Dr. Janet Osuch, breast surgeon and Assistant Dean of Preclinical Curriculum at MSUCHM, spoke with MSRJ elective students about experience publishing research and handling difficult feedback.
Monthly Archives: January 2014
Traditional v Open Access
A brief introduction to Traditional vs. Open-Access Publishing arguments and problems:
Elective ’14 First Meeting
It’s the first meeting and our “Introduction to MSRJ” Elective is off to a fast start!
Winter 2014 – Vemurafenib: Background, Patterns of Resistance, and Strategies to Combat Resistance in Melanoma
Vemurafenib: Background, Patterns of Resistance, and Strategies to Combat Resistance in Melanoma.
Arjun Dupati* and Liza Gill
Author Affiliations:
College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
[button link=”http://msrj.chm.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MSRJ-Winter-2014-Vemurafenib-Background-Patterns-of-Resistance-and-Strategies-to-Combat-Resistance-in-Melanoma.pdf” type=”icon” icon=”download” color=green] Full Text Article PDF [/button]
*Corresponding author: Arjun Dupati; dupatiar[at]gmail.com
Arjun Dupati and Liza Gill contributed equally to the production of this manuscript.
Key Words: Vemurafenib; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Melanoma Drug Resistance; Metastatic Melanoma; Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor; Melanoma Treatment.
Abstract:
Introduction: Finding an effective treatment for metastatic melanoma has posed a series of challenges. Vemurafenib, a B-RAF tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been one of the most successful medications to date in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. B-RAF is a serine/threonine kinase that is a part of the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK signal transduction pathway, which plays a pivotal role in cellular proliferation, differentiation, and survival. Mutations in the B-RAF protein lead to a deregulated activation of MAPK and ERK.
The focus of this review article is resulting resistance to vemurafenib and its clinical implications on the treatment of metastatic melanoma. This paper aims to highlight mechanisms of vemurafenib resistance that have been observed so far and offer potential clinical approaches to overcome resistance.
Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE were searched using the following free text terms: “vemurafenib,” “vemurafenib resistance,” “vemurafenib tyrosine-kinase inhibitor,” “vemurafenib metastatic melanoma,” “vemurafenib alternatives,” and “vemurafenib cancer.” The Cochrane database was searched for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews using the same search terms above. Two independent reviewers analyzed the search results and corresponding articles.
Discussion: Research over the last decade, most notably in the past two years has revealed a multitude of mechanisms of resistance to vemurafenib. Resistance to therapy with vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma could be explained by the presence of cancer stem cells.
Conclusion: In order to effectively circumvent resistance, it would behoove clinicians to approach metastatic melanoma with a cocktail of inhibitors as opposed to monotherapy.
Published: January 1, 2014
Senior Editor: Kailyne Van Stavern
Junior Editor: Kaitlyn Vitale
DOI: Pending
Citation:
Dupati A, Gill L. Vemurafenib: Background, Patterns of Resistance, and Strategies to Combat Resistance in Melanoma. Medical Student Research Journal. 2014;3(Winter):36-43.
References:
1. Lemech C, Infante J, Arkenau HT. The potential for BRAF V600 inhibitors in advanced cutaneous melanoma: rationale and latest evidence. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2012;4(2):61-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1758834011432949.
2. Dahlman KB, Xia J, Hutchinson K, et al. BRAF(L597) mutations in melanoma are associated with sensitivity to MEK inhibitors. Cancer Discov. 2012;2(9):791-797.
3. Castellani E, Covarelli P, Boselli C, et al. Spontaneous splenic rupture in patient with metastatic melanoma treated with vemurafenib. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-10-155.
4. De Mello RA. Metastatic melanoma and vemurafenib: novel approaches. Rare Tumors. 2012;4(2):e31. http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/rt.2012.e31.
5. Kim J, Lazar AJ, Davies MA, et al. BRAF, NRAS and KIT sequencing analysis of spindle cell melanoma. J Cutan Pathol. 2012;39(9):821-825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0560.2012.01950.x.
6. Fisher R, Larkin J. Vemurafenib: a new treatment for BRAF-V600 mutated advanced melanoma. Cancer Manag Res. 2012;4:243-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S25284.
7. Flaherty KT, Yasothan U, Kirkpatrick P. Vemurafenib. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(11):811-812. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd3579.
8. Ascierto PA, Kirkwood JM, Grob JJ, et al. The role of BRAF V600 mutation in melanoma. J Transl Med. 2012;10:85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-10-85.
