Decision making in continuing professional development organisations during a crisis.

INTRODUCTION: Early in COVID-19, continuing professional development (CPD) providers quickly made decisions about program content, design, funding and technology. Although experiences during an earlier pandemic cautioned providers to make disaster plans, CPD was not entirely prepared for this event. We sought to better understand how CPD organisations make decisions about CPD strategy and operations during a crisis. METHODS: This is a descriptive qualitative research study of decision making in two organisations: CPD at the University of Toronto (UofT) and the US-based Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education (SACME). In March 2021, using purposive and snowball sampling, we invited faculty and staff who held leadership positions to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interview focused on the individual's role and organisation, their decision-making process and reflections on how their units had changed because of COVID-19. Transcripts were reviewed, coded and analysed using thematic analysis. We used Mazmanian et al.'s Ecological Framework as a further conceptual tool. RESULTS: We conducted eight interviews from UofT and five from SACME. We identified that decision making during the pandemic occurred over four phases of reactions and impact from COVID-19, including shutdown, pivot, transition and the 'new reality'. The decision-making ability of CPD organisations changed throughout the pandemic, ranging from having little or no independent decision-making ability early on to having considerable control over choosing appropriate pathways forward. Decision making was strongly influenced by the creativity, adaptability and flexibility of the CPD community and the need for social connection. CONCLUSIONS: This adds to literature on the changes CPD organisations faced due to COVID-19, emphasising CPD organisations' adaptability in making decisions. Applying the Ecological Framework further demonstrates the importance of time to decision-making processes and the relational aspect of CPD. To face future crises, CPD will need to embrace creative, flexible and socially connected solutions. Future scholarship could explore an organisation's ability to rapidly adapt to better prepare for future crises.

"The genie is out of the bottle": a qualitative study on the impact of COVID-19 on continuing professional development.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic catalysed a monumental shift in the field of continuing professional development (CPD). Prior to this, the majority of CPD group-learning activities were offered in-person. However, the pandemic forced the field to quickly pivot towards more novel methods of learning and teaching in view of social distancing regulations. The purpose of this study was to obtain the perspectives of CPD leaders on the impact of the pandemic to elucidate trends, innovations, and potential future directions in the field. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between April-September 2022 with 23 CPD leaders from Canada and the USA. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and de-identified. A thematic analysis approach was used to analyse the data and generate themes. RESULTS: Participants characterised COVID-19 as compelling widespread change in the field of CPD. From the interviews, researchers generated six themes pertaining to the impact of the pandemic on CPD: (1) necessity is the mother of innovation, (2) the paradox of flexibility and accessibility, (3) we're not going to unring the bell, (4) reimagining design and delivery, (5) creating an evaluative culture, and (6) a lifeline in times of turmoil. CONCLUSION: This qualitative study discusses the impact of the pandemic on the field of CPD and leaders' vision for the future. Despite innumerable challenges, the pandemic created opportunities to reform design and delivery. Our findings indicate a necessity to maintain an innovative culture to best support learners, to improve the healthcare system, and to prepare for future emergencies.

Assisting physicians who exhibit disruptive behavior: Understanding the costs, contributors, and corrections.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to discuss the etiology, prevalence, impact, and management of disruptive behavior in physicians. These various aspects will be examined at both the individual and system level, to provide appropriate perspective and detail effective approaches to address these behaviors. METHOD: Clinical experience and review of the authors' and other researchers' findings provide consensus on numerous key aspects of physician disruptive behavior. RESULTS: Physicians demonstrating disruptive behavior are often distressed. The behavior should be understood as arising from biopsychosocial contributors, knowledge gaps, insight, and systems factors. These contributors are inclusive and may interact with each other. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive approach is required which can include assessment/reassessment tools, individualized programming (therapy, coaching, instruction), deliberate practice, medical follow-up, and system intervention. Complications include the diversity of disruptive behaviors, the many contributory factors therein, disagreement about methodology/measurement, and the role of the system.

Causal cascade of direct and indirect effects of anifrolumab on patient-reported outcomes: structural equation modelling of two Phase 3 trials.

