Reuben Baumal MD, Jochanan Benbassat MD and Julie A.D. Van
"Clinician-scientists" is an all-inclusive term for board-certified specialists who engage in patient care and laboratory-based (biomedical) research, patient-based (clinical) research, or population-based (epidemiological) research. In recent years, the number of medical graduates who choose to combine patient care and research has declined, generating concerns about the future of medical research. This paper reviews: a) the various current categories of clinician-scientists, b) the reasons proposed for the declining number of medical graduates who opt for a career as clinician-scientists, c) the various interventions aimed at reversing this trend, and d) the projections for the future role of clinician-scientists. Efforts to encourage students to combine patient care and research include providing financial and institutional support, and reducing the duration of the training of clinician-scientists. However, recent advances in clinical and biomedical knowledge have increased the difficulties in maintaining the dual role of care-providers and scientists. It was therefore suggested that rather than expecting clinician-scientists to compete with full-time clinicians in providing patient care, and with full-time investigators in performing research, clinician-scientists will increasingly assume the role of leading/coordinating interdisciplinary teams. Such teams would focus either on patient-based research or on the clinical, biomedical and epidemiological aspects of specific clinical disorders, such as hypertension and diabetes.
Noa Berar Yanay MD MHA, Lubov Scherbakov MD, David Sachs MD, Nana Peleg MD, Yakov Slovodkin MD and Regina Gershkovich MD
Background: Late nephrology referral, before initiation of dialysis treatment, is associated with adverse outcome.
Objectives: To investigate the implications of late nephrology referral on mortality among dialysis patients in Israel.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 200 incident dialysis patients. Patients were defined as late referrals if they started dialysis less than 3 months after their first nephrology consultation. Survival rates and risk factors for mortality were analyzed
Results: The early referral (ER) group comprised 118 patients (59%) and the late referral (LR) group 82 patients (41%). The mortality rate was 44.5% (53 patients) in the ER and 68% (n=56) in the LR group. The 4 year survival rate was 41.1% in the ER and 18.7% in the LR group (P < 0.0001). The mortality rate increased with late nephrology referral (HR 1.873, 95%CI 1.133–3.094), with age (HR 1.043 for each year, 95%CI 1.018–1.068), with diabetes (HR 2.399, CI 1.369-4.202), and with serum albumin level (HR 0.359 for an increase of each 1 g/dl, 95%CI 0.242–0.533). The median survival time was higher for the ER group in women, in patients younger than 70, and in diabetic patients. A trend for longer survival time was found in non-diabetic patients. Survival time was not increased in early referred patients older than 70 and in male patients.
Conclusions: Late nephrology referral is associated with an overall higher mortality rate in dialysis patients. The survival advantage of early referral may have a different significance in specific subgroups. The timing of nephrology referral should be considered as a modifiable risk factor for mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease.
Daniel Elbirt MD*, Ilan Asher MD*, Keren Mahlab-Guri MD, Shira Bezalel-Rosenberg MD, Victor Edelstein MD and Zev Sthoeger MD
Background: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease characterized by disturbance of the innate and adaptive immune systems with the production of autoantibodies by stimulated B lymphocytes. The BLyS protein (B lymphocyte stimulator) is secreted mainly by monocytes and activated T cells and is responsible for the proliferation, maturation and survival of B cells.
Objectivs: To study sera BLyS level and its clinical significance in Israeli lupus patients over time.
Methods: The study population included 41 lupus patients (8 males, 33 females; mean age 35.56 ± 15.35 years) and 50 healthy controls. The patients were followed for 5.02 ± 1.95 years. We tested 221 lupus sera (mean 5.4 samples/patient) and 50 normal sera for BLyS levels by a capture ELISA. Disease activity was determined by the SLEDAI score.
Results: Sera BLyS levels were significantly higher in SLE patients than in controls (3.37 ± 3.73 vs. 0.32 ± 0.96 ng/ml, P < 0.05). BLyS levels were high in at least one sera sample in 80.5% of the patients but were normal in all sera in the control group. There was no correlation between sera BLyS and anti-ds-DNA autoantibody levels. BLyS levels fluctuated over time in sera of lupus patients with no significant correlation to disease activity.
Conclusions: Most of our lupus patients had high sera BLyS levels, suggesting a role for BLyS in the pathogenesis and course of SLE. Our results support the current novel approach of targeting BLyS (neutralization by antibodies or soluble receptors) in the treatment of active lupus patients.
Matti Eskelinen MD PhD, Tuomas Selander MSc, Pertti Lipponen MD PhD and Petri Juvonen MD PhD
Background: The primary diagnosis of functional dyspepsia (FD) is made on the basis of typical symptoms and by excluding organic gastrointestinal diseases that cause dyspeptic symptoms. However, there is difficulty reaching a diagnosis in FD.
Objectives: To assess the efficiency of the Usefulness Index (UI) test and history-taking in diagnosing FD.
Methods: A study on acute abdominal pain conducted by the World Organization of Gastroenterology Research Committee (OMGE) included 1333 patients presenting with acute abdominal pain. The clinical history-taking variables (n=23) for each patient were recorded in detail using a predefined structured data collection sheet, and the collected data were compared with the final diagnoses.
Results: The most significant clinical history-taking variables of FD in univariate analysis were risk ratio (RR): location of pain at diagnosis (RR = 5.7), location of initial pain (RR = 6.5), previous similar pain (RR = 4.0), duration of pain (RR = 2.9), previous abdominal surgery (RR = 4.1), previous abdominal diseases (RR = 4.0), and previous indigestion (RR = 3.1). The sensitivity of the physicians’ initial decision in detecting FD was 0.44, specificity 0.99 and efficiency 0.98; UI was 0.19 and RR 195.3. In the stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis, the independent predictors of FD were the physicians’ initial decision (RR = 266.4), location of initial pain (RR = 3.4), duration of pain (RR = 3.1), previous abdominal surgery (RR = 3.7), previous indigestion (RR = 2.2) and vomiting (RR = 2.0).
Conclusions: The patients with upper abdominal pain initially and a previous history of abdominal surgery and indigestion tended to be at risk for FD. In these patients the UI test could help the clinician differentiate FD from other diagnoses of acute abdominal pain.