9. Johannessen CM, Boehm JS, Kim SY, et al. COT drives resistance to RAF inhibition through MAP kinase pathway reactivation. Nature. 2010;468(7326):968-972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09627.
10. Kudchadkar R, Paraiso KH, Smalley KS. Targeting mutant BRAF in melanoma: current status and future development of combination therapy strategies. Cancer J. 2012;18(2):124-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PPO.0b013e31824b436e.
11. Fedorenko IV, Paraiso KH, Smalley KS. Acquired and intrinsic BRAF inhibitor resistance in BRAF V600E mutant melanoma. Biochem Pharmacol. 2011;82(3):201-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2011.05.015.
12. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646-674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013.
13. Skorokhod A, Capper D, von Deimling A, Enk A, Helmbold P. Detection of BRAF V600E mutations in skin metastases of malignant melanoma by monoclonal antibody VE1. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(3):488-491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2012.03.022.
14. Poulikakos PI, Rosen N. Mutant BRAF melanomas–dependence and resistance. Cancer Cell. 2011;19(1):11-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2011.01.008.
15. Wilson TR, Fridlyand J, Yan Y, et al. Widespread potential for growth-factor-driven resistance to anticancer kinase inhibitors. Nature. 2012;487(7408):505-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11249.
16. Dummer R, Flaherty KT. Resistance patterns with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in melanoma: new insights. Curr Opin Oncol. 2012;24(2):150-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0b013e32834fca92.
17. Aplin AE, Kaplan FM, Shao Y. Mechanisms of resistance to RAF inhibitors in melanoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131(9):1817-1820. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/jid.2011.147.
18. Yadav V, Zhang X, Liu J, et al. Reactivation of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway by FGF receptor 3 (FGFR3)/Ras mediates resistance to vemurafenib in human B-RAF V600E mutant melanoma. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(33):28087-28098. http://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.377218.
19. Flaherty KT. Throwing the kitchen sink at melanoma drug development. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2012;25(5):543-544.
20. Nazarian R, Shi H, Wang Q, et al. Melanomas acquire resistance to B-RAF(V600E) inhibition by RTK or N-RAS upregulation. Nature. 2010;468(7326):973-977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09626.
21. Gowrishankar K, Snoyman S, Pupo GM, Becker TM, Kefford RF, Rizos H. Acquired resistance to BRAF inhibition can confer cross-resistance to combined BRAF/MEK inhibition. J Invest Dermatol. 2012;132(7):1850-1859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/jid.2012.63.
22. Kaplan FM, Shao Y, Mayberry MM, Aplin AE. Hyperactivation of MEK-ERK1/2 signaling and resistance to apoptosis induced by the oncogenic B-RAF inhibitor, PLX4720, in mutant N-RAS melanoma cells. Oncogene. 2011;30(3):366-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/onc.2010.408.
23. Shi H, Kong X, Ribas A, Lo RS. Combinatorial treatments that overcome PDGFRβ-driven resistance of melanoma cells to V600EB-RAF inhibition. Cancer Res. 2011;71(15):5067-5074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.
24. Corcoran RB, Dias-Santagata D, Bergethon K, Iafrate AJ, Settleman J, Engelman JA. BRAF gene amplification can promote acquired resistance to MEK inhibitors in cancer cells harboring the BRAF V600E mutation. Sci Signal. 2010;3(149):ra84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.2001148.
25. Little AS, Balmanno K, Sale MJ, et al. Amplification of the driving oncogene, KRAS or BRAF, underpins acquired resistance to MEK1/2 inhibitors in colorectal cancer cells. Sci Signal. 2011;4(166):ra17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.4170er2.
26. Sullivan RJ, Lorusso PM, Flaherty KT. The intersection of immune-directed and molecularly targeted therapy in advanced melanoma: where we have been, are, and will be. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(19):5283-5291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2151.
27. Emery CM, Vijayendran KG, Zipser MC, et al. MEK1 mutations confer resistance to MEK and B-RAF inhibition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(48):20411-20416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905833106.
28. Nissan MH, Solit DB. The “SWOT” of BRAF inhibition in melanoma: RAF inhibitors, MEK inhibitors or both? Curr Oncol Rep. 2011;13(6):479-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11912-011-0198-4.
29. Wagle N, Emery C, Berger MF, et al. Dissecting therapeutic resistance to RAF inhibition in melanoma by tumor genomic profiling. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(22):3085-3096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.33.2312.