OBJECTIVES: SLE significantly impairs health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In this post hoc analysis, structural equation modelling was used to examine the 'causal cascade' of interaction between anifrolumab, disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in pooled data from the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials. METHODS: Data were pooled from the TULIP-1 (n = 364) and TULIP-2 (n = 362) randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg every 4 weeks for 48 weeks). We evaluated changes from baseline to week 24 and week 52 in four clinical (BICLA, BILAG-2004, SLEDAI-2K and changes in glucocorticoid dosage) and six PRO measures (SF-36, FACIT-F, EQ-5D, LupusQoL, PHQ-8 and pain NRS) in our hypothesized model of interactions. RESULTS: Our hypothesized model had an acceptable fit to the pooled TULIP trial data. At week 24, significant paths revealed that when compared with placebo, anifrolumab treatment improved disease activity as measured by BICLA, BILAG-2004, SLEDAI-2K and changes to glucocorticoid dosage. In turn, these clinical measures reduced pain, which improved fatigue, physical functioning, mood/emotions and HRQoL. When the model incorporated number of glucocorticoid tapers as the measure of change in glucocorticoid dosage, treatment effects of anifrolumab on glucocorticoid tapers were not retained at week 52. However, at week 52 treatment indirectly improved HRQoL through its direct effects on BICLA. CONCLUSIONS: Anifrolumab is associated with significant patient-reported improvements in aspects of HRQoL including pain, fatigue, mood and physical function. These benefits are from the direct effect of anifrolumab treatment on disease activity and reduction in glucocorticoid dosage.

Cognitive Screening Tools for Late Career Physicians: A Critical Review.

Screening measures are widely used in medicine to assess the increased probability that members of a defined population have a particular condition and therefore require more extensive assessment. The rationale for prospective screening of late career physicians (LCPs) is drawn from the following circumstances: Senior physicians-prone to the vicissitudes of aging-comprise nearly a third of the US physician workforce, physicians are poor at self-evaluation, data suggest many have clinically relevant cognitive decline, and screening is an evidence-based, method to detect individuals at risk and determine whether a comprehensive evaluation is necessary. A handful of professional organizations (eg, surgeons, obstetricians, and a growing number of medical staff credentialing committees) have developed policies in this arena. This focused review compares cognitive screening methods used or recommended for LCPs, with particular attention to the psychometric properties, ease of operational implementation, and appropriate application to physicians-a population selected for high cognitive reserve and skills. Further, we identify gaps in knowledge and practice, including the need for more career-span normative data on physicians' cognitive and work performance. Stakeholders can improve rehabilitation and other supports to LCPs in transition, calling upon the unique expertise of those neuropsychologists who are trained on conducting fitness for duty evaluations, as well as rehabilitation professionals who can assist in developing modifications to practice when indicated or facilitate graceful transitions to retirement when necessary.

