Adverse drug reactions account for 3% to 6% of hospital admissions in the United States and occur in 10% to 15% of hospitalized patients.^1,2 The most common culprits are antibiotics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).^3-12 In most cases, diagnoses are made clinically without diagnostic testing. To identify drug allergies associated with diagnostic testing, one center selected patients with suspected cutaneous drug reactions (2006-2010) for further evaluation.¹³ Of 612 patients who were evaluated, 141 had a high suspicion of drug allergy and were included in the analysis. The excluded patients had pseudoallergic reactions, reactive exanthemas due to infection, histopathologic exclusion of drug allergy, angioedema, or other dermatological conditions such as contact dermatitis and eczema. Of the included patients, 107 were diagnosed with drug reactions, while the remainder had non–drug-related exanthemas or unknown etiology after testing. Identified culprit drugs were predominantly antibiotics (39.8%) and NSAIDs (21.2%); contrast media, anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, antimalarials, antifungals, glucocorticoids, antihypertensives, and proton pump inhibitors also were implicated. They were identified with skin prick, intradermal, and patch tests (62.6%); lymphocyte transformation test (17.7%); oral rechallenge (5.6%); or without skin testing (6.5%). One quarter of patients with a high suspicion for drug allergy did not have a confirmed drug eruption in this study. Another study found that 10% to 20% of patients with reported penicillin allergy had confirmation via skin prick testing.¹⁴ These findings suggest that confirmation of suspected drug allergy may require more than one diagnostic test.

Tests for Adverse Drug Reactions

The following tests have been shown to aid in the identification of cutaneous drug eruptions: (1) patch tests^15-21; (2) intradermal tests^14,15,19,20; (3) drug provocation tests^15,20; and (4) lymphocyte transformation tests.²⁰ Intradermal or skin prick tests are most useful in urticarial eruptions but can be considered in nonurticarial eruptions with delayed inspection of test sites up to 1 week after testing. Drug provocation tests are considered the gold standard but involve patient risk. Lymphocyte transformation tests use the principle that T lymphocytes proliferate in the presence of drugs to which the patient is sensitized. Patch tests will be discussed in greater detail below. Immunohistochemistry can determine immunologic mechanisms of eruptions but cannot identify causative agents.^16,17,22

A retrospective study of patients referred for evaluation of adverse drug reactions between 1996 and 2006 found the collective negative predictive value (NPV)—the percentage of truly negative skin tests based on provocation or substitution testing—of cutaneous drug tests including patch, prick, and intradermal tests to be 89.6% (95% confidence interval, 85.9%-93.3%).²³ The NPVs of each test were not reported. Patients with negative cutaneous tests had subsequent oral rechallenge or substitution testing with medication from the same drug class.²³ Another study¹⁶ found the NPV of patch testing to be at least 79% after review of data from other studies using patch and provocation testing.^16,24 These studies suggest that cutaneous testing can be useful, albeit imperfect, in the evaluation and diagnosis of drug allergy.

Review of the Patch Test

Patch tests can be helpful in diagnosis of delayed hypersensitivities.¹⁸ Patch testing is most commonly and effectively used to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis, but its utility in other applications, such as diagnosis of cutaneous drug eruptions, has not been extensively studied.

The development of patch tests to diagnose systemic drug allergies is inhibited by the uncertainty of percutaneous drug penetration, a dearth of studies to determine the best test concentrations of active drug in the patch test, and the potential for nonimmunologic contact urticaria upon skin exposure. Furthermore, cutaneous metabolism of many antigens is well documented, but correlation to systemic metabolism often is unknown, which can confound patch test results and lead to false-negative results when the skin’s metabolic capacity does not match the body’s capacity to generate antigens capable of eliciting immunogenic responses.²¹ Additionally, the method used to suspend and disperse drugs in patch test vehicles is unfamiliar to most pharmacists, and standardized concentrations and vehicles are available only for some medications.²⁵ Studies sufficient to obtain US Food and Drug Administration approval of patch tests for systemic drug eruptions would be costly and therefore prohibitive to investigators. The majority of the literature consists of case reports and data extrapolated from reviews. Patch test results of many drugs have been reported in the literature, with the highest frequencies of positive results associated with anticonvulsants,²⁶ antibiotics, corticosteroids, calcium channel blockers, and benzodiazepines.²¹

Patch test placement affects the diagnostic value of the test. Placing patch tests on previously involved sites of fixed drug eruptions improves yield over placement on uninvolved skin.²⁷ Placing patch tests on previously involved sites of other drug eruptions such as toxic epidermal necrolysis also may aid in diagnosis, though the literature is sparse.^25,26,28

Patch Testing in Drug Eruptions

Morbilliform eruptions account for 48% to 91% of patients with adverse drug reactions.^4-6 Other drug eruptions include urticarial eruptions, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, lichenoid drug eruption, symmetric drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE), erythema multiforme (EM), and systemic contact dermatitis. The Table summarizes reports of positive patch tests with various medications for these drug eruptions.

In general, antimicrobials and NSAIDs were the most implicated drugs with positive patch test results in AGEP, DRESS syndrome, EM, fixed drug eruptions, and morbilliform eruptions. In AGEP, positive results also were reported for other drugs, including terbinafine and morphine.^29-38 In fixed drug eruptions, patch testing on involved skin showed positive results to NSAIDs, analgesics, platelet inhibitors, and antimicrobials.^27,52-55 Patch testing in DRESS syndrome has shown many positive reactions to antiepileptics and antipsychotics.^39-43 One study used patch tests in SDRIFE, reporting positive results with antimicrobials, antineoplastics, decongestants, and glucocorticoids.⁶¹ Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antimicrobials, calcium channel blockers, and histamine antagonists were implicated in EM.^47-51 Positive patch tests were seen in morbilliform eruptions with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antiepileptics/benzodiazepines, NSAIDs, and antimicrobials.^28,57-60 In toxic epidermal necrolysis, diagnosis with patch testing was made using patches placed on previously involved skin with sulfamethoxazole.⁶²

Systemic Contact Dermatitis

Drugs historically recognized as causing allergic contact dermatitis (eg, topical gentamycin) can cause systemic contact dermatitis, which can be patch tested. In these situations, systemic contact dermatitis may be due to either the active drug or excipients in the medication formulation. Excipients are inactive ingredients in medications that provide a suitable consistency, appearance, or form. Often overlooked as culprits of drug hypersensitivity because they are theoretically inert, excipients are increasingly implicated in drug allergy. Swerlick and Campbell⁶³ described 11 cases in which chronic unexplained pruritus responded to medication changes to avoid coloring agents. The most common culprits were FD&C Blue No. 1 and FD&C Blue No. 2. Patch testing for allergies to dyes can be clinically useful, though a lack of commercially available patch tests makes diagnosis difficult.⁶⁴

Other excipients can cause cutaneous reactions. Propylene glycol, commonly implicated in allergic contact dermatitis, also can cause cutaneous eruptions upon systemic exposure.⁶⁵ Corticosteroid-induced systemic contact dermatitis has been reported, though it is less prevalent than allergic contact dermatitis.⁶⁶ These reactions usually are due to nonmethylated and nonhalogenated corticosteroids including budesonide, cortisone, hydrocortisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone.^67,68 Patch testing in these situations is complicated by the possibility of false-negative results due to the anti-inflammatory effects of the corticosteroids. Therefore, patch testing should be performed using standardized and not treatment concentrations.

In our clinic, we have anecdotally observed several patients with chronic dermatitis and suspected NSAID allergies have positive patch test results with propylene glycol and not the suspected drug. Excipients encountered in multiple drugs and foods are more likely to present as chronic dermatitis, while active drug ingredients started in hospital settings more often present as acute dermatitis.

Our Experience

We have patch tested a handful of patients with suspected drug eruptions (University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center institutional review board #07-12-27). Medications, excipients, and their concentrations (in % weight per weight) and vehicles that were tested include ibuprofen (10% petrolatum), aspirin (10% petrolatum), hydrochlorothiazide (10% petrolatum), captopril (5% petrolatum), and propylene glycol (30% water or 5% petrolatum). Patch tests were read at 48 and 72 hours and scored according to the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group patch test scoring guidelines.⁶⁹ Two patients tested for ibuprofen reacted positively only to propylene glycol; the 3 other patients did not react to aspirin, hydrochlorothiazide, and captopril. Overall, we observed no positive patch tests to medications and 2 positive tests to propylene glycol in 5 patients tested (unpublished data).

Areas of Uncertainty

Although tests for immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions to drugs exist as skin prick tests, diagnostic testing for the majority of drug reactions does not exist. Drug allergy diagnosis is made with history and temporality, potentially resulting in unnecessary avoidance of helpful medications. Ideal patch test concentrations and vehicles as well as the sensitivity and specificity of these tests are unknown.

Guidelines From Professional Societies

Drug allergy testing guidelines are available from the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology⁷⁰ and American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.⁷¹ The guidelines recommend diagnosis by history and temporality, and it is stated that patch testing is potentially useful in maculopapular rashes, AGEP, fixed drug eruptions, and DRESS syndrome.

Conclusion

Case reports in the literature suggest the utility of patch testing in some drug allergies. We suggest testing excipients such as propylene glycol and benzoic acid to rule out systemic contact dermatitis when patch testing with active drugs to confirm cause of suspected adverse cutaneous reactions to medications.

Adverse drug reactions account for 3% to 6% of hospital admissions in the United States and occur in 10% to 15% of hospitalized patients.^1,2 The most common culprits are antibiotics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).^3-12 In most cases, diagnoses are made clinically without diagnostic testing. To identify drug allergies associated with diagnostic testing, one center selected patients with suspected cutaneous drug reactions (2006-2010) for further evaluation.¹³ Of 612 patients who were evaluated, 141 had a high suspicion of drug allergy and were included in the analysis. The excluded patients had pseudoallergic reactions, reactive exanthemas due to infection, histopathologic exclusion of drug allergy, angioedema, or other dermatological conditions such as contact dermatitis and eczema. Of the included patients, 107 were diagnosed with drug reactions, while the remainder had non–drug-related exanthemas or unknown etiology after testing. Identified culprit drugs were predominantly antibiotics (39.8%) and NSAIDs (21.2%); contrast media, anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, antimalarials, antifungals, glucocorticoids, antihypertensives, and proton pump inhibitors also were implicated. They were identified with skin prick, intradermal, and patch tests (62.6%); lymphocyte transformation test (17.7%); oral rechallenge (5.6%); or without skin testing (6.5%). One quarter of patients with a high suspicion for drug allergy did not have a confirmed drug eruption in this study. Another study found that 10% to 20% of patients with reported penicillin allergy had confirmation via skin prick testing.¹⁴ These findings suggest that confirmation of suspected drug allergy may require more than one diagnostic test.