30. Yu L, Favoino E, Wang Y, Ma Y, Deng X, Wang X. The CSPG4-specific monoclonal antibody enhances and prolongs the effects of the BRAF inhibitor in melanoma cells. Immunol Res. 2011;50(2-3):294-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12026-011-8232-z.
31. Corcoran RB, Settleman J, Engelman JA. Potential therapeutic strategies to overcome acquired resistance to BRAF or MEK inhibitors in BRAF mutant cancers. Oncotarget. 2011;2(4):336-346.
32. Jiang CC, Lai F, Thorne RF, et al. MEK-independent survival of B-RAFV600E melanoma cells selected for resistance to apoptosis induced by the RAF inhibitor PLX4720. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(4):721-730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2225.
33. Atefi M, von Euw E, Attar N, et al. Reversing melanoma cross-resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors by co-targeting the AKT/mTOR pathway. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28973. http://dx.doi.org/0.1371/journal.pone.0028973.
34. Greger JG, Eastman SD, Zhang V, et al. Combinations of BRAF, MEK, and PI3K/mTOR inhibitors overcome acquired resistance to the BRAF inhibitor GSK2118436 dabrafenib, mediated by NRAS or MEK mutations. Mol Cancer Ther. 2012;11(4):909-920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-11-0989.
35. Montagut C, Sharma SV, Shioda T, et al. Elevated CRAF as a potential mechanism of acquired resistance to BRAF inhibition in melanoma. Cancer Res. 2008;68(12):4853-4861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-6787.
36. Paraiso KH, Xiang Y, Rebecca VW, et al. PTEN loss confers BRAF inhibitor resistance to melanoma cells through the suppression of BIM expression. Cancer Res. 2011;71(7):2750-2760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2954.
37. Koomen JM, Smalley KS. Using quantitative proteomic analysis to understand genotype specific intrinsic drug resistance in melanoma. Oncotarget. 2011;2(4):329-335.
38. Shao Y, Aplin AE. Akt3-mediated resistance to apoptosis in B-RAF-targeted melanoma cells. Cancer Res. 2010;70(16):6670-6681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-4471.
39. Shao Y, Aplin AE. BH3-only protein silencing contributes to acquired resistance to PLX4720 in human melanoma. Cell Death Differ. 2012;19(12):2029-2039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/cdd.2012.94.
40. Paraiso KH, Haarberg HE, Wood E, et al. The HSP90 inhibitor XL888 overcomes BRAF inhibitor resistance mediated through diverse mechanisms. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(9):2502-2514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2612.
41. Smalley KS, Lioni M, Dalla Palma M, et al. Increased cyclin D1 expression can mediate BRAF inhibitor resistance in BRAF V600E-mutated melanomas. Mol Cancer Ther. 2008;7(9):2876-2883. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-08-0431.
42. Sheppard KE, McArthur GA. The cell-cycle regulator CDK4: an emerging therapeutic target in melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(19):5320-5328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0259.
43. Villanueva J, Vultur A, Lee JT, et al. Acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors mediated by a RAF kinase switch in melanoma can be overcome by cotargeting MEK and IGF-1R/PI3K. Cancer Cell. 2010;18(6):683-695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2010.11.023.
44. Su F, Bradley WD, Wang Q, et al. Resistance to selective BRAF inhibition can be mediated by modest upstream pathway activation. Cancer Res. 2012;72(4):969-978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-1875.
45. Basile KJ, Abel EV, Aplin AE. Adaptive upregulation of FOXD3 and resistance to PLX4032/4720-induced cell death in mutant B-RAF melanoma cells. Oncogene. 2012;31(19):2471-2479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/onc.2011.424.
46. Straussman R, Morikawa T, Shee K, et al. Tumour micro-environment elicits innate resistance to RAF inhibitors through HGF secretion. Nature. 2012;487(7408):500-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11183.
47. Sosman JA, Kim KB, Schuchter L, et al. Survival in BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma treated with vemurafenib. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(8):707-714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1112302.
48. Villanueva J, Vultur A, Herlyn M. Resistance to BRAF inhibitors: unraveling mechanisms and future treatment options. Cancer Res. 2011;71(23):7137-7140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-1243.
49. Eyler CE, Rich JN. Survival of the fittest: cancer stem cells in therapeutic resistance and angiogenesis. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(17):2839-2845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.1829.
50. Fang D, Nguyen TK, Leishear K, et al. A tumorigenic subpopulation with stem cell properties in melanomas. Cancer Res. 2005;65(20):9328-9337.