Influence of titration of antiseizure medications on treatment selection: Results of an online survey with clinicians in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Most antiseizure medications (ASM) need to be titrated before the optimal dose is achieved. Titration can last several weeks to months. We assessed the impact titration schedules have on ASM treatment-related decisions in the United States (US). METHODS: An online survey was conducted with different healthcare providers (HCPs) in the US involved in the treatment and management of patients with epilepsy. The survey contained three sections: the first section with screening questions; the second on key factors that influence a HCP's decision-making when selecting treatments for different types of seizures and different treatment lines; and the third on the HCP's knowledge and perceptions regarding ASM titration for the treatment of patients with epilepsy. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty HCPs (63% neurologists) completed the survey. Most HCPs considered titration schedule to be important, with only 1-3% of HCPs, depending on type of seizure, considering the titration schedule to be "not important at all" when prescribing therapy. Healthcare providers' acceptance of titration increased with shorter durations (≥50% accepted titration periods of ≤2 weeks), and lower number of tablets/capsules per dose (≥50% accepted ≤3 tablets/capsules per dose), doses (≥50% accepted ≤2 doses/day), and steps (≥50% accepted ≤3 steps/dose change). Most HCPs (68-91% depending on type of seizure) considered a titration duration of 6 or more weeks only somewhat acceptable or somewhat or highly unacceptable. Almost all HCPs selected "somewhat familiar", "familiar", or "very familiar" as the attribute that best defines their knowledge level of titration, with only 4% selecting "a little familiar". While 87% of HCPs agreed or strongly agreed that they could easily understand titration schedules, only 27% of them agreed or strongly agreed that patients could easily understand titration schedules and 58% of HCPs considered that adhering to the titration schedule was difficult for patients. Most HCPs agreed or strongly agreed that a complex or long titration schedule renders it difficult to achieve their treatment objectives. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers take into account the duration and complexity of the titration period in their ASM prescribing decision-making and prefer shorter and simpler titration schedules, particularly for patients who are experiencing convulsive seizures and starting monotherapy. There was a clear difference between the HCP's belief in their own ability to understand a titration schedule, and their belief that the patient would be able to follow the titration schedule appropriately.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel 4 mg/d for the treatment of focal seizures: A pooled post hoc analysis of four randomized, double-blind, phase III studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel 4 mg/d received as modal dose, which may have differed from randomized dose, for treatment of focal seizures. METHODS: Data were pooled from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies of adjunctive perampanel in patients (aged ≥12 years) with focal seizures, with/without focal to bilateral tonic-clonic (FBTC) seizures: studies 304 (NCT00699972), 305 (NCT00699582), 306 (NCT00700310), and 335 (NCT01618695). Efficacy assessments included median percentage reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days and seizure-freedom rates for patients receiving placebo and perampanel 4 mg/d (modal dose). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed in patients receiving perampanel 4 mg/d at their TEAE onset. Outcomes were also assessed with/without enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (EIASMs). RESULTS: The full analysis set included 979 patients with focal seizures (placebo: n = 616 [235 with FBTC seizures]; perampanel 4 mg/d: n = 363 [134 with FBTC seizures]). Compared with placebo, perampanel 4 mg/d conferred significantly greater median percentage reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days for focal (12.6% vs 21.1%; P = .0004) and FBTC seizures (17.4% vs 49.8%; P < .0001), and seizure-freedom rates for focal (0.8% vs 3.6%; P = .0018) and FBTC seizures (11.1% vs 18.7%; P = .0424). Seizure improvements with perampanel 4 mg/d were greater without EIASMs than with EIASMs. For assessment of TEAEs, overall 1376 patients with focal seizures received perampanel 4 mg/d at any time (FBTC seizures, n = 499). TEAEs with perampanel 4 mg/d occurred in 419 of 1376 (30.5%) and 148 of 499 (29.7%) patients with focal and FBTC seizures, respectively; most common was dizziness. The proportion of TEAEs was similar with or without EIASMs. SIGNIFICANCE: This post hoc analysis showed adjunctive perampanel 4 mg/d was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with focal seizures, with or without FBTC seizures. This dose may be a valuable treatment option in patients unable to tolerate higher perampanel doses up to 12 mg/d.

Assessment of the long-term efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in tonic-clonic seizures: Analysis of four open-label extension studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated long-term efficacy and safety in patients with focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (FBTCS) or generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) who entered open-label extension (OLEx) studies to receive long-term adjunctive perampanel. METHODS: Patients aged 12 years and older who completed phase II or III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies could enter an OLEx study, each comprising a blinded conversion period followed by an open-label maintenance period (32-424 weeks; maximum perampanel dose = 12 mg/d). Exposure, seizure outcomes, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between patients with FBTCS (n = 720) and GTCS (n = 138). Mean (standard deviation) cumulative duration of perampanel exposure was 102.3 (70.3) weeks (FBTCS) and 83.9 (38.4) weeks (GTCS). Retention rates were 50.0% for up to 4 years (FBTCS) and 49.2% for up to 2 years (GTCS). Across OLEx treatment durations, median reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days were 66.7% (FBTCS) and 80.6% (GTCS). Fifty percent and 75% responder and seizure-freedom rates were 59.5%, 45.3%, and 18.4%, respectively (FBTCS), and 72.5%, 51.5%, and 16.7%, respectively (GTCS). Efficacy was sustained for up to 4 years (FBTCS) and up to 3 years (GTCS), even when accounting for early dropouts. TEAE incidence was highest during Year 1 (FBTCS, 85.3%; GTCS, 86.2%); most common were dizziness and somnolence. During Year 1, serious TEAEs were reported in 81 (11.3%; FBTCS) and 10 (7.2%; GTCS) patients. TEAEs were consistent with the known safety profile of perampanel; no new safety signals were identified with long-term treatment. SIGNIFICANCE: This post hoc analysis suggests long-term (up to 4 years) adjunctive perampanel (up to 12 mg/d) is efficacious and well tolerated in patients (aged 12 years and older) with FBTCS or GTCS.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel in adolescent patients with epilepsy: Post hoc analysis of six randomized studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of six randomized, double-blind, Phase II and III studies evaluated efficacy and safety of adjunctive perampanel (2-12 mg/day) in adolescent patients (aged ≥12 to ≤17 years) with uncontrolled partial-onset seizures, with or without secondarily generalized (SG) seizures, or primary generalized tonic-clonic (PGTC) seizures. METHODS: Adolescent patients from Studies 304 (NCT00699972), 305 (NCT00699582), 306 (NCT00700310), 335 (NCT01618695), 235 (NCT01161524), and 332 (NCT01393743) were included. Efficacy assessments (split by seizure type) included median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days from baseline and seizure-freedom rates. Safety assessments (all seizure types combined) included monitoring of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The Safety Analysis Set included 372 adolescent patients (placebo, n = 114; perampanel, n = 258); the Full Analysis Set included 346 patients with partial-onset seizures (placebo, n = 103; perampanel, n = 243), of whom 125 experienced SG seizures during baseline (placebo, n = 37; perampanel, n = 88), and 22 with PGTC seizures (placebo, n = 9; perampanel, n = 13). Compared with placebo, perampanel 8 and 12 mg/day conferred greater median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days for partial-onset seizures (18.0% vs 35.9% and 53.8% [both P < 0.01]) and SG seizures (24.4% vs 72.8% [P < 0.001] and 57.8% [P < 0.01]), and greater seizure-freedom rates (partial-onset: 7.8% vs 13.2% and 11.8% [not statistically significant]; SG: 8.1% vs 40.7% [P < 0.001] and 41.7% [P < 0.01]). For PGTC seizures, and compared with placebo, perampanel 8 mg/day was also associated with greater median percent reductions in seizure frequency per 28 days (29.8% vs 88.0%) and greater seizure-freedom rates (11.1% vs 23.1%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 76 (66.7%) placebo- and 192 (74.4%) perampanel-treated patients (most common: dizziness, somnolence, headache, and nasopharyngitis). Serious TEAEs occurred in 5 (4.4%) placebo- and 11 (4.3%) perampanel-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive perampanel was efficacious and generally well tolerated in adolescent patients with partial-onset, SG, or PGTC seizures and represents a potentially beneficial treatment option for adolescents with uncontrolled epilepsy.