Tests for Adverse Drug Reactions

The following tests have been shown to aid in the identification of cutaneous drug eruptions: (1) patch tests^15-21; (2) intradermal tests^14,15,19,20; (3) drug provocation tests^15,20; and (4) lymphocyte transformation tests.²⁰ Intradermal or skin prick tests are most useful in urticarial eruptions but can be considered in nonurticarial eruptions with delayed inspection of test sites up to 1 week after testing. Drug provocation tests are considered the gold standard but involve patient risk. Lymphocyte transformation tests use the principle that T lymphocytes proliferate in the presence of drugs to which the patient is sensitized. Patch tests will be discussed in greater detail below. Immunohistochemistry can determine immunologic mechanisms of eruptions but cannot identify causative agents.^16,17,22

A retrospective study of patients referred for evaluation of adverse drug reactions between 1996 and 2006 found the collective negative predictive value (NPV)—the percentage of truly negative skin tests based on provocation or substitution testing—of cutaneous drug tests including patch, prick, and intradermal tests to be 89.6% (95% confidence interval, 85.9%-93.3%).²³ The NPVs of each test were not reported. Patients with negative cutaneous tests had subsequent oral rechallenge or substitution testing with medication from the same drug class.²³ Another study¹⁶ found the NPV of patch testing to be at least 79% after review of data from other studies using patch and provocation testing.^16,24 These studies suggest that cutaneous testing can be useful, albeit imperfect, in the evaluation and diagnosis of drug allergy.

Review of the Patch Test

Patch tests can be helpful in diagnosis of delayed hypersensitivities.¹⁸ Patch testing is most commonly and effectively used to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis, but its utility in other applications, such as diagnosis of cutaneous drug eruptions, has not been extensively studied.

The development of patch tests to diagnose systemic drug allergies is inhibited by the uncertainty of percutaneous drug penetration, a dearth of studies to determine the best test concentrations of active drug in the patch test, and the potential for nonimmunologic contact urticaria upon skin exposure. Furthermore, cutaneous metabolism of many antigens is well documented, but correlation to systemic metabolism often is unknown, which can confound patch test results and lead to false-negative results when the skin’s metabolic capacity does not match the body’s capacity to generate antigens capable of eliciting immunogenic responses.²¹ Additionally, the method used to suspend and disperse drugs in patch test vehicles is unfamiliar to most pharmacists, and standardized concentrations and vehicles are available only for some medications.²⁵ Studies sufficient to obtain US Food and Drug Administration approval of patch tests for systemic drug eruptions would be costly and therefore prohibitive to investigators. The majority of the literature consists of case reports and data extrapolated from reviews. Patch test results of many drugs have been reported in the literature, with the highest frequencies of positive results associated with anticonvulsants,²⁶ antibiotics, corticosteroids, calcium channel blockers, and benzodiazepines.²¹

Patch test placement affects the diagnostic value of the test. Placing patch tests on previously involved sites of fixed drug eruptions improves yield over placement on uninvolved skin.²⁷ Placing patch tests on previously involved sites of other drug eruptions such as toxic epidermal necrolysis also may aid in diagnosis, though the literature is sparse.^25,26,28

Patch Testing in Drug Eruptions

Morbilliform eruptions account for 48% to 91% of patients with adverse drug reactions.^4-6 Other drug eruptions include urticarial eruptions, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, lichenoid drug eruption, symmetric drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE), erythema multiforme (EM), and systemic contact dermatitis. The Table summarizes reports of positive patch tests with various medications for these drug eruptions.

In general, antimicrobials and NSAIDs were the most implicated drugs with positive patch test results in AGEP, DRESS syndrome, EM, fixed drug eruptions, and morbilliform eruptions. In AGEP, positive results also were reported for other drugs, including terbinafine and morphine.^29-38 In fixed drug eruptions, patch testing on involved skin showed positive results to NSAIDs, analgesics, platelet inhibitors, and antimicrobials.^27,52-55 Patch testing in DRESS syndrome has shown many positive reactions to antiepileptics and antipsychotics.^39-43 One study used patch tests in SDRIFE, reporting positive results with antimicrobials, antineoplastics, decongestants, and glucocorticoids.⁶¹ Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antimicrobials, calcium channel blockers, and histamine antagonists were implicated in EM.^47-51 Positive patch tests were seen in morbilliform eruptions with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antiepileptics/benzodiazepines, NSAIDs, and antimicrobials.^28,57-60 In toxic epidermal necrolysis, diagnosis with patch testing was made using patches placed on previously involved skin with sulfamethoxazole.⁶²

Systemic Contact Dermatitis

Drugs historically recognized as causing allergic contact dermatitis (eg, topical gentamycin) can cause systemic contact dermatitis, which can be patch tested. In these situations, systemic contact dermatitis may be due to either the active drug or excipients in the medication formulation. Excipients are inactive ingredients in medications that provide a suitable consistency, appearance, or form. Often overlooked as culprits of drug hypersensitivity because they are theoretically inert, excipients are increasingly implicated in drug allergy. Swerlick and Campbell⁶³ described 11 cases in which chronic unexplained pruritus responded to medication changes to avoid coloring agents. The most common culprits were FD&C Blue No. 1 and FD&C Blue No. 2. Patch testing for allergies to dyes can be clinically useful, though a lack of commercially available patch tests makes diagnosis difficult.⁶⁴

Other excipients can cause cutaneous reactions. Propylene glycol, commonly implicated in allergic contact dermatitis, also can cause cutaneous eruptions upon systemic exposure.⁶⁵ Corticosteroid-induced systemic contact dermatitis has been reported, though it is less prevalent than allergic contact dermatitis.⁶⁶ These reactions usually are due to nonmethylated and nonhalogenated corticosteroids including budesonide, cortisone, hydrocortisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone.^67,68 Patch testing in these situations is complicated by the possibility of false-negative results due to the anti-inflammatory effects of the corticosteroids. Therefore, patch testing should be performed using standardized and not treatment concentrations.

In our clinic, we have anecdotally observed several patients with chronic dermatitis and suspected NSAID allergies have positive patch test results with propylene glycol and not the suspected drug. Excipients encountered in multiple drugs and foods are more likely to present as chronic dermatitis, while active drug ingredients started in hospital settings more often present as acute dermatitis.

Our Experience

We have patch tested a handful of patients with suspected drug eruptions (University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center institutional review board #07-12-27). Medications, excipients, and their concentrations (in % weight per weight) and vehicles that were tested include ibuprofen (10% petrolatum), aspirin (10% petrolatum), hydrochlorothiazide (10% petrolatum), captopril (5% petrolatum), and propylene glycol (30% water or 5% petrolatum). Patch tests were read at 48 and 72 hours and scored according to the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group patch test scoring guidelines.⁶⁹ Two patients tested for ibuprofen reacted positively only to propylene glycol; the 3 other patients did not react to aspirin, hydrochlorothiazide, and captopril. Overall, we observed no positive patch tests to medications and 2 positive tests to propylene glycol in 5 patients tested (unpublished data).

Areas of Uncertainty

Although tests for immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions to drugs exist as skin prick tests, diagnostic testing for the majority of drug reactions does not exist. Drug allergy diagnosis is made with history and temporality, potentially resulting in unnecessary avoidance of helpful medications. Ideal patch test concentrations and vehicles as well as the sensitivity and specificity of these tests are unknown.

Guidelines From Professional Societies

Drug allergy testing guidelines are available from the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology⁷⁰ and American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.⁷¹ The guidelines recommend diagnosis by history and temporality, and it is stated that patch testing is potentially useful in maculopapular rashes, AGEP, fixed drug eruptions, and DRESS syndrome.

Conclusion

Case reports in the literature suggest the utility of patch testing in some drug allergies. We suggest testing excipients such as propylene glycol and benzoic acid to rule out systemic contact dermatitis when patch testing with active drugs to confirm cause of suspected adverse cutaneous reactions to medications.

Adverse drug reactions account for 3% to 6% of hospital admissions in the United States and occur in 10% to 15% of hospitalized patients.^1,2 The most common culprits are antibiotics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).^3-12 In most cases, diagnoses are made clinically without diagnostic testing. To identify drug allergies associated with diagnostic testing, one center selected patients with suspected cutaneous drug reactions (2006-2010) for further evaluation.¹³ Of 612 patients who were evaluated, 141 had a high suspicion of drug allergy and were included in the analysis. The excluded patients had pseudoallergic reactions, reactive exanthemas due to infection, histopathologic exclusion of drug allergy, angioedema, or other dermatological conditions such as contact dermatitis and eczema. Of the included patients, 107 were diagnosed with drug reactions, while the remainder had non–drug-related exanthemas or unknown etiology after testing. Identified culprit drugs were predominantly antibiotics (39.8%) and NSAIDs (21.2%); contrast media, anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, antimalarials, antifungals, glucocorticoids, antihypertensives, and proton pump inhibitors also were implicated. They were identified with skin prick, intradermal, and patch tests (62.6%); lymphocyte transformation test (17.7%); oral rechallenge (5.6%); or without skin testing (6.5%). One quarter of patients with a high suspicion for drug allergy did not have a confirmed drug eruption in this study. Another study found that 10% to 20% of patients with reported penicillin allergy had confirmation via skin prick testing.¹⁴ These findings suggest that confirmation of suspected drug allergy may require more than one diagnostic test.

Tests for Adverse Drug Reactions

The following tests have been shown to aid in the identification of cutaneous drug eruptions: (1) patch tests^15-21; (2) intradermal tests^14,15,19,20; (3) drug provocation tests^15,20; and (4) lymphocyte transformation tests.²⁰ Intradermal or skin prick tests are most useful in urticarial eruptions but can be considered in nonurticarial eruptions with delayed inspection of test sites up to 1 week after testing. Drug provocation tests are considered the gold standard but involve patient risk. Lymphocyte transformation tests use the principle that T lymphocytes proliferate in the presence of drugs to which the patient is sensitized. Patch tests will be discussed in greater detail below. Immunohistochemistry can determine immunologic mechanisms of eruptions but cannot identify causative agents.^16,17,22

A retrospective study of patients referred for evaluation of adverse drug reactions between 1996 and 2006 found the collective negative predictive value (NPV)—the percentage of truly negative skin tests based on provocation or substitution testing—of cutaneous drug tests including patch, prick, and intradermal tests to be 89.6% (95% confidence interval, 85.9%-93.3%).²³ The NPVs of each test were not reported. Patients with negative cutaneous tests had subsequent oral rechallenge or substitution testing with medication from the same drug class.²³ Another study¹⁶ found the NPV of patch testing to be at least 79% after review of data from other studies using patch and provocation testing.^16,24 These studies suggest that cutaneous testing can be useful, albeit imperfect, in the evaluation and diagnosis of drug allergy.