Winter 2014 – Substance Use Among Physicians and Medical Students
Substance Use Among Physicians and Medical Students.
Catalina I. Dumitrascu1*, Philip Z. Mannes2, Lena J. Gamble3, Jeffrey A. Selzer4
Author Affiliations:
1Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA.
2Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
3National Institutes of Health, Department of Perioperative Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA.
4Committee for Physician Health, Albany, NY, USA.
[button link=”http://msrj.chm.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MSRJ-Winter-2014-Substance-Use-Among-Physicians-and-Medical-Students.pdf” type=”icon” icon=”download” color=green] Full Text Article PDF [/button]
Corresponding author: Catalina I. Dumitrascu, BS, MS; catalinadumitrascu[at]creighton.edu
Key Words: Substance-related disorders; Alcohol abuse; Physician Health Programs.
Abstract:
Background: Physicians and medical students whose substance use causes impairment pose a risk to both themselves and their patients. Drug abuse is a documented problem in physicians, however few studies have investigated the rates of drug abuse in medical students. While treatment plans may be tailored for both students and attending physicians, there is often a reluctance to refer one’s self or a colleague due to a variety of reasons related to fear of repercussions, belief the problem has already been addressed, failure to recognize, or ignorance. This review provides a brief background on common signs and symptoms of potential abuse and resources available to doctors in training at various stages of their career, along with providing a clear picture of the literature as it pertains to physician and medical student substance abuse.
Methods: Extensive search of the literature utilized physical and electronic resources available at the National Institutes of Health Library and the National Library of Medicine with search results limited to the topics of physician or medical student substance use, substance abuse, impairment, and treatment.
Results: Sparse recent data regarding physician and medical student substance abuse are available. Studies completed two decades ago demonstrate that drug abuse was a significant problem for doctors and medical students at that time.
Conclusion: Due to outdated, and/or incomplete data on substance abuse in physicians and especially medical students, it is difficult to report the current extent of substance abuse in these groups. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize substance abuse in these populations and promote referral to substance abuse programs. Early rehabilitation and treatment improves both career and patient outcomes. This study highly suggests the need for up to date information regarding substance abuse in the medical community so that appropriate resources can be developed and effectively utilized.
Published: January 1, 2014
Senior Editor: Kevin C. Patterson
Junior Editor: Caela Hesano
DOI: Pending
Citation:
Dumitrascu CI, Mannes PZ, Gamble LJ, Selzer JA. Substance Use Among Physicians and Medical Students. Medical Student Research Journal. 2014;3(Winter):26-35.
References:
1. Hasin DS, O’Brien CP, Auriacombe M, et al. DSM-5 criteria for substance use disorders: recommendations and rationale. Am J Psychiatry. Aug 2013;170(8):834-851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12060782.
2. Federation of State Medical Boards Policy on Physician Impairment. Euless, TX: House of Delegates of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States;2011.
3. World Drug Report 2013. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime;2013. Sales No. E.13.XI.6.
4. Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration;2012. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 12-4713.
5. CDC. Policy impact: prescription painkiller overdoses. Atlanta, GA, USA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2011.
6. The sick physician. Impairment by psychiatric disorders, including alcoholism and drug dependence. JAMA. Feb 1973;223(6):684-687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1973.03220060058020.
7. Shaw MF, McGovern MP, Angres DH, Rawal P. Physicians and nurses with substance use disorders. Journal of advanced nursing. Sep 2004;47(5):561-571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03133.x.
8. Oreskovich MR, Kaups KL, Balch CM, et al. Prevalence of alcohol use disorders among American surgeons. Arch Surg. Feb 2012;147(2):168-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2011.1481.
9. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Massie FS, et al. Burnout and suicidal ideation among U.S. medical students. Ann Intern Med. Sep 2008;149(5):334-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-5-200809020-00008.
10. Shanafelt TD, Boone S, Tan L, et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among US physicians relative to the general US population. Arch Intern Med. Oct 2012;172(18):1377-1385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3199.
11. Cicala RS. Substance Abuse Among Physicians: What you need to know. Hospital Physician. 2003;39(7)
12. DesRoches CM, Rao SR, Fromson JA, et al. Physicians’ perceptions, preparedness for reporting, and experiences related to impaired and incompetent colleagues. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. Jul 14 2010;304(2):187-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.921.
13. Hughes PH, Brandenburg N, Baldwin DC, et al. Prevalence of substance use among US physicians. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. May 1992;267(17):2333-2339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03480170059029.