Final safety, tolerability, and seizure outcomes in patients with focal epilepsy treated with adjunctive perampanel for up to 4 years in an open-label extension of phase III randomized trials: Study 307.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term safety/tolerability and seizure outcomes in patients with focal seizures treated with adjunctive perampanel in the open-label extension (OLEx) Study 307 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00735397). METHODS: Patients could enter the OLEx after completing one of the double-blind, phase III studies. Safety/tolerability and seizure outcomes (median percent reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days, and 50% responder and seizure freedom rates) were analyzed during the OLEx in cohorts with the same minimum perampanel exposure for all focal seizures and secondarily generalized seizures (SGS). An additional sensitivity analysis accounted for early dropouts from the OLEx. RESULTS: Of 1480 patients randomized across the double-blind studies, 1218 enrolled in the OLEx. The majority of patients (65.4%-80.9%) received a last daily dose of perampanel 12 mg and completed long-term assessment on the same, or one fewer, concomitant antiepileptic drug compared with baseline. The long-term safety/tolerability profile was consistent with the double-blind studies. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to discontinuation in >1% of patients were dizziness, irritability, and fatigue; TEAEs of clinical interest were stable for 4 years. In all cohorts, seizure outcome improvements were sustained over time. Median percent seizure reductions per 28 days reached 62.0% and 70.6% for patients with ≥3 (n = 436) or ≥4 (n = 78) years of exposure, respectively; corresponding 50% responder rates were 59.6% and 67.9%. The largest median percent seizure reduction per 28 days occurred in SGS for patients with SGS at baseline: 88.0% and 100.0% for patients with ≥3 (n = 190) or ≥4 (n = 28) years of exposure, respectively; in these cohorts 40.0% and 53.6% of patients, respectively, attained freedom from SGS. Median percent seizure reductions per 28 days were similar when early dropouts were accounted for. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term (≤4 years) adjunctive perampanel treatment did not raise new safety/tolerability signals and was associated with markedly improved seizure control, particularly in patients with SGS at baseline.