Review of the Patch Test

Patch tests can be helpful in diagnosis of delayed hypersensitivities.¹⁸ Patch testing is most commonly and effectively used to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis, but its utility in other applications, such as diagnosis of cutaneous drug eruptions, has not been extensively studied.

The development of patch tests to diagnose systemic drug allergies is inhibited by the uncertainty of percutaneous drug penetration, a dearth of studies to determine the best test concentrations of active drug in the patch test, and the potential for nonimmunologic contact urticaria upon skin exposure. Furthermore, cutaneous metabolism of many antigens is well documented, but correlation to systemic metabolism often is unknown, which can confound patch test results and lead to false-negative results when the skin’s metabolic capacity does not match the body’s capacity to generate antigens capable of eliciting immunogenic responses.²¹ Additionally, the method used to suspend and disperse drugs in patch test vehicles is unfamiliar to most pharmacists, and standardized concentrations and vehicles are available only for some medications.²⁵ Studies sufficient to obtain US Food and Drug Administration approval of patch tests for systemic drug eruptions would be costly and therefore prohibitive to investigators. The majority of the literature consists of case reports and data extrapolated from reviews. Patch test results of many drugs have been reported in the literature, with the highest frequencies of positive results associated with anticonvulsants,²⁶ antibiotics, corticosteroids, calcium channel blockers, and benzodiazepines.²¹

Patch test placement affects the diagnostic value of the test. Placing patch tests on previously involved sites of fixed drug eruptions improves yield over placement on uninvolved skin.²⁷ Placing patch tests on previously involved sites of other drug eruptions such as toxic epidermal necrolysis also may aid in diagnosis, though the literature is sparse.^25,26,28

Patch Testing in Drug Eruptions

Morbilliform eruptions account for 48% to 91% of patients with adverse drug reactions.^4-6 Other drug eruptions include urticarial eruptions, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, lichenoid drug eruption, symmetric drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE), erythema multiforme (EM), and systemic contact dermatitis. The Table summarizes reports of positive patch tests with various medications for these drug eruptions.

In general, antimicrobials and NSAIDs were the most implicated drugs with positive patch test results in AGEP, DRESS syndrome, EM, fixed drug eruptions, and morbilliform eruptions. In AGEP, positive results also were reported for other drugs, including terbinafine and morphine.^29-38 In fixed drug eruptions, patch testing on involved skin showed positive results to NSAIDs, analgesics, platelet inhibitors, and antimicrobials.^27,52-55 Patch testing in DRESS syndrome has shown many positive reactions to antiepileptics and antipsychotics.^39-43 One study used patch tests in SDRIFE, reporting positive results with antimicrobials, antineoplastics, decongestants, and glucocorticoids.⁶¹ Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antimicrobials, calcium channel blockers, and histamine antagonists were implicated in EM.^47-51 Positive patch tests were seen in morbilliform eruptions with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antiepileptics/benzodiazepines, NSAIDs, and antimicrobials.^28,57-60 In toxic epidermal necrolysis, diagnosis with patch testing was made using patches placed on previously involved skin with sulfamethoxazole.⁶²

Systemic Contact Dermatitis

Drugs historically recognized as causing allergic contact dermatitis (eg, topical gentamycin) can cause systemic contact dermatitis, which can be patch tested. In these situations, systemic contact dermatitis may be due to either the active drug or excipients in the medication formulation. Excipients are inactive ingredients in medications that provide a suitable consistency, appearance, or form. Often overlooked as culprits of drug hypersensitivity because they are theoretically inert, excipients are increasingly implicated in drug allergy. Swerlick and Campbell⁶³ described 11 cases in which chronic unexplained pruritus responded to medication changes to avoid coloring agents. The most common culprits were FD&C Blue No. 1 and FD&C Blue No. 2. Patch testing for allergies to dyes can be clinically useful, though a lack of commercially available patch tests makes diagnosis difficult.⁶⁴

Other excipients can cause cutaneous reactions. Propylene glycol, commonly implicated in allergic contact dermatitis, also can cause cutaneous eruptions upon systemic exposure.⁶⁵ Corticosteroid-induced systemic contact dermatitis has been reported, though it is less prevalent than allergic contact dermatitis.⁶⁶ These reactions usually are due to nonmethylated and nonhalogenated corticosteroids including budesonide, cortisone, hydrocortisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone.^67,68 Patch testing in these situations is complicated by the possibility of false-negative results due to the anti-inflammatory effects of the corticosteroids. Therefore, patch testing should be performed using standardized and not treatment concentrations.

In our clinic, we have anecdotally observed several patients with chronic dermatitis and suspected NSAID allergies have positive patch test results with propylene glycol and not the suspected drug. Excipients encountered in multiple drugs and foods are more likely to present as chronic dermatitis, while active drug ingredients started in hospital settings more often present as acute dermatitis.

Our Experience

We have patch tested a handful of patients with suspected drug eruptions (University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center institutional review board #07-12-27). Medications, excipients, and their concentrations (in % weight per weight) and vehicles that were tested include ibuprofen (10% petrolatum), aspirin (10% petrolatum), hydrochlorothiazide (10% petrolatum), captopril (5% petrolatum), and propylene glycol (30% water or 5% petrolatum). Patch tests were read at 48 and 72 hours and scored according to the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group patch test scoring guidelines.⁶⁹ Two patients tested for ibuprofen reacted positively only to propylene glycol; the 3 other patients did not react to aspirin, hydrochlorothiazide, and captopril. Overall, we observed no positive patch tests to medications and 2 positive tests to propylene glycol in 5 patients tested (unpublished data).

Areas of Uncertainty

Although tests for immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions to drugs exist as skin prick tests, diagnostic testing for the majority of drug reactions does not exist. Drug allergy diagnosis is made with history and temporality, potentially resulting in unnecessary avoidance of helpful medications. Ideal patch test concentrations and vehicles as well as the sensitivity and specificity of these tests are unknown.

Guidelines From Professional Societies

Drug allergy testing guidelines are available from the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology⁷⁰ and American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.⁷¹ The guidelines recommend diagnosis by history and temporality, and it is stated that patch testing is potentially useful in maculopapular rashes, AGEP, fixed drug eruptions, and DRESS syndrome.

Conclusion

Case reports in the literature suggest the utility of patch testing in some drug allergies. We suggest testing excipients such as propylene glycol and benzoic acid to rule out systemic contact dermatitis when patch testing with active drugs to confirm cause of suspected adverse cutaneous reactions to medications.

HOUSTON—Children with infantile spasms commonly endure substantial delays in diagnosis and treatment, according to research presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. “A simple lack of awareness of infantile spasms among healthcare providers may be responsible for potentially catastrophic delays in diagnosis and treatment,” said Shaun Hussain, MD, Director of the University of California, Los Angeles Infantile Spasms Program, and colleagues. “There is a desperate need for effective interventions to increase basic familiarity with infantile spasms among healthcare providers.”

Dr. Hussain and his colleagues performed a study to measure delays in diagnosis and treatment of infantile spasms and identify barriers to optimal care. The researchers retrospectively identified children with video-EEG-confirmed infantile spasms in a clinical database.

When the children’s parents presented for follow-up, they were surveyed about their experiences with diagnosis and treatment. The investigators asked about medical and sociodemographic factors that could affect the care of infantile spasms. Specifically, the researchers determined the dates of infantile spasms onset, first visit with any healthcare provider, first visit with any neurologist, and first visit with an effective provider. Dr. Hussain and colleagues defined an effective provider as a healthcare provider who identified infantile spasms and prescribed a first-line treatment (ie, ACTH, corticosteroids, vigabatrin, or surgical resection). The investigators reviewed medical records to corroborate parents’ survey responses. They calculated the time to first effective provider using Cox proportional hazards regression.

The parents of 100 children with previous or ongoing infantile spasms were included in the study. Approximately 29% of patients were seen by an effective provider within one week of spasms onset. The median time from spasms onset to the first visit with an effective provider was 24.5 days. In sequential univariate analyses, parental sociodemographic attributes (eg, race, ethnicity, religion, household income, education level, type of healthcare insurance, and distance from patients’ home to the tertiary center) did not predict time to first effective provider. In open-ended discussions, numerous parents reported that their suspicions that “something was wrong” often had been discounted by pediatricians, emergency room physicians, and neurologists. In a qualitative analysis, many parents reported self-diagnosis using Internet resources and self-referral after various diagnostic difficulties and false reassurance by health care providers.

HOUSTON—Children with infantile spasms commonly endure substantial delays in diagnosis and treatment, according to research presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. “A simple lack of awareness of infantile spasms among healthcare providers may be responsible for potentially catastrophic delays in diagnosis and treatment,” said Shaun Hussain, MD, Director of the University of California, Los Angeles Infantile Spasms Program, and colleagues. “There is a desperate need for effective interventions to increase basic familiarity with infantile spasms among healthcare providers.”

Dr. Hussain and his colleagues performed a study to measure delays in diagnosis and treatment of infantile spasms and identify barriers to optimal care. The researchers retrospectively identified children with video-EEG-confirmed infantile spasms in a clinical database.

When the children’s parents presented for follow-up, they were surveyed about their experiences with diagnosis and treatment. The investigators asked about medical and sociodemographic factors that could affect the care of infantile spasms. Specifically, the researchers determined the dates of infantile spasms onset, first visit with any healthcare provider, first visit with any neurologist, and first visit with an effective provider. Dr. Hussain and colleagues defined an effective provider as a healthcare provider who identified infantile spasms and prescribed a first-line treatment (ie, ACTH, corticosteroids, vigabatrin, or surgical resection). The investigators reviewed medical records to corroborate parents’ survey responses. They calculated the time to first effective provider using Cox proportional hazards regression.

The parents of 100 children with previous or ongoing infantile spasms were included in the study. Approximately 29% of patients were seen by an effective provider within one week of spasms onset. The median time from spasms onset to the first visit with an effective provider was 24.5 days. In sequential univariate analyses, parental sociodemographic attributes (eg, race, ethnicity, religion, household income, education level, type of healthcare insurance, and distance from patients’ home to the tertiary center) did not predict time to first effective provider. In open-ended discussions, numerous parents reported that their suspicions that “something was wrong” often had been discounted by pediatricians, emergency room physicians, and neurologists. In a qualitative analysis, many parents reported self-diagnosis using Internet resources and self-referral after various diagnostic difficulties and false reassurance by health care providers.

