- Jennifer Middleton, MD, MPH
Although still quite rare, occurrences of acute flaccid myelitis (AFM), a polio-like condition that results in sudden limb weakness, have been increasing in the United States (US). Most of the affected individuals are children, and a definitive cause is not yet known. Family physicians can aid the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s investigation by recognizing AFM's presentation and reporting suspected cases to their local health departments.
AFM is not a new condition, but its prevalence in the United States has been increasing, with 386 confirmed cases across 34 states since August of 2014. AFM's prevalence has been higher in the summer months during this time, but cases have been reported year-round. Patients present with sudden loss of strength in one or more limbs, with associated loss of muscle tone and reflexes. Some patients may also have facial drooping or speech changes. Urinary retention has occasionally been noted, and, rarely, some patients even experience respiratory failure. MRI of the spine reveals a gray matter lesion, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) typically shows excess white blood cells.
Often, a viral syndrome precedes these neurologic symptoms, but CDC researchers have yet to identify a clear etiology, viral or otherwise. Testing of affected individuals for poliovirus has consistently been negative. The increase in AFM cases does coincide with increased enterovirus D68 activity in the US, but testing in AFM patients has been inconsistent re: accompanying enterovirus infection. With no clearly identified cause, the CDC advises general prevention strategies such as hand washing and mosquito bite avoidance. Treatment for AFM is supportive, with the involvement of neurologists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists.
Physicians should promptly report any patient who presents with sudden flaccid limb weakness, regardless of lab or imaging findings; gathering information from affected individuals will be critical to identifying AFM's etiology. Family physicians can report cases by contacting their local health department and completing this patient summary form, available on the CDC website. For patients with muscle weakness that don't fit the clinical picture of AFM, this AFP article on "Evaluation of the Patient with Muscle Weakness" may be helpful. Since West Nile virus can also cause AFM, this 2016 AFP article on "Emerging Vector-Borne Diseases" may also be of interest.
Monday, October 29, 2018
Monday, October 22, 2018
PSA screening: USPSTF recommendations changed, but the evidence did not
- Kenny Lin, MD, MPH
Comparing the 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on prostate cancer screening in the October 15th issue of AFP with its previous recommendation, the first question family physicians ought to ask is: what new evidence compelled the USPSTF to move from recommending against PSA screening in all men to determining that there was a small net benefit for screening in some men? Did another major randomized trial show a reduction in all-cause or prostate cancer-specific mortality in men invited to screening? Did other systematic reviewers re-analyze the evidence and find a mortality benefit where none previously existed? Have urologists or radiation oncologists developed new treatments for localized prostate cancer that no longer cause erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, or infections?
No, no, and no.
One of the Top 20 Research Studies of 2017 for Primary Care Physicians, the only U.S. trial of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer, reported that after a median followup of 15 years, there were still no differences in mortality between the two groups. In 2018, a large U.K. randomized trial of a single PSA screening also reported no effect on prostate cancer mortality after a median followup of 10 years. In both trials, more prostate cancers were diagnosed in the groups assigned to routine screening, but treating these cancers did not lead to improved health outcomes.
Last month, the authors of a 2010 Cochrane review of PSA screening (previously summarized in AFP's Cochrane for Clinicians) published an updated meta-analysis in the BMJ that incorporated the U.K. trial findings and extended followup of the U.S. and European screening trials and concluded that "at best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but does not affect overall mortality." They also estimated that "for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalized for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively." Another U.K. trial comparing active surveillance for localized prostate cancer with immediate surgery or radiation therapy found higher rates of clinical progression in the active surveillance group, but no differences in health-related quality of life or mortality.
Comparing the 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on prostate cancer screening in the October 15th issue of AFP with its previous recommendation, the first question family physicians ought to ask is: what new evidence compelled the USPSTF to move from recommending against PSA screening in all men to determining that there was a small net benefit for screening in some men? Did another major randomized trial show a reduction in all-cause or prostate cancer-specific mortality in men invited to screening? Did other systematic reviewers re-analyze the evidence and find a mortality benefit where none previously existed? Have urologists or radiation oncologists developed new treatments for localized prostate cancer that no longer cause erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, or infections?