Long-term effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition in adolescents with partial seizures.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition, efficacy, growth, safety, and tolerability in adolescents with inadequately controlled partial seizures. METHODS: Study 235, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, Phase II study with an open-label extension phase (NCT01161524), was primarily designed to assess the effects of adjunctive perampanel on cognition. Patients (aged ≥12 to <18years) had a diagnosis of epilepsy with inadequately controlled partial seizures, with or without secondary generalization, despite receiving 1-3 antiepileptic drugs. During the double-blind phase, adjunctive perampanel or placebo was administered over a 6-week titration period and a 13-week maintenance period up to 12mg/day. During the extension phase, all patients received perampanel. Data from the extension phase are presented here. Study endpoints included change from baseline in Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) measures of cognition, seizure frequency, growth, development, the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and laboratory values. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients entered the extension phase (prior double-blind treatment: placebo, n=41; perampanel, n=73). Perampanel had no effect on the CDR system global cognition score, continuity of attention, quality of episodic memory, quality of working memory, or speed of memory but was associated with a significant decline in power of attention at end of treatment compared with baseline (p=0.03). There were no effects on language skills or manual dexterity from baseline to end of treatment. At Weeks 40-52, median reduction in seizure frequency was 74.1%, and 50% responder rate was 66.0%. There were no clinically relevant effects of perampanel on growth or development at end of treatment compared with baseline. Overall, 84.2% of patients experienced at least one TEAE and 70.2% experienced at least one treatment-related TEAE. The most common TEAEs were dizziness (29.8%) and somnolence (19.3%). The TEAEs resulted in the discontinuation of treatment in 6.1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In keeping with the 19-week double-blind phase, long-term adjunctive treatment with perampanel did not have any significant overall effects on the CDR system global cognition score in adolescent patients with inadequately controlled partial seizures. Similar trends were observed across the individual CDR system domains. Adjunctive perampanel showed sustained long-term seizure control and had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that observed in prior clinical studies.

Analysis of falls in patients with epilepsy enrolled in the perampanel phase III randomized double-blind studies.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze occurrence of falls among patients with partial seizures, with/without secondarily generalized seizures (SGS), and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in the perampanel phase III clinical studies. METHODS: Studies 304, 305, and 306 randomized subjects (≥12 years) with drug-resistant partial seizures (with/without SGS) to perampanel 2, 4, 8, or 12 mg or placebo for double-blind treatment. The adverse event (AE) of falls was analyzed in the Safety Analysis Set (N = 1480). Study 332 randomized subjects aged ≥12 years with a diagnosis of PGTCS into perampanel 8 mg or placebo groups for double-blind treatment. In a systematic review of reported falls in the study 332 Safety Analysis Set (N = 163), falls were queried to establish whether each was seizure related; subjects with falls resulting from a seizure were not included in this analysis. RESULTS: For studies 304/305/306, treatment-emergent falls occurred in 5.1% perampanel-treated versus 3.4% placebo-treated subjects with partial seizures. Exposure-adjusted rate for falls (falls/subject-month of exposure) was greater for total perampanel than for placebo (0.0175 vs. 0.0093) and was dose related for those receiving perampanel. In subjects with SGS, incidence of treatment-emergent falls was 4.3% in perampanel and 4.0% in placebo groups. Exposure-adjusted rates were 0.0169 and 0.0097 falls per subject-month of exposure in perampanel and placebo, respectively. For study 332, 2.5% perampanel-treated and 1.2% placebo-treated subjects with PGTCS had treatment-emergent falls that were not part of a seizure. Exposure-adjusted rates were 0.0169 and 0.0032 falls per subject-month of exposure in perampanel and placebo, respectively. SIGNIFICANCE: Results of the perampanel studies suggest that patients with epilepsy should be monitored due to the common risk of falls.

Perampanel with concomitant levetiracetam and topiramate: Post hoc analysis of adverse events related to hostility and aggression.

In 4 Phase III registration trials (3 in patients with partial seizures, N=1480; 1 in patients with PGTCS, N=163), perampanel administered to patients already receiving 1-3 concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) demonstrated statistically superior efficacy compared to placebo in reducing seizure frequency. However, use of perampanel in these studies was associated with a risk of psychiatric and behavioral adverse reactions, including aggression, hostility, irritability, anger, and homicidal ideation and threats. The present study is a post hoc analysis of pooled data from these 4 trials to determine if concomitant treatment with levetiracetam and/or topiramate increased the risk of hostility- and aggression-related AEs. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were determined using a "Narrow & Broad" search based on the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) standard MedDRA query (SMQ) for hostility- and aggression-related events. The rate of hostility- and aggression-related TEAEs was observed to be similar among perampanel-treated patients: a) receiving levetiracetam (N=340) compared to those not receiving levetiracetam (N=779); b) receiving topiramate (N=223) compared to those not receiving topiramate (N=896); and c) receiving both levetiracetam and topiramate (N=47) compared to those not receiving levetiracetam and topiramate (N=1072). Severe and serious TEAEs related to hostility and aggression were rare and occurred at a similar rate regardless of concomitant levetiracetam and/or topiramate therapy. Taken together, these results suggest that concomitant treatment with levetiracetam and/or topiramate has no appreciable effect on the occurrence of hostility- or aggression-related TEAEs in patients receiving perampanel.

