We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
In This Issue of Archives of Internal Medicine |

In This Issue of Archives of Internal Medicine FREE

Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(16):1424. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.398.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Collaborative care models have been shown to improve care and outcomes for patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes and depression. A total of 703 patients with ischemic heart disease from 4 Department of Veterans Affairs facilities and affiliated clinics, whose angina was poorly controlled, were enrolled a prospective, population-based, cluster-randomized (by primary care provider) trial of a multifaceted intervention based on a collaborative care model. Collaborative care teams transmitted recommendations via the electronic health record to 183 primary care providers. Although 92% of 701 recommendations were implemented, patients' self-reported symptoms and health did not significantly improve and concordance with guidelines improved only modestly.

See Article

Creative, cost-effective interventions to improve the quality of care of chronic illnesses are needed. Published evidence suggests improvements occur by incorporating pharmacists into the team-based management of patients with diabetes. Remotely located pharmacists armed with population management tools and electronic medical record connectivity can effectively collaborate with physicians electronically and manage patients telephonically. This method of providing care offers several benefits over the traditional in-clinic, team-based care.

See Article

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacemakers are known to be effective in reducing clinical events in patients with systolic heart failure with prolonged QRS. This meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials enrolling 5813 patients reports that the reduction in clinical events is limited to patients with severely prolonged QRS (ie, >150 milliseconds [ms], 40% relative risk reduction; P <  .001), with no benefit in the those with a moderately prolonged QRS (ie, 120-150 ms, risk ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.82-1.10]; P = .49). These findings can have implications for the selection of patients for CRT.

See Article

Epidemiologic data suggest that analgesic use increases the risk of renal cell cancer (RCC), but few prospective studies exist. Cho et al investigated use of analgesics in relation to RCC risk in large prospective studies of women and men. Regular use of nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was associated with an increased RCC risk. There was a dose-response relation between duration of regular nonaspirin NSAIDs use and RCC risk with up to about 3-fold elevated risk among those who used for 10-years or longer. The authors conclude that longer duration of use of nonaspirin NSAIDs may increase the risk of RCC.

See Article

Schwartz and Woloshin surveyed a nationally representative sample of 2944 American adults to assess their understanding of the meaning of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and conducted a randomized trial to test the effect of brief explanations (<40 words) communicating drug uncertainties on consumer choices. The authors found that a substantial proportion of the public mistakenly believes that the FDA only approves extremely effective drugs (39%) that lack serious adverse effects (25%). Participants randomized to explanations were more likely to correctly choose a cholesterol drug known to reduce myocardial infarctions over one only known to lower cholesterol levels (71% vs 59%) and an older rather than newly approved heartburn drug (53% vs 34%).

 Image not available.

Effect of explanation about surrogate outcomes.

See Article

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.