No, no, and no.
One of the Top 20 Research Studies of 2017 for Primary Care Physicians, the only U.S. trial of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer, reported that after a median followup of 15 years, there were still no differences in mortality between the two groups. In 2018, a large U.K. randomized trial of a single PSA screening also reported no effect on prostate cancer mortality after a median followup of 10 years. In both trials, more prostate cancers were diagnosed in the groups assigned to routine screening, but treating these cancers did not lead to improved health outcomes.
Last month, the authors of a 2010 Cochrane review of PSA screening (previously summarized in AFP's Cochrane for Clinicians) published an updated meta-analysis in the BMJ that incorporated the U.K. trial findings and extended followup of the U.S. and European screening trials and concluded that "at best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but does not affect overall mortality." They also estimated that "for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalized for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively." Another U.K. trial comparing active surveillance for localized prostate cancer with immediate surgery or radiation therapy found higher rates of clinical progression in the active surveillance group, but no differences in health-related quality of life or mortality.
Representing the views of American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), Drs. James Stevermer and Kenneth Fink explained in an editorial why "the AAFP believes that the net benefit [of PSA screening] does not justify routine screening or routinely offering shared decision making." The AAFP took the unusual step of declining to endorse the USPSTF recommendation statement and instead writing its own clinical preventive services recommendation that emphasizes the harms of routine screening. Men who bring up the topic of PSA screening should engage in shared decision-making with their physicians about the benefits and harms of screening and express a clear preference to be screened before undergoing the test.
Monday, October 15, 2018
Influenza vaccine in pregnancy decreases hospitalizations
- Jennifer Middleton, MD, MPH
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pregnant women with influenza infection are more likely to be hospitalized than non-pregnant women of the same age. It seems intuitive that influenza vaccination would help reduce these hospitalizations, but data demonstrating as such has only been published in the last week. A large multi-center retrospective study found that influenza vaccination reduces influenza-related hospitalizations among pregnant women by 40%.
Organizations from several countries, including the CDC, comprise the Pregnancy Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (PREVENT), who conducted this retrospective study that reviewed over 19,000 hospitalization records from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the western United States (US). A significant limitation to the study is that, overall, only 6% of pregnant women admitted for flu-like illness had documented influenza virus testing; among these women, 13% with confirmed influenza had been vaccinated, compared with 22% with confirmed influenza who had not been vaccinated. The authors note that vaccine uptake was low across all studied countries, with the US having the highest vaccination rates at just 50%. (The authors' findings correlate with CDC data from the 2016-17 influenza season, when 53.6% of pregnant US women were vaccinated.)
Given the many documented benefits of influenza vaccine in pregnancy, we need to improve vaccination rates. Safety concerns, especially in pregnancy, continue to be a major barrier to vaccination. The CDC has a website devoted to allaying these safety concerns that cites multiple studies demonstrating the vaccine's safety and efficacy in pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) both also strongly recommend influenza vaccination in pregnancy; ACOG has an online fact sheet for patients as does AAFP's familydoctor.org.
Studies also cite low rates of physician recommendation as a factor in suboptimal influenza vaccination rates in pregnant women, even though physician recommendation to vaccinate correlates with higher vaccination rates. Even though many family physicians do not provide direct obstetric care, we can still work with our pregnant patients to encourage influenza vaccination. FPM has a resource describing "How to Talk to Reluctant Patients About the Flu Shot," and the latest issue of AFP includes the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) update for 2018-2019. There's also an AFP By Topic on Influenza with more references and patient handouts.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pregnant women with influenza infection are more likely to be hospitalized than non-pregnant women of the same age. It seems intuitive that influenza vaccination would help reduce these hospitalizations, but data demonstrating as such has only been published in the last week. A large multi-center retrospective study found that influenza vaccination reduces influenza-related hospitalizations among pregnant women by 40%.