Physician health and wellbeing provide challenges to patient safety and outcome quality across the careerspan.

OBJECTIVE: Age correlated changes in mental and physical capacity have contributed to increasing concerns about older physicians' clinical competence. This paper explores the relationship between age and health in a clinical population referred for fitness for duty evaluations. METHODS: Fifty cases from an evaluation center performing fitness for duty evaluations were randomly selected. Cases were reviewed for referral reason, demographic information, diagnosis, and recommendations. RESULTS: Age ranged from 28-70 (median age of 51, mode of 45).Eighty-eight percent of cases had a diagnosed medical condition with potential cognitive sequellae. CONCLUSION: While the literature supports performance concerns in aging practitioners, health independent of age, appears to be an important contributing factor. A screening process considering biopsychosocial reserve and professional load while applicable to older clinicians would optimally be implemented for physicians across their careerspan.

Perampanel efficacy and safety by gender: Subanalysis of phase III randomized clinical studies in subjects with partial seizures.

The antiepileptic drug (AED) perampanel is approved in ≥40 countries as adjunctive therapy for drug-resistant partial seizures in patients with epilepsy. This post hoc analysis of pooled data from three phase III, double-blind, randomized studies of perampanel examines between-gender differences in perampanel efficacy and safety. Of the 1,478 subjects in the pooled analysis (719 male, 759 female), 1,109 were included in the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis. Perampanel oral clearance was 17% lower in female than in male patients not receiving enzyme-inducing AEDs. Pooled efficacy analysis revealed that seizure frequency was reduced with perampanel treatment regardless of gender; a greater numerical reduction in seizure frequency and increased responder rates occurred in female participants at perampanel doses of 4, 8, and 12 mg. Tolerability was similar between groups, although common adverse events such as dizziness and headache occurred more frequently in female subjects. Modest elevations in perampanel exposure in female patients may result in meaningful between-gender differences in efficacy and safety; therefore, dosing should be individualized and clinical response monitored.

Psychiatric and behavioral adverse events in randomized clinical studies of the noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist perampanel.

OBJECTIVE: Perampanel, a selective, noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) glutamate receptor antagonist, is indicated for adjunctive treatment of partial seizures in patients ≥12 years based on three phase III clinical studies. The perampanel U.S. Prescribing Information includes a boxed warning for serious psychiatric and behavioral adverse reactions. To provide context for this warning, detail on psychiatric and behavioral safety data from perampanel clinical studies is presented. METHODS: An analysis of pooled safety data from three phase III studies in patients with partial seizures is presented. Data from phase I and phase II studies in patients with and without epilepsy were also analyzed. Psychiatric and behavioral treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated according to Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terms, using "narrow" and "narrow-and-broad" standardized MedDRA queries (SMQs) for TEAEs suggestive of hostility/aggression. RESULTS: From the three phase III partial-seizure studies, the overall rate of psychiatric TEAEs was higher in the 8 mg (17.2%) and 12 mg (22.4%) perampanel groups versus placebo (12.4%). In the "narrow" SMQ, hostility/aggression TEAEs were observed in 2.8% for 8 mg and 6.3% for 12 mg perampanel groups, versus 0.7% of placebo patients. "Narrow-and-broad" SMQs for hostility/aggression TEAE rates were 12.3% for 8 mg and 20.4% for 12 mg perampanel groups, versus 5.7% for placebo; rates for events resulting in discontinuation were perampanel = 1.6% versus placebo = 0.7%. For events reported as serious AEs (SAEs), rates were perampanel = 0.7% versus placebo = 0.2%. In nonepilepsy patients, psychiatric TEAEs were similar between patients receiving perampanel and placebo. In phase I subjects/volunteers, all psychiatric TEAEs were mild or moderate. These analyses suggest that psychiatric adverse effects are associated with use of perampanel. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients and caregivers should be counseled regarding the potential risk of psychiatric and behavioral events with perampanel in patients with partial seizures; patients should be monitored for these events during treatment, especially during titration and at higher doses.