HOUSTON—Children with infantile spasms commonly endure substantial delays in diagnosis and treatment, according to research presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. “A simple lack of awareness of infantile spasms among healthcare providers may be responsible for potentially catastrophic delays in diagnosis and treatment,” said Shaun Hussain, MD, Director of the University of California, Los Angeles Infantile Spasms Program, and colleagues. “There is a desperate need for effective interventions to increase basic familiarity with infantile spasms among healthcare providers.”

Dr. Hussain and his colleagues performed a study to measure delays in diagnosis and treatment of infantile spasms and identify barriers to optimal care. The researchers retrospectively identified children with video-EEG-confirmed infantile spasms in a clinical database.

When the children’s parents presented for follow-up, they were surveyed about their experiences with diagnosis and treatment. The investigators asked about medical and sociodemographic factors that could affect the care of infantile spasms. Specifically, the researchers determined the dates of infantile spasms onset, first visit with any healthcare provider, first visit with any neurologist, and first visit with an effective provider. Dr. Hussain and colleagues defined an effective provider as a healthcare provider who identified infantile spasms and prescribed a first-line treatment (ie, ACTH, corticosteroids, vigabatrin, or surgical resection). The investigators reviewed medical records to corroborate parents’ survey responses. They calculated the time to first effective provider using Cox proportional hazards regression.

The parents of 100 children with previous or ongoing infantile spasms were included in the study. Approximately 29% of patients were seen by an effective provider within one week of spasms onset. The median time from spasms onset to the first visit with an effective provider was 24.5 days. In sequential univariate analyses, parental sociodemographic attributes (eg, race, ethnicity, religion, household income, education level, type of healthcare insurance, and distance from patients’ home to the tertiary center) did not predict time to first effective provider. In open-ended discussions, numerous parents reported that their suspicions that “something was wrong” often had been discounted by pediatricians, emergency room physicians, and neurologists. In a qualitative analysis, many parents reported self-diagnosis using Internet resources and self-referral after various diagnostic difficulties and false reassurance by health care providers.

Q2: Answer: E

Objective: Recall that the major risk to pregnant patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a flare of IBD.

Rationale: The most important factor in a successful pregnancy is the maintenance of IBD in a quiescent state. Most of the medications typically used to treat IBD are considered relatively safe in pregnancy. In fact, the risk of a flare of disease during pregnancy usually outweighs the risk of these medications.

Endoscopic procedures are generally well tolerated when proper precautions are taken, but should be deferred until the second trimester if possible, and performed only when there is a strong indication. The decision to proceed with endoscopy should be made in consultation with an obstetrician, regardless of gestational age.

References

1. Schulze H., Esters P., Dignass A. Review article: The management of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis during pregnancy and lactation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40:991-1008.

2. ASGE Standard of Practice Committee. Shergill A.K., Ben-Menachem T., Chandrasekhara V., et al. Guidelines for endoscopy in pregnant and lactating women. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012:76:18-24.

Q2: Answer: E

Objective: Recall that the major risk to pregnant patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a flare of IBD.

Rationale: The most important factor in a successful pregnancy is the maintenance of IBD in a quiescent state. Most of the medications typically used to treat IBD are considered relatively safe in pregnancy. In fact, the risk of a flare of disease during pregnancy usually outweighs the risk of these medications.

Endoscopic procedures are generally well tolerated when proper precautions are taken, but should be deferred until the second trimester if possible, and performed only when there is a strong indication. The decision to proceed with endoscopy should be made in consultation with an obstetrician, regardless of gestational age.

References

1. Schulze H., Esters P., Dignass A. Review article: The management of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis during pregnancy and lactation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40:991-1008.

2. ASGE Standard of Practice Committee. Shergill A.K., Ben-Menachem T., Chandrasekhara V., et al. Guidelines for endoscopy in pregnant and lactating women. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012:76:18-24.

Q2: Answer: E

Objective: Recall that the major risk to pregnant patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a flare of IBD.

Rationale: The most important factor in a successful pregnancy is the maintenance of IBD in a quiescent state. Most of the medications typically used to treat IBD are considered relatively safe in pregnancy. In fact, the risk of a flare of disease during pregnancy usually outweighs the risk of these medications.

Endoscopic procedures are generally well tolerated when proper precautions are taken, but should be deferred until the second trimester if possible, and performed only when there is a strong indication. The decision to proceed with endoscopy should be made in consultation with an obstetrician, regardless of gestational age.

References

1. Schulze H., Esters P., Dignass A. Review article: The management of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis during pregnancy and lactation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40:991-1008.

2. ASGE Standard of Practice Committee. Shergill A.K., Ben-Menachem T., Chandrasekhara V., et al. Guidelines for endoscopy in pregnant and lactating women. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012:76:18-24.

Q1: Answer: B

Rationale: Although copper deficiency could be a complication of extensive enteropathy from conditions such as Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, short gut syndrome, or HIV enteropathy, it is more commonly recognized as a complication of gastric bypass surgeries. Copper absorption is thought to be primarily in the stomach and proximal small intestine. Copper is partially excreted in the bile, and patients with chronic external biliary drains may also develop copper deficiency. Deficiency in copper has also been recognized as a complication of zinc toxicity from deliberate chronic ingestion of zinc or unintentional industrial overexposure to zinc, and can also be a complication of chronic total parenteral nutrition in the absence of routine micronutrient supplementation. Complaints of muscle weakness and gait disturbance with copper deficiency are secondary to a myeloneuropathy similar to vitamin B12 deficiency. Copper deficiency may present as a microcytic anemia and neutropenia and, in advanced cases, may mimic a myelodysplastic syndrome. The microcytic anemia of copper deficiency is worsened by iron supplementation, which can reduce copper absorption.

Riboflavin deficiency may manifest with photophobia, burning mouth sensation, and glossitis. Zinc deficiency may manifest as diarrhea, altered taste sensation (dysgeusia), night blindness, and a characteristic acrodermatitis. Iron deficiency principally manifests as a microcytic anemia. Vitamin B12 deficiency is associated with gastric bypass surgery, as well as resection of the ileum, and may result in myeloneuropathy, but characteristically is associated with a megaloblastic, macrocytic anemia.

Q1: Answer: B

Rationale: Although copper deficiency could be a complication of extensive enteropathy from conditions such as Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, short gut syndrome, or HIV enteropathy, it is more commonly recognized as a complication of gastric bypass surgeries. Copper absorption is thought to be primarily in the stomach and proximal small intestine. Copper is partially excreted in the bile, and patients with chronic external biliary drains may also develop copper deficiency. Deficiency in copper has also been recognized as a complication of zinc toxicity from deliberate chronic ingestion of zinc or unintentional industrial overexposure to zinc, and can also be a complication of chronic total parenteral nutrition in the absence of routine micronutrient supplementation. Complaints of muscle weakness and gait disturbance with copper deficiency are secondary to a myeloneuropathy similar to vitamin B12 deficiency. Copper deficiency may present as a microcytic anemia and neutropenia and, in advanced cases, may mimic a myelodysplastic syndrome. The microcytic anemia of copper deficiency is worsened by iron supplementation, which can reduce copper absorption.

Riboflavin deficiency may manifest with photophobia, burning mouth sensation, and glossitis. Zinc deficiency may manifest as diarrhea, altered taste sensation (dysgeusia), night blindness, and a characteristic acrodermatitis. Iron deficiency principally manifests as a microcytic anemia. Vitamin B12 deficiency is associated with gastric bypass surgery, as well as resection of the ileum, and may result in myeloneuropathy, but characteristically is associated with a megaloblastic, macrocytic anemia.

Q1: Answer: B

Rationale: Although copper deficiency could be a complication of extensive enteropathy from conditions such as Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, short gut syndrome, or HIV enteropathy, it is more commonly recognized as a complication of gastric bypass surgeries. Copper absorption is thought to be primarily in the stomach and proximal small intestine. Copper is partially excreted in the bile, and patients with chronic external biliary drains may also develop copper deficiency. Deficiency in copper has also been recognized as a complication of zinc toxicity from deliberate chronic ingestion of zinc or unintentional industrial overexposure to zinc, and can also be a complication of chronic total parenteral nutrition in the absence of routine micronutrient supplementation. Complaints of muscle weakness and gait disturbance with copper deficiency are secondary to a myeloneuropathy similar to vitamin B12 deficiency. Copper deficiency may present as a microcytic anemia and neutropenia and, in advanced cases, may mimic a myelodysplastic syndrome. The microcytic anemia of copper deficiency is worsened by iron supplementation, which can reduce copper absorption.

Riboflavin deficiency may manifest with photophobia, burning mouth sensation, and glossitis. Zinc deficiency may manifest as diarrhea, altered taste sensation (dysgeusia), night blindness, and a characteristic acrodermatitis. Iron deficiency principally manifests as a microcytic anemia. Vitamin B12 deficiency is associated with gastric bypass surgery, as well as resection of the ileum, and may result in myeloneuropathy, but characteristically is associated with a megaloblastic, macrocytic anemia.

TORONTO—Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease seems to accelerate physical brain aging by as much as seven years, according to a new subanalysis of the ongoing Framingham Heart Study. However, while the finding suggests that the liver disorder directly endangers brains, the study also offers hope, said Galit Weinstein, MSc, PhD, at the 2016 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference. “If indeed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is a risk factor for brain aging and subsequent dementia, then it is a modifiable one,” said Dr. Weinstein, an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Neurology at Boston University. “We have reason to hope that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease remission could possibly improve cognitive outcomes.”

She and her colleagues examined the relationship of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and total brain volume in 906 subjects enrolled in the Framingham Offspring Cohort. This substudy was initiated in 1971 and includes 5,124 children of the original Framingham cohort.

For their study, the researchers assessed the presence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease by abdominal CT scans and white-matter hyperintensities and brain volume (total, frontal, and hippocampal) by MRI. The resulting associations were then adjusted for age, sex, alcohol consumption, visceral adipose tissue, BMI, menopausal status, systolic blood pressure, current smoking, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, physical activity, insulin resistance, and C-reactive protein.

There were no significant associations with white-matter hyperintensities or with hippocampal volume, but the researches did find a significant association with total brain volume. Even after adjustment for all of the covariates, patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease had smaller-than-normal brains for their age. This result can be seen as a pathologic acceleration of the brain aging process, Dr. Weinstein said.

The finding was most striking among the youngest subjects, she said, accounting for about a seven-year advance in brain aging for those younger than 60. Older patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease showed about a two-year advance in brain aging.

The effect is probably mediated by the liver’s complex interplay in metabolism and vascular functions, Dr. Weinstein said.