14. Lutsky I, Hopwood M, Abram SE, Cerletty JM, Hoffman RG, Kampine JP. Use of psychoactive substances in three medical specialties: anaesthesia, medicine and surgery. Can J Anaesth. Jul 1994;41(7):561-567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03009992.
15. Berge KH, Seppala MD, Schipper AM. Chemical dependency and the physician. Mayo Clin Proc. Jul 2009;84(7):625-631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0025-6196(11)60751-9.
16. Wright EL, McGuiness T, Moneyham LD, Schumacher JE, Zwerling A, Stullenbarger NE. Opioid abuse among nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologists. AANA J. Apr 2012;80(2):120-128.
17. Hughes PH, Storr CL, Brandenburg NA, Baldwin DC, Jr., Anthony JC, Sheehan DV. Physician substance use by medical specialty. Journal of addictive diseases. 1999;18(2):23-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J069v18n02_03.
18. About the FSPHP: History. [Web]. http://www.fsphp.org/History.html. Accessed 9/7/2013.
19. DuPont RL, McLellan AT, White WL, Merlo LJ, Gold MS. Setting the standard for recovery: Physicians’ Health Programs. J Subst Abuse Treat. Mar 2009;36(2):159-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2008.01.004.
20. Gastfriend DR. Physician substance abuse and recovery: what does it mean for physicians–and everyone else? JAMA. Mar 2005;293(12):1513-1515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.12.1513.
21. Arizona. State Programs [Web]. http://www.fsphp.org/arizona.html, 2013.
22. North Carolina. [Web]. http://www.fsphp.org/northcarolina.html, 2013.
23. Illinois. [Web]. http://www.fsphp.org/illinois.html, 2013.
24. Baldwin DC, Hughes PH, Conard SE, Storr CL, Sheehan DV. Substance use among senior medical students. JAMA. 1991;265(16). http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1991.03460160052028.
25. Bucher JT, Vu DM, Hojat M. Psychostimulant drug abuse and personality factors in medical students. Med Teach. 2013;35(1):53-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.731099.
26. Conard S, Hughes P, Baldwin DC, Achenbach KE, Sheehan DV. Substance use by fourth-year students at 13 U.S. medical schools. J Med Educ. Oct 1988;63(10):747-758.
27. Da Silveira DX, Rosa-Oliveira L, Di Pietro M, Niel M, Doering-Silveira E, Jorge MR. Evolutional pattern of drug use by medical students. Addict Behav. Mar 2008;33(3):490-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.10.005.
28. Grafton WD, Bairnsfather LE. Use of psychoactive substances by medical students: a survey. J La State Med Soc. Jun 1991;143(6):27-29.
29. Herzog DB, Borus JF, Hamburg P, Ott IL, Concus A. Substance use, eating behaviors, and social impairment of medical students. J Med Educ. Aug 1987;62(8):651-657.
30. Kory WP, Crandall LA. Nonmedical drug use patterns among medical students. Int J Addict. Dec 1984;19(8):871-884.
31. Maddux JF, Hoppe SK, Costello RM. Psychoactive substance use among medical students. Am J Psychiatry. Feb 1986;143(2):187-191.
32. McAuliffe WE, Rohman M, Santangelo S, et al. Psychoactive drug use among practicing physicians and medical students. N Engl J Med. Sep 1986;315(13):805-810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198609253151305.
33. Roberts LW, Warner TD, Rogers M, Horwitz R, Redgrave G, Care CRGoMSH. Medical student illness and impairment: a vignette-based survey study involving 955 students at 9 medical schools. Compr Psychiatry. 2005 May-Jun 2005;46(3):229-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2004.08.008.
34. Frank E, Elon L, Naimi T, Brewer R. Alcohol consumption and alcohol counselling behaviour among US medical students: cohort study. BMJ. 2008;337:a2155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2155.
35. Tuttle JP, Scheurich NE, Ranseen J. Prevalence of ADHD diagnosis and nonmedical prescription stimulant use in medical students. Acad Psychiatry. 2010 May-Jun 2010;34(3):220-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.34.3.220.
36. Baldisseri MR. Impaired healthcare professional. Crit Care Med. Feb 2007;35(2 Suppl):S106-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000252918.87746.96.
