Israel Medical Association Journal

Objectives: To study the necessity of bone marrow examination for the diagnosis and clinical course of MGUS[1].

Methods: We retrospectively screened the medical records of all patients in whom monoclonal protein was found in the serum during 2001–2002 in the medical laboratories of Sapir Medical Center. Asymptomatic patients who had serum monoclonal immunoglobulin G < 3.0 g/dl or IgA[2] < 2.0 g/dl or IgM < 1.0 g/dl without anemia, renal failure, hypercalcemia or any bone lesions on skeletal survey were eligible. Full records of patients who were evaluated in the hematology clinic were available (group 1). The remaining patients were followed by their family physicians; thus we had access only to their electronic files including laboratory results and new diagnoses (group 2). Demographic and clinical parameters as well as clinical course were evaluated.

Results: Both groups (57 and 255 patients, respectively) had similar demographic, laboratory and clinical characteristics. Bone marrow examination was performed in 30 of 57 patients (group 1): 16 were normal, 8 had an excess of normal plasma cells, and 6 had excess of pathologic plasma cells. However, only in two of the latter six could a diagnosis of multiple myeloma be established. All group 1 patients were followed for 22 ± 11 months and only two developed overt multiple myeloma. During the same period, 6 of 255 patients (group 2) were diagnosed as multiple myeloma and 3 as MGUS in other hospitals. The rest had a stable course with no change in their laboratory values.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that bone marrow examination should not be performed routinely in patients who fulfill strict clinical and laboratory criteria of MGUS.

Objectives: To determine whether drug studies in the pulmonary/allergy literature also demonstrate a publication bias towards more favorable results when a pharmaceutical company funds the study.

Methods: We reviewed all original articles published in seven pulmonary and allergy journals between October 2002 and September 2003. Included in the review were studies of inhaled corticosteroids (oral or nasal), long- or short-acting bronchodilators, or leukotriene receptor antagonists. Articles with funding from a pharmaceutical company and/or one or more authors employed by a pharmaceutical company were considered pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies. The remaining studies were considered not sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. Results were compared to ascertain whether positive results were obtained more frequently in the company-sponsored studies.

Results: Of the 100 articles included in this review 63 were considered pharmaceutical company-sponsored research. Results favorable for the drugs studies were significantly more common in those funded by a pharmaceutical company (98% vs. 32%).

Conclusions: In the pulmonary and allergy literature, as in other fields, there is a publication bias towards positive results in pharmaceutical company-sponsored research.

Objectives: To review the value of mortality-case discussions in primary care clinics, particularly teaching clinics.

Methods: The clinic death register, instituted in 1998, includes age, gender, cause of death, place of death, relevant illnesses, and support provided to the patient before the death. In the half-yearly sessions, the data are reviewed, and individual cases that had an emotional impact on the staff, or information that can bring about changes in future care are discussed by the clinic staff and trainees.

Results: In our clinic 233 deaths occurred during a 6 year period (1998–2003). The crude all-cause mortality rate was 7.1/1000. The median age was 80 years old. Neoplastic causes were slightly more frequent than cardiovascular causes of death. Only 15% died at home; 20% lived alone and 70% lived with a spouse or family members before the death. Topics discussed in the mortality review meetings include identifying pre-suicidal patients, when to hospitalize the sick elderly, dealing with the anger of bereaved families, and ensuring proper home care for terminal patients.

Conclusions: We recommend keeping a death register and conducting mortality review sessions in order to improve the quality of care, emotional support of the staff, and training students and residents about the complex issues surrounding the death of patients.