—Michele G. Sullivan

TORONTO—Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease seems to accelerate physical brain aging by as much as seven years, according to a new subanalysis of the ongoing Framingham Heart Study. However, while the finding suggests that the liver disorder directly endangers brains, the study also offers hope, said Galit Weinstein, MSc, PhD, at the 2016 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference. “If indeed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is a risk factor for brain aging and subsequent dementia, then it is a modifiable one,” said Dr. Weinstein, an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Neurology at Boston University. “We have reason to hope that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease remission could possibly improve cognitive outcomes.”

She and her colleagues examined the relationship of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and total brain volume in 906 subjects enrolled in the Framingham Offspring Cohort. This substudy was initiated in 1971 and includes 5,124 children of the original Framingham cohort.

For their study, the researchers assessed the presence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease by abdominal CT scans and white-matter hyperintensities and brain volume (total, frontal, and hippocampal) by MRI. The resulting associations were then adjusted for age, sex, alcohol consumption, visceral adipose tissue, BMI, menopausal status, systolic blood pressure, current smoking, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, physical activity, insulin resistance, and C-reactive protein.

There were no significant associations with white-matter hyperintensities or with hippocampal volume, but the researches did find a significant association with total brain volume. Even after adjustment for all of the covariates, patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease had smaller-than-normal brains for their age. This result can be seen as a pathologic acceleration of the brain aging process, Dr. Weinstein said.

The finding was most striking among the youngest subjects, she said, accounting for about a seven-year advance in brain aging for those younger than 60. Older patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease showed about a two-year advance in brain aging.

The effect is probably mediated by the liver’s complex interplay in metabolism and vascular functions, Dr. Weinstein said.

—Michele G. Sullivan

TORONTO—Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease seems to accelerate physical brain aging by as much as seven years, according to a new subanalysis of the ongoing Framingham Heart Study. However, while the finding suggests that the liver disorder directly endangers brains, the study also offers hope, said Galit Weinstein, MSc, PhD, at the 2016 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference. “If indeed nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is a risk factor for brain aging and subsequent dementia, then it is a modifiable one,” said Dr. Weinstein, an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Neurology at Boston University. “We have reason to hope that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease remission could possibly improve cognitive outcomes.”

She and her colleagues examined the relationship of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and total brain volume in 906 subjects enrolled in the Framingham Offspring Cohort. This substudy was initiated in 1971 and includes 5,124 children of the original Framingham cohort.

For their study, the researchers assessed the presence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease by abdominal CT scans and white-matter hyperintensities and brain volume (total, frontal, and hippocampal) by MRI. The resulting associations were then adjusted for age, sex, alcohol consumption, visceral adipose tissue, BMI, menopausal status, systolic blood pressure, current smoking, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, physical activity, insulin resistance, and C-reactive protein.

There were no significant associations with white-matter hyperintensities or with hippocampal volume, but the researches did find a significant association with total brain volume. Even after adjustment for all of the covariates, patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease had smaller-than-normal brains for their age. This result can be seen as a pathologic acceleration of the brain aging process, Dr. Weinstein said.

The finding was most striking among the youngest subjects, she said, accounting for about a seven-year advance in brain aging for those younger than 60. Older patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease showed about a two-year advance in brain aging.

The effect is probably mediated by the liver’s complex interplay in metabolism and vascular functions, Dr. Weinstein said.

—Michele G. Sullivan

HOUSTON – Predictors of poor outcomes in patients with status epilepticus admitted to the neurointensive care unit include complex partial status epilepticus (CPSE), refractory status epilepticus, or the development of nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) at any time during the hospital course, according to results from a single-center study.

“Not a lot of data exist as to what predicts the poor outcomes and what’s known about the outcome in patients with status epilepticus,” lead study author Advait Mahulikar, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. To find out, he and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 100 patients with status epilepticus who were admitted to the neurointensive care unit at Detroit Medical Center from November 2013 to January 2016. Variables of interest included patient demographics, initial presentation, refractoriness to treatment, presence or absence of underlying etiology, past history of epilepsy, and use of benzodiazepines on admission. Another variable of interest was NCSE, either from initial presentation or developed during the course of convulsive status epilepticus. A good outcome was defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score of 4 or 5, and a poor outcome was defined as a GOS score of 1-3.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

HOUSTON – Predictors of poor outcomes in patients with status epilepticus admitted to the neurointensive care unit include complex partial status epilepticus (CPSE), refractory status epilepticus, or the development of nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) at any time during the hospital course, according to results from a single-center study.

“Not a lot of data exist as to what predicts the poor outcomes and what’s known about the outcome in patients with status epilepticus,” lead study author Advait Mahulikar, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. To find out, he and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 100 patients with status epilepticus who were admitted to the neurointensive care unit at Detroit Medical Center from November 2013 to January 2016. Variables of interest included patient demographics, initial presentation, refractoriness to treatment, presence or absence of underlying etiology, past history of epilepsy, and use of benzodiazepines on admission. Another variable of interest was NCSE, either from initial presentation or developed during the course of convulsive status epilepticus. A good outcome was defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score of 4 or 5, and a poor outcome was defined as a GOS score of 1-3.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

HOUSTON – Predictors of poor outcomes in patients with status epilepticus admitted to the neurointensive care unit include complex partial status epilepticus (CPSE), refractory status epilepticus, or the development of nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) at any time during the hospital course, according to results from a single-center study.

“Not a lot of data exist as to what predicts the poor outcomes and what’s known about the outcome in patients with status epilepticus,” lead study author Advait Mahulikar, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. To find out, he and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 100 patients with status epilepticus who were admitted to the neurointensive care unit at Detroit Medical Center from November 2013 to January 2016. Variables of interest included patient demographics, initial presentation, refractoriness to treatment, presence or absence of underlying etiology, past history of epilepsy, and use of benzodiazepines on admission. Another variable of interest was NCSE, either from initial presentation or developed during the course of convulsive status epilepticus. A good outcome was defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score of 4 or 5, and a poor outcome was defined as a GOS score of 1-3.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

Contrary to popular belief, great scientists do not spend their days proving that their new ideas are correct. That is just the romantic portrait of the field that is taught to schoolchildren. The reality is that great scientists do everything they can think of to disprove their theories. They exhaustively consider all other plausible explanations, challenge any potential bias in their methodology, rule out random flukes in the data collection, and refine any error in the data measurement. Only after doing all that, when no other conclusion is possible, do true scientists publish their new theories as truth. Then they await confirmation from their peers.

That is the philosophy behind the modern scientific method. In the hard sciences like chemistry and physics, this paradigm is reinforced because a scientist stakes his or her reputation on every publication. Funding from various government agencies often is controlled by peers in the field. If published work is inaccurate, the likelihood of receiving funding is markedly diminished.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis.

Contrary to popular belief, great scientists do not spend their days proving that their new ideas are correct. That is just the romantic portrait of the field that is taught to schoolchildren. The reality is that great scientists do everything they can think of to disprove their theories. They exhaustively consider all other plausible explanations, challenge any potential bias in their methodology, rule out random flukes in the data collection, and refine any error in the data measurement. Only after doing all that, when no other conclusion is possible, do true scientists publish their new theories as truth. Then they await confirmation from their peers.

That is the philosophy behind the modern scientific method. In the hard sciences like chemistry and physics, this paradigm is reinforced because a scientist stakes his or her reputation on every publication. Funding from various government agencies often is controlled by peers in the field. If published work is inaccurate, the likelihood of receiving funding is markedly diminished.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis.

Contrary to popular belief, great scientists do not spend their days proving that their new ideas are correct. That is just the romantic portrait of the field that is taught to schoolchildren. The reality is that great scientists do everything they can think of to disprove their theories. They exhaustively consider all other plausible explanations, challenge any potential bias in their methodology, rule out random flukes in the data collection, and refine any error in the data measurement. Only after doing all that, when no other conclusion is possible, do true scientists publish their new theories as truth. Then they await confirmation from their peers.

That is the philosophy behind the modern scientific method. In the hard sciences like chemistry and physics, this paradigm is reinforced because a scientist stakes his or her reputation on every publication. Funding from various government agencies often is controlled by peers in the field. If published work is inaccurate, the likelihood of receiving funding is markedly diminished.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis.

Editor’s Note: AJO is fortunate to have Shane Nho, one of the nation’s leading hip arthroscopists, as our Deputy Editor-in-Chief. He has compiled an outstanding update for all orthopedic surgeons who see hip patients. It’s my pleasure to turn this issue over to him. On a side note, we’ve added a new feature for our speed readers. From now on, all articles published in AJO will feature a “Take-Home Points” text box. These points represent the most important items that the authors wish to convey from their article. Please enjoy this month’s issue and keep the feedback coming. We are striving to continuously improve AJO and make it your go-to journal for practical information that you can apply directly to your practice.

—Bryan T. Hanypsiak, MD

Hip arthroscopy has been evolving over the past 2 decades as our techniques have been refined and our clinical outcomes have been reported. We have reached a point in our field to look back at the progress that has been made while also providing our readers with the most up-to-date information on diagnosis, imaging studies, and decision making for appropriate treatment.

Trofa and colleagues provide an excellent overview on intra- and extra-articular pathology of the hip and pelvis in their article, “Mastering the Physical Examination of the Athlete’s Hip”. The authors review common injuries in the athlete and provide physical examination tests to differentiate between adductor strain, athletic pubalgia, osteitis pubis, and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Also in this issue, Lewis and colleagues provide a comprehensive review of imaging studies in the “Imaging for Nonarthritic Hip Pathology”. The authors review the most common radiographic measurements to detect FAI as well as describe the role of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

The mastery of hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAI has a steep learning curve and the techniques have evolved along with our understanding of the importance of the labrum and capsule. We are fortunate to have an article provided by one of the pioneers in the field, Dr. Marc J. Philippon, describing his role in advancing the field in the article “Treatment of FAI: Labrum, Cartilage, Osseous Deformity, and Capsule”. Kollmorgen and Mather provide the most up-to-date techniques for labrum repair and reconstruction. Friel and colleagues report on capsular repair and plication using the T-capsulotomy and the extensile interportal capsulotomy.

We also have the opportunity to read about a number of clinical studies describing the experiences of multi-center studies and epidemiologic studies on large volumes of data. The ANCHOR group provides a summary of the experiences of some of the most renowned hip surgeons in North America as the treatment of FAI evolved from an open approach to an all-arthroscopic approach. The MASH group is a large multi-center group of hip arthroscopists in the United States who describe their current indications for surgical treatment of FAI.