37. Carinci AJ, Christo PJ. Physician impairment: is recovery feasible? Pain physician. May-Jun 2009;12(3):487-491.
38. Lipp MR, Benson SG, Taintor Z. Marijuana use by medical students. Am J Psychiatry. Aug 1971;128(2):207-212.
39. Solursh LP, Weinstock SJ, Saunders CS, Ungerleider JT. Attitudes of medical students toward cannabis. JAMA. Sep 1971;217(10):1371-1372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1971.03190100055011.
40. Mechanick P, Mintz J, Gallagher J, Lapid G, Rubin R, Good J. Nonmedical drug use among medical students. Arch Gen Psychiatry. Jul 1973;29(1):48-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1973.04200010029005.
41. Rochford J, Grant I, LaVigne G. Medical students and drugs: further neuropsychological and use pattern considerations. Int J Addict. Dec 1977;12(8):1057-1065. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826087709027270.
42. Horowitz A, Galanter M, Dermatis H, Franklin J. Use of and attitudes toward club drugs by medical students. J Addict Dis. 2008;27(4):35-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10550880802324705.
43. Choi D, Tolova V, Socha E, Samenow CP. Substance use and attitudes on professional conduct among medical students: a single-institution study. Acad Psychiatry. May 2013;37(3):191-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.12060126.
44. Webb JR, Valasek MA, North CS. Prevalence of stimulant use in a sample of US medical students. Ann Clin Psychiatry. Feb 2013;25(1):27-32.
45. Procedures, Policies, and Essential Information for the MD Training Program. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University School of Medicine;2004.
46. MD Program Handbook: Policies and Procedures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University School of Medicine;2012.
47. Assistance for the Impaired Medical Student Aims. Valhalla, NY: New York Medical College; June 2013.
48. AIMS: Aid for the Impaired Medical Student. Memphis, TN: The University of Tennessee College of Medicine.
49. Student Handbook: Impaired Student Program. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University;2013.
50. Student Handbook: Impaired Student Policy. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky College of Medicine;2013.
51. Student Needs and Assistance Program. Hanover, NH: Geisel School of Medicine;2001.
52. Student Handbook. Omaha, NE: Creighton University School of Medicine;2013.
53. Student Handbook. Jackson, MS: The University of Mississippi Medical Center School of Health Related Professionals;2012.
54. Student Handbook. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska Medical Center;2013.
55. Medical Student Handbook. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University College of Medicine;2013.
56. Medical Student Handbook. Portland, OR: Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine;2011.
57. Student Handbook. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah School of Medicine;2013.
58. Student Handbook. Seattle, WA: University of Washington School of Medicine;2013.
59. Student Handbook. Roanoke, VA: Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine;2013.
60. Substance Abuse and Impairment. Reno, NV: University of Nevada School of Medicine;2013.
61. Substance Abuse Policy. Los Angeles, CA: David Geffen School of Medicine.
62. Student Handbook for College of Medicine Students. Bryan, TX: Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine;2010.
63. M.D. Program Student Handbook. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida College of Medicine;2011.
64. Student Handbook. North Chicago, IL: Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science;2013.
65. Student Handbook: Policy Regarding Drugs and Alcohol. Boston, MA: Harvard Medical School.
66. Henderson HW. Addicted Doctors: Responding to their Needs. Can Fam Physician. Sep 1983;29:1691-1699.
67. O’connor PG, Spickard A. Physician impairment by substance abuse. Med Clin North Am 1997;81(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0025-7125(05)70562-9.
68. Bryson EO, Silverstein JH. Addiction and substance abuse in anesthesiology. Anesthesiology. Nov 2008;109(5):905-917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181895bc1.
69. Bryson EO, Hamza H. The drug seeking anesthesia care provider. Int Anesthesiol Clin. 2011;49(1):157-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AIA.0b013e3181e72553.
70. Cost Benefits of Investing Early In Substance Abuse Treatment. Washington, DC, USA: Office of National Drug Control Policy; 2012.
71. McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O’Brien CP, Kleber HD. Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. Oct 2000;284(13):1689-1695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.13.1689.
Winter 2014 – Morphine-induced Myoclonus in a Patient with End-stage Renal Disease
Morphine-Induced Myoclonus in a Patient with End-Stage Renal Disease.
Victoria L. Stahl1*, Hassan I. Ahmad2, and James E. Novak3
Author Affiliations:
1School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
2Department of Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
3Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
[button link=”http://msrj.chm.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MSRJ-Winter-2014-Morphine-induced-Myoclonus-in-a-Patient-with-End-stage-Renal-Disease.pdf” type=”icon” icon=”download” color=green] Full Text Article PDF [/button]
*Corresponding author: Victoria Stahl, BS; vstahl[at]med.wayne.edu
Key Words: End-Stage Renal Disease; Dialysis; Myoclonus; Morphine; Opioid Rotation.
