than the future (ie, who have higher discount rates) or who would have a considerably lower quality of life if diagnosed with treatable breast cancer.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Is screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years beneficial?

BACKGROUND: There is limited direct evidence either for or against screening mammography in elderly women. This analysis had 2 purposes: estimate the effects of continued screening in women aged 70 to 79 years and predict whether it may be more cost-effective to screen only women with higher bone mineral density (BMD) because of their greater risk of developing breast cancer. population studied n The authors included a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 healthy women, all of whom had BMD testing at age 65 and biennial screening mammography until age 69.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: This decision and cost-effectiveness analysis compared 3 strategies: (1) discontinue screening mammography after age 69; (2) continue biennial screening until age 79 years only for women whose distal radial BMD is in the top 3 quartiles (check BMD strategy); and (3) continue biennial screening for all women to age 79. The primary analysis included costs for screening mammography ($116), working-up abnormal mammograms, and treating invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ, but not for the BMD test. Probabilities included age-adjusted breast cancer incidence and 10-year mortality rates, all-cause mortality rate, percentage of mortality reduction from screening (27%), abnormal mammogram rate, and the breast cancer risk associated with different BMD quartiles. Costs and health benefits were discounted 3% in the primary analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for quality-adjusted life after diagnosis of breast cancer, discount rates, BMD test cost, mortality reduction from mammography, 10-year breast cancer mortality rate, and breast cancer risk reduction associated with low BMD.

An appropriately comprehensive spectrum of direct costs and effects were included and based on actual data when possible.1 The effect of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality reduction was taken from a meta-analysis of women aged 50 to 74 years. Neither indirect costs nor the disutility of having a mammogram were included, and sensitivity analyses were not performed for costs other than for the BMD tests. The analysis did not include other strategies, such as annual mammography or using other clinical information to stratify women who might benefit more (eg, with the presence of other risk factors for breast cancer) or less (eg, presence of comorbidities) from screening.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: The authors measured the number of deaths due to breast cancer averted, average increase in overall and quality-adjusted life expectancy, and cost per year of life saved (YLS) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved.

RESULTS: Compared with discontinuing mammography at age 69 years, continued biennial screening in women with BMD in the top 3 quartiles would prevent 9.4 deaths (number needed to screen [NNS]=1064) and add an average 2.1 days to life expectancy at an incremental cost of $67,000 per year of life saved. Compared with the check BMD strategy, continued biennial mammography in all 10,000 women would prevent an additional 1.4 deaths (NNS=7143) and add only 0.3 days of life expectancy at an incremental cost of $118,000 per year of life saved. If a woman’s life utility is 0.8 after being diagnosed with treatable breast cancer, the cost per QALY saved in the check BMD strategy is $1,200,000, and the strategy of screening all women is more harmful because it leads to an incremental decrease in average life expectancy of 0.2 days. The analysis was also sensitive to discount rates (eg, for a discount rate of 15% the cost per YLS in the check BMD strategy is $313,000). Finally, if the cost of the BMD test ($50) is included, the strategies of check BMD and screen all women are equally cost-effective ($75,000 per YLS).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Continuing biennial screening mammography is of borderline cost-effectiveness in healthy women aged 70 to 79 years whose BMD is in the highest 3 quartiles (interventions that cost <$50,000 per YLS are generally felt to be cost-effective). It is not cost-effective, and may even be harmful, in women with lower BMD, unless they have other risk factors for breast cancer (which may include estrogen replacement therapy). It is also not cost-effective in elderly women who value the present much more than the future (ie, who have higher discount rates) or who would have a considerably lower quality of life if diagnosed with treatable breast cancer.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 49(03)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 49(03)
Page Number
266-267
Page Number
266-267
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Screening Mammography in Women Aged 70 to 79 Years
Display Headline
Screening Mammography in Women Aged 70 to 79 Years
Sections
Disallow All Ads

Brain metastases: Presentation, evaluation, and management

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 02/13/2019 - 15:52
Display Headline
Brain metastases: Presentation, evaluation, and management
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Mark A. Chidel, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic

John H. Suh, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic

Gene H. Barnett, MD
Department of Neurosurgery, Cleveland Clinic

Address: John H. Suh, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, T28, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, suh@radonc.ccf.org

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
120-127
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Mark A. Chidel, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic

John H. Suh, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic

Gene H. Barnett, MD
Department of Neurosurgery, Cleveland Clinic

Address: John H. Suh, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, T28, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, suh@radonc.ccf.org

Author and Disclosure Information

Mark A. Chidel, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic

John H. Suh, MD
Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic

Gene H. Barnett, MD
Department of Neurosurgery, Cleveland Clinic

Address: John H. Suh, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, T28, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, suh@radonc.ccf.org

Article PDF
Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(2)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(2)
Page Number
120-127
Page Number
120-127
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Brain metastases: Presentation, evaluation, and management
Display Headline
Brain metastases: Presentation, evaluation, and management
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Antiviral agents for treating influenza

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 02/04/2019 - 10:18
Display Headline
Antiviral agents for treating influenza
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Jennifer K. Long, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic

Sherif B. Mossad, MD
Department of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic

Morton P. Goldman, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic

Dr. Mossad serves on the speakers' bureau of Roche Pharmaceuticals (which makes oseltamivir).

Dr. Goldman serves on the speakers' bureau of Roche Pharmaceuticals and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. (which makes zanamivir).

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
92-95
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Jennifer K. Long, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic

Sherif B. Mossad, MD
Department of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic

Morton P. Goldman, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic

Dr. Mossad serves on the speakers' bureau of Roche Pharmaceuticals (which makes oseltamivir).

Dr. Goldman serves on the speakers' bureau of Roche Pharmaceuticals and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. (which makes zanamivir).

Author and Disclosure Information

Jennifer K. Long, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic

Sherif B. Mossad, MD
Department of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic

Morton P. Goldman, PharmD
Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic

Dr. Mossad serves on the speakers' bureau of Roche Pharmaceuticals (which makes oseltamivir).

Dr. Goldman serves on the speakers' bureau of Roche Pharmaceuticals and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. (which makes zanamivir).

Article PDF
Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(2)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 67(2)
Page Number
92-95
Page Number
92-95
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Antiviral agents for treating influenza
Display Headline
Antiviral agents for treating influenza
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media