On AmJOrthopedics.com, Matsuda and colleagues describe the outcomes of borderline dysplasia patients compared to normal controls across multiple centers. Anthony and colleagues report on the complication rates using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

I believe that our Hip Arthroscopy issue will not disappoint you. It is a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in hip arthroscopy from physical examination to current surgical techniques to clinical outcomes from large databases for the treatment of FAI. After reviewing this issue, you will be equipped with the most up-to-date information on the treatment of nonarthritic hip disease.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):8. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Editor’s Note: AJO is fortunate to have Shane Nho, one of the nation’s leading hip arthroscopists, as our Deputy Editor-in-Chief. He has compiled an outstanding update for all orthopedic surgeons who see hip patients. It’s my pleasure to turn this issue over to him. On a side note, we’ve added a new feature for our speed readers. From now on, all articles published in AJO will feature a “Take-Home Points” text box. These points represent the most important items that the authors wish to convey from their article. Please enjoy this month’s issue and keep the feedback coming. We are striving to continuously improve AJO and make it your go-to journal for practical information that you can apply directly to your practice.

—Bryan T. Hanypsiak, MD

Hip arthroscopy has been evolving over the past 2 decades as our techniques have been refined and our clinical outcomes have been reported. We have reached a point in our field to look back at the progress that has been made while also providing our readers with the most up-to-date information on diagnosis, imaging studies, and decision making for appropriate treatment.

Trofa and colleagues provide an excellent overview on intra- and extra-articular pathology of the hip and pelvis in their article, “Mastering the Physical Examination of the Athlete’s Hip”. The authors review common injuries in the athlete and provide physical examination tests to differentiate between adductor strain, athletic pubalgia, osteitis pubis, and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Also in this issue, Lewis and colleagues provide a comprehensive review of imaging studies in the “Imaging for Nonarthritic Hip Pathology”. The authors review the most common radiographic measurements to detect FAI as well as describe the role of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

The mastery of hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAI has a steep learning curve and the techniques have evolved along with our understanding of the importance of the labrum and capsule. We are fortunate to have an article provided by one of the pioneers in the field, Dr. Marc J. Philippon, describing his role in advancing the field in the article “Treatment of FAI: Labrum, Cartilage, Osseous Deformity, and Capsule”. Kollmorgen and Mather provide the most up-to-date techniques for labrum repair and reconstruction. Friel and colleagues report on capsular repair and plication using the T-capsulotomy and the extensile interportal capsulotomy.

We also have the opportunity to read about a number of clinical studies describing the experiences of multi-center studies and epidemiologic studies on large volumes of data. The ANCHOR group provides a summary of the experiences of some of the most renowned hip surgeons in North America as the treatment of FAI evolved from an open approach to an all-arthroscopic approach. The MASH group is a large multi-center group of hip arthroscopists in the United States who describe their current indications for surgical treatment of FAI.

On AmJOrthopedics.com, Matsuda and colleagues describe the outcomes of borderline dysplasia patients compared to normal controls across multiple centers. Anthony and colleagues report on the complication rates using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

I believe that our Hip Arthroscopy issue will not disappoint you. It is a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in hip arthroscopy from physical examination to current surgical techniques to clinical outcomes from large databases for the treatment of FAI. After reviewing this issue, you will be equipped with the most up-to-date information on the treatment of nonarthritic hip disease.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):8. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Editor’s Note: AJO is fortunate to have Shane Nho, one of the nation’s leading hip arthroscopists, as our Deputy Editor-in-Chief. He has compiled an outstanding update for all orthopedic surgeons who see hip patients. It’s my pleasure to turn this issue over to him. On a side note, we’ve added a new feature for our speed readers. From now on, all articles published in AJO will feature a “Take-Home Points” text box. These points represent the most important items that the authors wish to convey from their article. Please enjoy this month’s issue and keep the feedback coming. We are striving to continuously improve AJO and make it your go-to journal for practical information that you can apply directly to your practice.

—Bryan T. Hanypsiak, MD

Hip arthroscopy has been evolving over the past 2 decades as our techniques have been refined and our clinical outcomes have been reported. We have reached a point in our field to look back at the progress that has been made while also providing our readers with the most up-to-date information on diagnosis, imaging studies, and decision making for appropriate treatment.

Trofa and colleagues provide an excellent overview on intra- and extra-articular pathology of the hip and pelvis in their article, “Mastering the Physical Examination of the Athlete’s Hip”. The authors review common injuries in the athlete and provide physical examination tests to differentiate between adductor strain, athletic pubalgia, osteitis pubis, and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Also in this issue, Lewis and colleagues provide a comprehensive review of imaging studies in the “Imaging for Nonarthritic Hip Pathology”. The authors review the most common radiographic measurements to detect FAI as well as describe the role of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

The mastery of hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAI has a steep learning curve and the techniques have evolved along with our understanding of the importance of the labrum and capsule. We are fortunate to have an article provided by one of the pioneers in the field, Dr. Marc J. Philippon, describing his role in advancing the field in the article “Treatment of FAI: Labrum, Cartilage, Osseous Deformity, and Capsule”. Kollmorgen and Mather provide the most up-to-date techniques for labrum repair and reconstruction. Friel and colleagues report on capsular repair and plication using the T-capsulotomy and the extensile interportal capsulotomy.

We also have the opportunity to read about a number of clinical studies describing the experiences of multi-center studies and epidemiologic studies on large volumes of data. The ANCHOR group provides a summary of the experiences of some of the most renowned hip surgeons in North America as the treatment of FAI evolved from an open approach to an all-arthroscopic approach. The MASH group is a large multi-center group of hip arthroscopists in the United States who describe their current indications for surgical treatment of FAI.

On AmJOrthopedics.com, Matsuda and colleagues describe the outcomes of borderline dysplasia patients compared to normal controls across multiple centers. Anthony and colleagues report on the complication rates using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

I believe that our Hip Arthroscopy issue will not disappoint you. It is a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in hip arthroscopy from physical examination to current surgical techniques to clinical outcomes from large databases for the treatment of FAI. After reviewing this issue, you will be equipped with the most up-to-date information on the treatment of nonarthritic hip disease.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):8. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Perform a comprehensive examination to determine intra-articular pathology as well as potential extra-articular sources of hip and pelvic pain.
• Adductor strains can be prevented with adequate rehabilitation focused on correcting predisposing factors (ie, adductor weakness or tightness, limited range of motion, and core imbalance).
• Athletic pubalgia is diagnosed when tenderness can be elicited over the pubic tubercle.
• Osteitis pubis is diagnosed with pain over the pubic symphysis.
• FAI and labral injury classically present with a C-sign but can also present with lateral hip pain, buttock pain, low back pain, anterior thigh pain, and knee pain.

Hip and groin pain is a common finding among athletes of all ages and activity levels. Such pain most often occurs among athletes in sports such as football, hockey, rugby, soccer, and ballet, which demand frequent cutting, pivoting, and acceleration.^1-4 Previously, pain about the hip and groin was attributed to muscular strains and soft-tissue contusions, but improvements in physical examination skills, imaging modalities, and disease-specific treatment options have led to increased recognition of hip injuries as a significant source of disability in the athletic population.^5,6 These injuries make up 6% or more of all sports injuries, and the rate is increasing.^7-9

In this review, we describe precise methods for evaluating the athlete’s hip or groin with an emphasis on recognizing the most common extra-articular and intra-articular pathologies, including adductor strains, athletic pubalgia, osteitis pubis, and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with labral tears.

Hip Pathoanatomy

The first step in determining the etiology of pain is to establish if there is true pathology of the hip joint and surrounding structures, or if the pain is referred from another source.

Patient History

The physical examination is guided by the patient’s history. Important patient-specific factors to be ascertained include age, sport(s) played, competition level, seasonal timing, and effect of the injury on performance. Regarding presenting symptoms, attention should be given to pain location, timing (acute vs chronic), onset, nature (clicking, catching, instability), and precipitating factors. Acute-onset pain with muscle contraction or stretching, possibly accompanied by an audible pop, is likely musculotendinous in origin. Insidious-onset dull aching pain that worsens with activity more commonly involves intra-articular processes. Most classically, this pain occurs deep in the groin and is demonstrated by the C sign: The patient cups a hand with its fingers pointing toward the anterior groin at the level of the greater trochanter (Figure 1).¹¹

A comprehensive hip evaluation can be performed with the patient in the standing, seated, supine, lateral, and prone positions, as previously described (Table 2).^6,12,13

Extra-Articular Hip Pathologies

Adductor Strains

The adductor muscle group includes the adductor magnus, adductor brevis, gracilis, obturator externus, pectineus, and adductor longus, which is the most commonly strained. Adductor strains are the most common cause of groin pain in athletes, and usually occur in sports that require forceful eccentric contraction of the adductors.¹⁴ Among professional soccer players, adductor strains represent almost one fourth of all muscle injuries and result in lost playing time averaging 2 weeks and an 18% reinjury rate.¹⁵ These injuries are particularly detrimental to performance because the adductor muscles help stabilize the pelvis during closed-chain activities.³ Diagnosis and adequate rehabilitation focused on correcting predisposing factors (eg, adductor weakness or tightness, loss of hip range of motion, core imbalance) are paramount in reinjury prevention.^16,17

On presentation, athletes complain of aching groin or medial thigh pain. The examiner should assess for swelling or ecchymosis. There typically is tenderness to palpation at or near the origin on the pubic bones, with pain exacerbated with resisted adduction and passive stretch into abduction during examination. Palpation of adductors requires proper exposure and is most easily performed with the patient supine and the lower extremity in a figure-of-4 position (Figure 2A).

Athletic Pubalgia

Athletic pubalgia, also known as sports hernia or core muscle injury, is an injury to the soft tissues of the lower abdominal or posterior inguinal wall. Although not fully understood, the condition is considered the result of repetitive trunk hyperextension and thigh hyperabduction resulting in shearing at the pubic symphysis where there is a muscle imbalance between the strong proximal thigh muscles and weaker abdominals. This condition is more common in men and typically is insidious in onset with a prolonged course recalcitrant to nonoperative treatment.¹⁸ In studies of chronic groin pain in athletes, the rate of athletic pubalgia as the primary etiology ranges from 39% to 85%.^9,19,20

Patients typically complain of increasing pain in the lower abdominal and proximal adductors during activity. Symptoms include unilateral or bilateral lower abdominal pain, which can radiate toward the perineum, rectus muscle, and proximal adductors during sport but usually abates with rest.¹⁸ Athletes endorse they are not capable of playing at their full athletic potential. Symptoms are initiated with sudden forceful movements, as in sit-ups, sprints, and valsalva maneuvers like coughs and sneezes. Valsalva maneuvers worsen pain in about 10% of patients.^21-23On physical examination with the patient supine, tenderness can be elicited over the pubic tubercle, abdominal obliques, and/or rectus abdominis insertion (Figure 3A). Athletes may also have tenderness at the adductor longus tendon origin at or near the pubic symphysis, which may make the diagnosis difficult to distinguish from an adductor strain.