Perampanel in the treatment of partial seizures: Time to onset and duration of most common adverse events from pooled Phase III and extension studies.

Perampanel (PER) is a novel noncompetitive AMPA-receptor antagonist approved in over 40 countries for treatment of partial seizures. The safety and tolerability of PER have been well-documented in three double-blind, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled Phase III studies and an open-label extension (OLE). This post hoc analysis evaluated the occurrence and characteristics of the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with PER. Results from the Phase III studies were pooled; post hoc analyses on the double-blind phase and up to 1 year of the OLE were performed on the four most common TEAEs for which incidence was higher for PER than PBO. The four most common TEAEs were dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, and irritability. For most subjects in the Phase III double-blind studies, these TEAEs were observed during 6-week titration and were mild or moderate in severity. For severe AEs, no dose-response relationship was observed. Patients in the PBO group during Phase III (who therefore received their first PER treatment during OLE) experienced these TEAEs with incidence and timing similar to that of PER-treated patients in Phase III. The first onset of these TEAEs occurred during the early weeks of PER conversion in the OLE. After 6months and up to 1 year of PER treatment, low to no incidence of the first onset of the four TEAEs was observed. Post hoc analyses of data from pooled Phase III studies provide greater insight into occurrence/duration of TEAEs. Phase III double-blind and OLE data showed that dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, and irritability were the most common TEAEs reported by patients taking PER. Additionally, these results suggest consistency between studies in patient responses to onset of these TEAEs. Although concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) might be predicted to affect development of TEAEs in patients taking PER, an effect was not observed in this analysis. The low incidence of TEAEs in these studies provides additional support for long-term PER treatment.

Health Care Professional Distress and Mental Health: A Call to the Continuing Professional Development Community.

ABSTRACT: COVID-19 unleashed a maelstrom of distress on health care professionals. The pandemic contributed to a host of stressors for workers because of the need for rapid acquisition of new knowledge and skills to provide best treatment while simultaneously dealing with personal safety, limited resources, staffing shortages, and access to care issues. Concurrently, problems with systemic racial inequality and discrimination became more apparent secondary to difficulties with accessing health care for minorities and other marginalized groups. These problems contributed to many health care professionals experiencing severe moral injury and burnout as they struggled to uphold core values and do their jobs professionally. Some left or disengaged. Others died. As continuing professional development leaders focused on all health professionals, we must act deliberately to address health care professionals' distress and mental health. We must incorporate wellness and mental health as organizing principles in all we do. We must adopt a new mental model that recognizes the importance of learners' biopsychosocial functioning and commit to learners' wellness by developing activities that embrace a biopsychosocial point of view. As educators and influencers, we must demonstrate that the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's fourth aim to improve clinician well-being and safety (2014) and fifth aim to address health equity and the social determinants of health (2021) matter. It is crucial that continuing professional development leaders globally use their resources and relationships to accomplish this imperative call for action.

Pivoting Continuing Professional Development During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Narrative Scoping Review of Adaptations and Innovations.

INTRODUCTION: Most formal continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities were offered in person until March 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted traditional structures of CPD offerings. The authors explored the adaptations and innovations in CPD that were strengthened or newly created during the first 16 months of the pandemic. METHODS: The objectives of the narrative review were to answer the following questions: (1) what types of adaptations to CPD innovations are described? and (2) what may shape future innovations in CPD? The following databases were searched: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and ERIC to identify the literature published between March 2020 to July 2021. The authors conducted a comprehensive search by including all study types that described adaptations and/or innovations in CPD during the stated pandemic period. RESULTS: Of the 8295 citations retrieved from databases, 191 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The authors found three categories to describe adaptations to CPD innovations: (1) creation of new online resources, (2) increased use of the existing online platforms/software to deliver CPD, and (3) use of simulation for teaching and learning. Reported advantages and disadvantages associated with these adaptations included logistical, interactional, and capacity building elements. The review identified five potential future CPD innovations: (1) empirical research on the effectiveness of virtual learning; (2) novel roles and ways of thinking; (3) learning from other disciplines beyond medicine; (4) formation of a global perspective; and (5) emerging wellness initiatives. DISCUSSION: This review provided an overview of the adaptations and innovations that may shape the future of CPD beyond the pandemic.