Organizations from several countries, including the CDC, comprise the Pregnancy Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (PREVENT), who conducted this retrospective study that reviewed over 19,000 hospitalization records from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the western United States (US). A significant limitation to the study is that, overall, only 6% of pregnant women admitted for flu-like illness had documented influenza virus testing; among these women, 13% with confirmed influenza had been vaccinated, compared with 22% with confirmed influenza who had not been vaccinated. The authors note that vaccine uptake was low across all studied countries, with the US having the highest vaccination rates at just 50%. (The authors' findings correlate with CDC data from the 2016-17 influenza season, when 53.6% of pregnant US women were vaccinated.)
Given the many documented benefits of influenza vaccine in pregnancy, we need to improve vaccination rates. Safety concerns, especially in pregnancy, continue to be a major barrier to vaccination. The CDC has a website devoted to allaying these safety concerns that cites multiple studies demonstrating the vaccine's safety and efficacy in pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) both also strongly recommend influenza vaccination in pregnancy; ACOG has an online fact sheet for patients as does AAFP's familydoctor.org.
Studies also cite low rates of physician recommendation as a factor in suboptimal influenza vaccination rates in pregnant women, even though physician recommendation to vaccinate correlates with higher vaccination rates. Even though many family physicians do not provide direct obstetric care, we can still work with our pregnant patients to encourage influenza vaccination. FPM has a resource describing "How to Talk to Reluctant Patients About the Flu Shot," and the latest issue of AFP includes the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) update for 2018-2019. There's also an AFP By Topic on Influenza with more references and patient handouts.
Monday, October 8, 2018
Rise in congenital syphilis highlights pregnancy screening gaps
- Kenny Lin, MD, MPH
Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that the number of reported cases of congenital syphilis in the U.S. rose from 362 in 2013 to 918 in 2017, paralleling increases in syphilis infections in reproductive-age women during this time period. From 2016 to 2017, congenital syphilis cases rose from 16 to 23 per 100,000 live births. Although two-thirds of affected infants have no symptoms at birth, congenital syphilis is associated with increased neonatal mortality and a variety of early (through 48 months of age) and late complications, detailed in a previous AFP article.
The first line of prevention against congenital syphilis is screening for syphilis in all pregnant women at the first prenatal visit, a well-established standard of care that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently reaffirmed. Although some cases occur in infants whose mothers receive no prenatal care, about one-third of women who delivered a baby with congenital syphilis in 2016 were screened during their pregnancies.
The CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all recommend repeat syphilis screening in women at high risk for syphilis at around 28 weeks of gestation and at time of delivery. Women at high risk include those living in higher-prevalence communities or geographic areas; those living with HIV infection; those with a history of incarceration or commercial sex work; and those exposed to a sexual partner with confirmed syphilis infection. Early penicillin treatment of infected pregnant women reduces the risk of congenital syphilis.
The USPSTF has also previously recommended screening nonpregnant adults and adolescents at increased risk for syphilis infection. Higher risk groups in nonpregnant adults are similar to those in pregnant women, but also include men who have sex with men (MSM), particularly men aged 20 to 29 years, whose prevalence of primary or secondary syphilis is nearly 3 times higher than that of the general U.S. male population. Finally, the USPSTF recommends intensive behavioral counseling for all sexually active adolescents and for adults at increased risk for sexually transmitted infections.
Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that the number of reported cases of congenital syphilis in the U.S. rose from 362 in 2013 to 918 in 2017, paralleling increases in syphilis infections in reproductive-age women during this time period. From 2016 to 2017, congenital syphilis cases rose from 16 to 23 per 100,000 live births. Although two-thirds of affected infants have no symptoms at birth, congenital syphilis is associated with increased neonatal mortality and a variety of early (through 48 months of age) and late complications, detailed in a previous AFP article.
The first line of prevention against congenital syphilis is screening for syphilis in all pregnant women at the first prenatal visit, a well-established standard of care that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently reaffirmed. Although some cases occur in infants whose mothers receive no prenatal care, about one-third of women who delivered a baby with congenital syphilis in 2016 were screened during their pregnancies.
The CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all recommend repeat syphilis screening in women at high risk for syphilis at around 28 weeks of gestation and at time of delivery. Women at high risk include those living in higher-prevalence communities or geographic areas; those living with HIV infection; those with a history of incarceration or commercial sex work; and those exposed to a sexual partner with confirmed syphilis infection. Early penicillin treatment of infected pregnant women reduces the risk of congenital syphilis.
The USPSTF has also previously recommended screening nonpregnant adults and adolescents at increased risk for syphilis infection. Higher risk groups in nonpregnant adults are similar to those in pregnant women, but also include men who have sex with men (MSM), particularly men aged 20 to 29 years, whose prevalence of primary or secondary syphilis is nearly 3 times higher than that of the general U.S. male population. Finally, the USPSTF recommends intensive behavioral counseling for all sexually active adolescents and for adults at increased risk for sexually transmitted infections.
Monday, October 1, 2018
Exercise for chronic back pain: tips for success
- Jennifer Middleton, MD, MPH
The article on "Mechanical Low Back Pain" in the current issue of AFP provides an overview of diagnosis and treatment for the 1 in 5 adults who suffer from low back pain. The article reminds us that NSAIDs alone work just as well as opioids, muscle relaxers, and/or oral corticosteroids. Non-pharmacologic pain relief is emphasized, with some evidence of benefit found with physical therapy, osteopathic manipulative treatment, and exercise. Patients want more than just exercise advice, though; they also want to have their experiences with both pain and exercise considered to develop personalized recommendations.
Patients want physicians to listen to their prior experiences with back pain and exercise, taking their perceived fitness ability into account when recommending exercise. They prefer plans that consider their exercise likes and dislikes. Patients also want an exercise plan that they feel they can be successful with, partially because they fear judgment from their physician if they don't improve. Validating patients' experiences with their pain, eliciting their exercise preferences, and having resources to discuss with patients may increase the likelihood of their success with a new exercise regimen.
Engaging regularly in exercise is challenging for many people, let alone someone with chronic low back pain. Simply counseling patients regarding physical activity is a critical first step, one that many patients don't ever recall hearing from their physician. Working with patients to create a tailored exercise prescription may help. Several fitness apps, as recently reviewed in FPM, also provide a wide range of motivational methods, from raising money for charity to running from simulated zombie chases.
AFP has additional resources you may find useful, including the AFP By Topic on Health Maintenance and Counseling along with patient education at familydoctor.org, where "sports and exercise at every age" is the site's current monthly focus.
The article on "Mechanical Low Back Pain" in the current issue of AFP provides an overview of diagnosis and treatment for the 1 in 5 adults who suffer from low back pain. The article reminds us that NSAIDs alone work just as well as opioids, muscle relaxers, and/or oral corticosteroids. Non-pharmacologic pain relief is emphasized, with some evidence of benefit found with physical therapy, osteopathic manipulative treatment, and exercise. Patients want more than just exercise advice, though; they also want to have their experiences with both pain and exercise considered to develop personalized recommendations.
Patients want physicians to listen to their prior experiences with back pain and exercise, taking their perceived fitness ability into account when recommending exercise. They prefer plans that consider their exercise likes and dislikes. Patients also want an exercise plan that they feel they can be successful with, partially because they fear judgment from their physician if they don't improve. Validating patients' experiences with their pain, eliciting their exercise preferences, and having resources to discuss with patients may increase the likelihood of their success with a new exercise regimen.
Engaging regularly in exercise is challenging for many people, let alone someone with chronic low back pain. Simply counseling patients regarding physical activity is a critical first step, one that many patients don't ever recall hearing from their physician. Working with patients to create a tailored exercise prescription may help. Several fitness apps, as recently reviewed in FPM, also provide a wide range of motivational methods, from raising money for charity to running from simulated zombie chases.
AFP has additional resources you may find useful, including the AFP By Topic on Health Maintenance and Counseling along with patient education at familydoctor.org, where "sports and exercise at every age" is the site's current monthly focus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