Osteitis Pubis

Osteitis pubis is a painful overuse injury that results in noninfectious inflammation of the pubic symphysis from increased motion at this normally stable immobile joint.³ As with athletic pubalgia, the exact mechanism is unclear, but likely it is similar to the repetitive stress placed on the pubic symphysis by unequal forces of the abdominal and adductor muscles.²⁴ The disease can result in bony erosions and cartilage breakdown with irregularity of the pubic symphysis.

Athletes may complain of anterior and medial groin pain that can radiate to the lower abdominal muscles, perineum, inguinal region, and medial thigh. Walking, pelvic motion, adductor stretching, abdominal muscle exercises, and standing up can exacerbate pain.²⁴ Some cases involve impaired internal or external rotation of the hip, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, or adductor and abductor muscle weakness.²⁵The distinguishing feature of osteitis pubis is pain over the pubic symphysis with direct palpation (Figure 4A). Examination maneuvers that place stress on the pubic symphysis can aid in diagnosis.²⁶

Intra-Articular Hip Pathology: Femoroacetabular Impingement

In athletes, FAI is a leading cause of intra-articular pathology, which can lead to labral tears.^28,29 FAI lesions include cam-type impingement from an aspherical femoral head and pincer impingement from acetabular overcoverage, both of which limit internal rotation and cause acetabular rim abutment, which damages the labrum.

Athletes present with activity-related groin or hip pain that is exacerbated by hip flexion and internal rotation, with possible mechanical symptoms from labral tearing.³⁰ However, the pain distribution varies. In a study by Clohisy and colleagues,³¹ of patients with symptomatic FAI that required surgical intervention, 88% had groin pain, 67% had lateral hip pain, 35% had anterior thigh pain, 29% had buttock pain, 27% had knee pain, and 23% had low back pain.

Careful attention should be given to range of motion in FAI patients, as they can usually flex their hip to 90° to 110°, and in this position there is limited internal rotation and asymmetric external rotation relative to the contralateral leg.³² The anterior impingement test is one of the most reliable tests for FAI (Figure 5A).³² With the patient supine, the hip is dynamically flexed to 90°, adducted, and internally rotated. A positive test elicits deep anterior groin pain that generally replicates the patient’s symptoms.²⁹

Conclusion

Careful, directed history taking and physical examination are essential in narrowing the diagnostic possibilities before initiating a workup for the common intra-articular and extra-articular causes of hip and groin pain in athletes.

Take-Home Points

• Perform a comprehensive examination to determine intra-articular pathology as well as potential extra-articular sources of hip and pelvic pain.
• Adductor strains can be prevented with adequate rehabilitation focused on correcting predisposing factors (ie, adductor weakness or tightness, limited range of motion, and core imbalance).
• Athletic pubalgia is diagnosed when tenderness can be elicited over the pubic tubercle.
• Osteitis pubis is diagnosed with pain over the pubic symphysis.
• FAI and labral injury classically present with a C-sign but can also present with lateral hip pain, buttock pain, low back pain, anterior thigh pain, and knee pain.

Hip and groin pain is a common finding among athletes of all ages and activity levels. Such pain most often occurs among athletes in sports such as football, hockey, rugby, soccer, and ballet, which demand frequent cutting, pivoting, and acceleration.^1-4 Previously, pain about the hip and groin was attributed to muscular strains and soft-tissue contusions, but improvements in physical examination skills, imaging modalities, and disease-specific treatment options have led to increased recognition of hip injuries as a significant source of disability in the athletic population.^5,6 These injuries make up 6% or more of all sports injuries, and the rate is increasing.^7-9

In this review, we describe precise methods for evaluating the athlete’s hip or groin with an emphasis on recognizing the most common extra-articular and intra-articular pathologies, including adductor strains, athletic pubalgia, osteitis pubis, and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with labral tears.

Hip Pathoanatomy

The first step in determining the etiology of pain is to establish if there is true pathology of the hip joint and surrounding structures, or if the pain is referred from another source.

Patient History

The physical examination is guided by the patient’s history. Important patient-specific factors to be ascertained include age, sport(s) played, competition level, seasonal timing, and effect of the injury on performance. Regarding presenting symptoms, attention should be given to pain location, timing (acute vs chronic), onset, nature (clicking, catching, instability), and precipitating factors. Acute-onset pain with muscle contraction or stretching, possibly accompanied by an audible pop, is likely musculotendinous in origin. Insidious-onset dull aching pain that worsens with activity more commonly involves intra-articular processes. Most classically, this pain occurs deep in the groin and is demonstrated by the C sign: The patient cups a hand with its fingers pointing toward the anterior groin at the level of the greater trochanter (Figure 1).¹¹

A comprehensive hip evaluation can be performed with the patient in the standing, seated, supine, lateral, and prone positions, as previously described (Table 2).^6,12,13

Extra-Articular Hip Pathologies

Adductor Strains

The adductor muscle group includes the adductor magnus, adductor brevis, gracilis, obturator externus, pectineus, and adductor longus, which is the most commonly strained. Adductor strains are the most common cause of groin pain in athletes, and usually occur in sports that require forceful eccentric contraction of the adductors.¹⁴ Among professional soccer players, adductor strains represent almost one fourth of all muscle injuries and result in lost playing time averaging 2 weeks and an 18% reinjury rate.¹⁵ These injuries are particularly detrimental to performance because the adductor muscles help stabilize the pelvis during closed-chain activities.³ Diagnosis and adequate rehabilitation focused on correcting predisposing factors (eg, adductor weakness or tightness, loss of hip range of motion, core imbalance) are paramount in reinjury prevention.^16,17

On presentation, athletes complain of aching groin or medial thigh pain. The examiner should assess for swelling or ecchymosis. There typically is tenderness to palpation at or near the origin on the pubic bones, with pain exacerbated with resisted adduction and passive stretch into abduction during examination. Palpation of adductors requires proper exposure and is most easily performed with the patient supine and the lower extremity in a figure-of-4 position (Figure 2A).

Athletic Pubalgia

Athletic pubalgia, also known as sports hernia or core muscle injury, is an injury to the soft tissues of the lower abdominal or posterior inguinal wall. Although not fully understood, the condition is considered the result of repetitive trunk hyperextension and thigh hyperabduction resulting in shearing at the pubic symphysis where there is a muscle imbalance between the strong proximal thigh muscles and weaker abdominals. This condition is more common in men and typically is insidious in onset with a prolonged course recalcitrant to nonoperative treatment.¹⁸ In studies of chronic groin pain in athletes, the rate of athletic pubalgia as the primary etiology ranges from 39% to 85%.^9,19,20

Patients typically complain of increasing pain in the lower abdominal and proximal adductors during activity. Symptoms include unilateral or bilateral lower abdominal pain, which can radiate toward the perineum, rectus muscle, and proximal adductors during sport but usually abates with rest.¹⁸ Athletes endorse they are not capable of playing at their full athletic potential. Symptoms are initiated with sudden forceful movements, as in sit-ups, sprints, and valsalva maneuvers like coughs and sneezes. Valsalva maneuvers worsen pain in about 10% of patients.^21-23On physical examination with the patient supine, tenderness can be elicited over the pubic tubercle, abdominal obliques, and/or rectus abdominis insertion (Figure 3A). Athletes may also have tenderness at the adductor longus tendon origin at or near the pubic symphysis, which may make the diagnosis difficult to distinguish from an adductor strain.

Osteitis Pubis

Osteitis pubis is a painful overuse injury that results in noninfectious inflammation of the pubic symphysis from increased motion at this normally stable immobile joint.³ As with athletic pubalgia, the exact mechanism is unclear, but likely it is similar to the repetitive stress placed on the pubic symphysis by unequal forces of the abdominal and adductor muscles.²⁴ The disease can result in bony erosions and cartilage breakdown with irregularity of the pubic symphysis.

Athletes may complain of anterior and medial groin pain that can radiate to the lower abdominal muscles, perineum, inguinal region, and medial thigh. Walking, pelvic motion, adductor stretching, abdominal muscle exercises, and standing up can exacerbate pain.²⁴ Some cases involve impaired internal or external rotation of the hip, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, or adductor and abductor muscle weakness.²⁵The distinguishing feature of osteitis pubis is pain over the pubic symphysis with direct palpation (Figure 4A). Examination maneuvers that place stress on the pubic symphysis can aid in diagnosis.²⁶

Intra-Articular Hip Pathology: Femoroacetabular Impingement

In athletes, FAI is a leading cause of intra-articular pathology, which can lead to labral tears.^28,29 FAI lesions include cam-type impingement from an aspherical femoral head and pincer impingement from acetabular overcoverage, both of which limit internal rotation and cause acetabular rim abutment, which damages the labrum.

Athletes present with activity-related groin or hip pain that is exacerbated by hip flexion and internal rotation, with possible mechanical symptoms from labral tearing.³⁰ However, the pain distribution varies. In a study by Clohisy and colleagues,³¹ of patients with symptomatic FAI that required surgical intervention, 88% had groin pain, 67% had lateral hip pain, 35% had anterior thigh pain, 29% had buttock pain, 27% had knee pain, and 23% had low back pain.

Careful attention should be given to range of motion in FAI patients, as they can usually flex their hip to 90° to 110°, and in this position there is limited internal rotation and asymmetric external rotation relative to the contralateral leg.³² The anterior impingement test is one of the most reliable tests for FAI (Figure 5A).³² With the patient supine, the hip is dynamically flexed to 90°, adducted, and internally rotated. A positive test elicits deep anterior groin pain that generally replicates the patient’s symptoms.²⁹

Conclusion

Careful, directed history taking and physical examination are essential in narrowing the diagnostic possibilities before initiating a workup for the common intra-articular and extra-articular causes of hip and groin pain in athletes.

Take-Home Points

• Perform a comprehensive examination to determine intra-articular pathology as well as potential extra-articular sources of hip and pelvic pain.
• Adductor strains can be prevented with adequate rehabilitation focused on correcting predisposing factors (ie, adductor weakness or tightness, limited range of motion, and core imbalance).
• Athletic pubalgia is diagnosed when tenderness can be elicited over the pubic tubercle.
• Osteitis pubis is diagnosed with pain over the pubic symphysis.
• FAI and labral injury classically present with a C-sign but can also present with lateral hip pain, buttock pain, low back pain, anterior thigh pain, and knee pain.

Hip and groin pain is a common finding among athletes of all ages and activity levels. Such pain most often occurs among athletes in sports such as football, hockey, rugby, soccer, and ballet, which demand frequent cutting, pivoting, and acceleration.^1-4 Previously, pain about the hip and groin was attributed to muscular strains and soft-tissue contusions, but improvements in physical examination skills, imaging modalities, and disease-specific treatment options have led to increased recognition of hip injuries as a significant source of disability in the athletic population.^5,6 These injuries make up 6% or more of all sports injuries, and the rate is increasing.^7-9

In this review, we describe precise methods for evaluating the athlete’s hip or groin with an emphasis on recognizing the most common extra-articular and intra-articular pathologies, including adductor strains, athletic pubalgia, osteitis pubis, and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with labral tears.