Abstract:
Introduction and Patient Profile: Pain is a common complaint, and pain control is frequently challenging. End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients constitute a special population in whom commonly-prescribed medications, including pain medications, must be adjusted or discontinued for safety. We describe a patient with ESRD in whom myoclonus developed after he received 60 days of morphine. Interventions and Outcomes: Morphine was discontinued, and symptoms resolved. Discussion: Morphine is hepatically metabolized to morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G), which is renally cleared. In patients with ESRD, M3G and other metabolites are neither renally cleared nor easily removed by dialysis, increasing the risk of neuroexcitatory symptoms such as myoclonus. The use and dosing of renally-cleared medications in ESRD patients should be carefully reviewed by prescribers and pharmacists.
Published: January 1, 2014
Senior Editor: Jack Mettler
Junior Editor: Margaret Chi
DOI: Pending
Citation:
Stahl VL, Ahmad HI, Novak JE. Morphine-Induced Myoclonus in a Patient with End-Stage Renal Disease. Medical Student Research Journal. 2014;3(Winter):023-5.
References:
1. Munar M, Singh H. Drug Dosing Adjustments in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. American Family Physician. May 2007;75(10):1487-1496.
2. Pauli-Magnus C, Hofmann U, Mikus G, Kuhlmann U, Mettang T. Pharmocokinetics of Morphine and its Glucuronides Following Intravenous Administration of Morphine in Patients Undergoing Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. April 1999;14(4):903-909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ndt/14.4.903.
3. Dean M. Opioids in Renal Failure and Dialysis Patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. November 2004;28(5):497-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.02.021.
4. Andersen G, Christrup L, Sjøgren P. Relationships Among Morphine Metabolism, Pain and Side Effects During Long-Term Treatment: An Update. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. January 2003;25(1):74-91.
5. Hemstapat K, Monteith G, Smith D, Smith MT. Morphine-3-Glucuronide’s Neuro-Excitatory Effects Are Mediated via Indirect Activation of N-Methyl-D-Aspartic Acid Receptors: Mechanistic Studies in Embryonic Cultured Hippocampal Neurones. Anesthesia and Analgesia. August 2003;97(2):494-505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000059225.40049.99.
6. Indelicato RA, Portenoy RK. Opioid Rotation in the Management of Refractory Cancer Pain. Journal of Clinical Oncology. January 2002;20(1):348-352.
7. Narabayashi M, Saijo Y, Takenoshita S, Chida M, Shimoyama N, Miura T, Tani K, Nishimura K, Onozawa Y, Hosokawa T, Kamoto T, Tsushima T. Opioid Rotation from Oral Morphine to Oral Oxycodone in Cancer Patients with Intolerable Adverse Effects: An Open-Label Trial. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology. April 2008;38(4):296-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyn010.
8. Gagnon DJ, Jwo K. Tremors and Agitation Following Low-Dose Intravenous Hydromorphone Administration in a Patient with Kidney Dysfunction. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. July/August 2013;47(7-8);e34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1345/aph.1R784.
9. Paramanandam G, Prommer E, Schwenke DC. Adverse Effects in Hospice Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease Receiving Hydromorphone. Journal of Palliative Medicine. September 2011;14(9):1029-1033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2011.0103.
10. King S, Forbes K, Hanks GW, Ferro CJ, Chambers EJ. A Systemic Review of the Use of Opioid Medication for Those with Moderate to Severe Cancer Pain and Renal Impairment: A European Palliative Care Research Collaborative Opioid Guidelines Project. Palliative Medicine. July 2011;25(5):525-552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269216311406313.
Winter 2014 – Declaration of Helsinki: What Does the Future Hold?
Declaration of Helsinki: What Does the Future Hold?
