Israel Medical Association Journal

Several novel strategies have emerged in the last decade as potential therapies for patients with chemorefractory lymphoproliferative diseases and acute leukemia. While these treatments include exciting drugs that dramatically change the landscape of treatment, the organ-toxicity profile associated with these therapies may be significant. This article focuses on cardiac disorders associated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, as well as with novel regimens for acute leukemia

Background: Monitoring the rate of infections in individual centers that treat patients with hematological malignancies is of major importance. However, there are no uniform guidelines for infection surveillance.

Objectives: To describe the epidemiology of bacterial and fungal infections in a single hematology ward and to compare methods for reporting surveillance and infection rates in other centers in Israel.

Methods: We conducted a prospective surveillance of all patients admitted to our hematology ward, applying standard definitions for invasive fungal infections and adapting definitions for non-fungal infections. Incidence rates were calculated using patients, admissions, hospital days and neutropenia days. We performed a search for other reported surveillance studies in Israel.

Results: We detected 79 infectious episodes among 159 patients admitted to the hematology ward during 1 year. Using neutropenia days as the denominator for calculation of incidence discriminated best between patients at high and low risk for infection. The incidence of invasive fungal infections was 7, 10 and 18 per 1000 neutropenia days, among all patients, those with acute leukemia and those with acute leukemia undergoing induction therapy, respectively. Only 10 reports from Israel were identified, 6 of which were prospective. Our data could not be compared to these reports because of the varying definitions and denominators used.

Conclusions: Hematology centers should monitor infection rates and report them in a uniform methodology.
 

Objectives: To evaluate the quality of care of diabetic patients in primary care and diabetes clinics in the community in central Israel.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of a random sample of 209 diabetic patients in a district of the largest health management organization in Israel. Patients were divided into two groups – those treated only by their family physician and those who had attended diabetes clinics. Data included social demographics, medications, risk factors, quality of follow-up, laboratory tests, quality of diabetes control and blood pressure control, and complications of diabetes.

Results: Of the 209 patients 38% were followed by a diabetes clinic and 62% by a family physician. Patients attending the specialist clinic tended to be younger (P = 0.01) and more educated (P = 0.017). The duration of their diabetes was longer (P < 0.01) and they had more diabetic microvascular complications (P = 0.001). The percentage of patients treated with insulin was higher among the diabetes clinic patients (75% vs. 14%, P = 0.0001). More patients with nephropathy received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the diabetes clinic (94% vs. 68%, P = 0.02). Follow-up in the specialist clinic as compared to by the family physician was better in the areas of foot examination (P < 0.01), fundus examination (P = 0.0001), and hemoglobin A1c testing (P = 0.01). On a regression model only fundus examination, foot examination and documentation of smoking status were significantly better in the diabetes clinic (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: There is still a large gap between clinical guidelines and clinical practice. Joint treatment of diabetes patients between the family physician and the diabetes specialist may be a proposed model to improve follow-up and diabetes control. This model of treatment should be checked in a prospective study.