Margaret D. Chi* and Michelle A. Dwyer
Author Affiliations:
College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Corresponding author: Margaret D. Chi MPH; chimarga[at]msu.edu
Key Words: Research Ethics; Medicine; Human Research Subject Protection; Informed Consent; Helsinki Declaration; Bioethics
[button link=”http://msrj.chm.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MSRJ-Winter-2014-Declaration-of-Helsinki-What-Does-the-Future-Hold.pdf” type=”icon” icon=”download” color=green] Full Text Article PDF [/button]
Corresponding author: Margaret D. Chi MPH; chimarga[at]msu.edu
Key Words: Research Ethics; Medicine; Human Research Subject Protection; Informed Consent; Helsinki Declaration; Bioethics
Abstract:
Within the world of medical research, the Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) has long been considered the cornerstone document explaining the “rules” of ethical human research. Developed in 1964 by the World Medical Association to protect the rights of research subjects, it originally contained a set of 11 articles explaining the basic ethical duties of physicians in regards to research. The original version took aspects of the Nuremburg Code and Declaration of Geneva to incorporate human experimentation with the physician’s ethical role in the process and delineated a patient’s rights of informed consent, privacy and safety1,3. Since then, it has undergone seven revisions and grown in length from 11 to now 37 articles, with categories ranging from General Principles to Risks to Informed Consent (http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html)2. Though considered comprehensive and accurate in some aspects, it has not been without controversy over the years. Therefore, this year, which commemorates the 50th anniversary of the document, we must ask, how has the relevance of DoH changed, and will it change further in the future?
Published: January 1, 2014
Senior Editor: N/A
Junior Editor: N/A
DOI: Pending
Citation:
Chi MD, Dwyer MA. Declaration of Helsinki: What Does the Future Hold?. Medical Student Research Journal. 2014;3(Winter):20-2.
References:
1. Carlson, RV, Boyd KM, Webb, DJ. The Revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: Past, present and future. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2004; 57(6):695-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2004.02103.x.
2. Nbebele, P. The Declaration of Helsinki, 50 years later. JAMA. 2013; 310(20):2145-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281316.
3. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles form medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310(20):2191-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
4. Millium, J, Wendler, D, Emmanuel E. The 50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Helsinki: progress but many remaining challenges. JAMA. 2013; 310(20):2143-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281632.
5. Coyne, J. Revised Ethical Principles Have Profound Implications for Psychological Research. PLOS Blogs. 2013. http://blogs.plos.org/mindthebrain/2013/10/20/revised-ethical-principles-have-profound-implications-for-psychological-research/ [cited 30 November, 2013].
Winter 2014 – Spirit Queen
Spirit Queen.
Masaki Nagamine
Author Affiliations:
College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
[button link=”http://msrj.chm.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MSRJ-Winter-2014-Spirit-Queen.pdf” type=”icon” icon=”download” color=green] Full Text Article PDF [/button]
Corresponding Author: Masaki Nagamine; masakinagamine[at]gmail.com
Key Words: N/A
Abstract:
Preface: In my childhood, I lived with a family member suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The painting is my interpretation of the inner turmoil that this family member faces regularly. It is my hope that the viewers of this painting can gain some insight into the difficulties involved in living with a chronic mental illness that cannot be fully understood. The painting depicts a person with paranoid schizophrenia attempting to balance her perceived reality between cultural beliefs, logical reasoning, and schizophrenic delusion. The image shows a young child looking down on her brain encased in a coiled golden ribbon to illustrate the dichotomy of the body and mind. The four corners of the painting are weathered and deteriorating to demonstrate the progressive nature
of the disease/illness.
Published: January 1, 2014
Senior Editor: N/A
Junior Editor: N/A
DOI: Pending
Citation:
Nagamine M. Spirit Queen. Medical Student Research Journal. 2014;3(Winter):18-9.
References:
N/A
Winter 2014 – Letter From the Editors
Letter From the Editors.
Kevin C. Patterson and Jessica L. Wummel
Author Affiliations:
College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
[button link=”http://msrj.chm.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MSRJ-Winter-2014-Letter-From-The-Editors.pdf” type=”icon” icon=”download” color=green] Full Text Article PDF [/button]
Corresponding Author: Kevin C. Patterson; patte297[at]gmail.com
Key Words: N/A
Abstract:
The editors of MSRJ would like to extend our warm wishes in the winter season and hope that it has
been filled with joy, family, and good fortune. We are very excited to introduce the first issue of 2014, as well as the second issue of the 20132014 academic year. As medical students around the world return to their
books and clinic duties, we present educational and stimulating new articles. The published works in this
issue highlight the efforts of students from Creighton University School of Medicine, Wayne State University
School of Medicine, and Michigan State University College of Human Medicine.
Published: January 1, 2014
Senior Editor: N/A
Junior Editor: N/A
DOI: Pending
Citation:
Patterson KC, Wummel JL. Letter From the Editors. Medical Student Research Journal. 2014;3(Winter):17.
References:
N/A