Hip Pathoanatomy

The first step in determining the etiology of pain is to establish if there is true pathology of the hip joint and surrounding structures, or if the pain is referred from another source.

Patient History

The physical examination is guided by the patient’s history. Important patient-specific factors to be ascertained include age, sport(s) played, competition level, seasonal timing, and effect of the injury on performance. Regarding presenting symptoms, attention should be given to pain location, timing (acute vs chronic), onset, nature (clicking, catching, instability), and precipitating factors. Acute-onset pain with muscle contraction or stretching, possibly accompanied by an audible pop, is likely musculotendinous in origin. Insidious-onset dull aching pain that worsens with activity more commonly involves intra-articular processes. Most classically, this pain occurs deep in the groin and is demonstrated by the C sign: The patient cups a hand with its fingers pointing toward the anterior groin at the level of the greater trochanter (Figure 1).¹¹

A comprehensive hip evaluation can be performed with the patient in the standing, seated, supine, lateral, and prone positions, as previously described (Table 2).^6,12,13

Extra-Articular Hip Pathologies

Adductor Strains

The adductor muscle group includes the adductor magnus, adductor brevis, gracilis, obturator externus, pectineus, and adductor longus, which is the most commonly strained. Adductor strains are the most common cause of groin pain in athletes, and usually occur in sports that require forceful eccentric contraction of the adductors.¹⁴ Among professional soccer players, adductor strains represent almost one fourth of all muscle injuries and result in lost playing time averaging 2 weeks and an 18% reinjury rate.¹⁵ These injuries are particularly detrimental to performance because the adductor muscles help stabilize the pelvis during closed-chain activities.³ Diagnosis and adequate rehabilitation focused on correcting predisposing factors (eg, adductor weakness or tightness, loss of hip range of motion, core imbalance) are paramount in reinjury prevention.^16,17

On presentation, athletes complain of aching groin or medial thigh pain. The examiner should assess for swelling or ecchymosis. There typically is tenderness to palpation at or near the origin on the pubic bones, with pain exacerbated with resisted adduction and passive stretch into abduction during examination. Palpation of adductors requires proper exposure and is most easily performed with the patient supine and the lower extremity in a figure-of-4 position (Figure 2A).

Athletic Pubalgia

Athletic pubalgia, also known as sports hernia or core muscle injury, is an injury to the soft tissues of the lower abdominal or posterior inguinal wall. Although not fully understood, the condition is considered the result of repetitive trunk hyperextension and thigh hyperabduction resulting in shearing at the pubic symphysis where there is a muscle imbalance between the strong proximal thigh muscles and weaker abdominals. This condition is more common in men and typically is insidious in onset with a prolonged course recalcitrant to nonoperative treatment.¹⁸ In studies of chronic groin pain in athletes, the rate of athletic pubalgia as the primary etiology ranges from 39% to 85%.^9,19,20

Patients typically complain of increasing pain in the lower abdominal and proximal adductors during activity. Symptoms include unilateral or bilateral lower abdominal pain, which can radiate toward the perineum, rectus muscle, and proximal adductors during sport but usually abates with rest.¹⁸ Athletes endorse they are not capable of playing at their full athletic potential. Symptoms are initiated with sudden forceful movements, as in sit-ups, sprints, and valsalva maneuvers like coughs and sneezes. Valsalva maneuvers worsen pain in about 10% of patients.^21-23On physical examination with the patient supine, tenderness can be elicited over the pubic tubercle, abdominal obliques, and/or rectus abdominis insertion (Figure 3A). Athletes may also have tenderness at the adductor longus tendon origin at or near the pubic symphysis, which may make the diagnosis difficult to distinguish from an adductor strain.

Osteitis Pubis

Osteitis pubis is a painful overuse injury that results in noninfectious inflammation of the pubic symphysis from increased motion at this normally stable immobile joint.³ As with athletic pubalgia, the exact mechanism is unclear, but likely it is similar to the repetitive stress placed on the pubic symphysis by unequal forces of the abdominal and adductor muscles.²⁴ The disease can result in bony erosions and cartilage breakdown with irregularity of the pubic symphysis.

Athletes may complain of anterior and medial groin pain that can radiate to the lower abdominal muscles, perineum, inguinal region, and medial thigh. Walking, pelvic motion, adductor stretching, abdominal muscle exercises, and standing up can exacerbate pain.²⁴ Some cases involve impaired internal or external rotation of the hip, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, or adductor and abductor muscle weakness.²⁵The distinguishing feature of osteitis pubis is pain over the pubic symphysis with direct palpation (Figure 4A). Examination maneuvers that place stress on the pubic symphysis can aid in diagnosis.²⁶

Intra-Articular Hip Pathology: Femoroacetabular Impingement

In athletes, FAI is a leading cause of intra-articular pathology, which can lead to labral tears.^28,29 FAI lesions include cam-type impingement from an aspherical femoral head and pincer impingement from acetabular overcoverage, both of which limit internal rotation and cause acetabular rim abutment, which damages the labrum.

Athletes present with activity-related groin or hip pain that is exacerbated by hip flexion and internal rotation, with possible mechanical symptoms from labral tearing.³⁰ However, the pain distribution varies. In a study by Clohisy and colleagues,³¹ of patients with symptomatic FAI that required surgical intervention, 88% had groin pain, 67% had lateral hip pain, 35% had anterior thigh pain, 29% had buttock pain, 27% had knee pain, and 23% had low back pain.

Careful attention should be given to range of motion in FAI patients, as they can usually flex their hip to 90° to 110°, and in this position there is limited internal rotation and asymmetric external rotation relative to the contralateral leg.³² The anterior impingement test is one of the most reliable tests for FAI (Figure 5A).³² With the patient supine, the hip is dynamically flexed to 90°, adducted, and internally rotated. A positive test elicits deep anterior groin pain that generally replicates the patient’s symptoms.²⁹

Conclusion

Careful, directed history taking and physical examination are essential in narrowing the diagnostic possibilities before initiating a workup for the common intra-articular and extra-articular causes of hip and groin pain in athletes.

Take-Home Points

• Be sure to have a well centered AP pelvis without rotation.
• Get at least 3 plain radiographs—AP pelvis, false profile, and lateral hip view.
• Ensure that there is sufficient acetabular coverage, LCEA >20° on AP pelvis and ACEA >20° on false profile view.
• CT scans are helpful for precise hip pathomor­phology but must be weighed against risk of radiation exposure.
• MRI or MRA can be helpful to diagnose intra-articular as well as extra-articular hip and pelvis abnormalities.

In the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain, the value of diagnostic imaging is in objective findings, which can support or weaken the leading diagnoses based on subjective complaints, recalled history, and, in some cases, elusive physical examination findings. Morphologic changes alone, however, do not always indicate pathology.^1,2 At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.

Radiography

The first step in diagnostic imaging is radiography. Although use of plain radiographs is routine, their value cannot be understated. Standard hip radiographs—an anteroposterior (AP) radiograph of the pelvis and AP and frog-leg (cross-table lateral) radiographs of the hip—provide a wealth of information.^3-6

Evaluated first is the radiograph itself. For example, the ideal AP radiograph of the pelvis (Figure 1) is centered on the lower sacrum, and the patient is not rotated.

13

Computed Tomography

The benefits of computed tomography (CT) outweigh the risk of radiation exposure. CT is most useful in characterizing osseous morphology.²¹ In FAI cases, CT can distinguish acetabular version abnormalities from femoral torsion (Figures 7A-7C), entities with very different treatment approaches.²¹

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MRI is becoming essential in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain.^11,22 It is used for assessment of osseous, chondral, and musculotendinous soft tissues. Further, it affords appreciation of outside-the-hip-joint pathology that may mimic joint-centered pathology.

MRI techniques range from noncontrast to indirect and direct magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA).²² Indirect MRA is performed with contrast medium administered through an intravenous line. Direct MRA has contrast administered intra-articularly and is more sensitive and specific for labral tears and ligamentous injury.²³ Excellent detection of intra-articular pathology on noncontrast studies questions the need for MRA.²⁴ Nevertheless, direct MRA can also be used as a therapeutic procedure when lidocaine is included in the injected gadolinium.

Labral tears, focal chondral defects, and stress or insufficiency fractures are important differentials in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain. Over the dysplasia-to-FAI spectrum, MRI distinguishes symptomatic pathoanatomy from asymptomatic anatomical variants by revealing underlying bone edema. Capsule findings should also be considered.²¹The most practical classification of labral tears, proposed by Blankenbaker and colleagues,²⁵ is based on tear type (frayed, unstable, flap), location, and extent. More than half of labral tears occur in the anterosuperior quadrant of the labrum.²⁵

26

MRI detects osseous pathology from surrounding soft-tissue edema and bone remodeling to stress and fragility fractures. In athletes, the most common fractures are pubic rami, sacral, and apophyseal avulsion fractures.²⁸ In all patients, attention should be given to the lower spine and the proximal femurs. Aside from MRI, nuclear medicine bone scan might also identify active osseous reaction representative of a fracture.

Conclusion

The work-up for nonarthritic hip pain substantiates differential diagnoses. A case’s complexity determines the course of diagnostic imaging. At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.

Am J Orthop . 2017;46(1):17-22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Be sure to have a well centered AP pelvis without rotation.
• Get at least 3 plain radiographs—AP pelvis, false profile, and lateral hip view.
• Ensure that there is sufficient acetabular coverage, LCEA >20° on AP pelvis and ACEA >20° on false profile view.
• CT scans are helpful for precise hip pathomor­phology but must be weighed against risk of radiation exposure.
• MRI or MRA can be helpful to diagnose intra-articular as well as extra-articular hip and pelvis abnormalities.

In the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain, the value of diagnostic imaging is in objective findings, which can support or weaken the leading diagnoses based on subjective complaints, recalled history, and, in some cases, elusive physical examination findings. Morphologic changes alone, however, do not always indicate pathology.^1,2 At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.

Radiography

The first step in diagnostic imaging is radiography. Although use of plain radiographs is routine, their value cannot be understated. Standard hip radiographs—an anteroposterior (AP) radiograph of the pelvis and AP and frog-leg (cross-table lateral) radiographs of the hip—provide a wealth of information.^3-6

Evaluated first is the radiograph itself. For example, the ideal AP radiograph of the pelvis (Figure 1) is centered on the lower sacrum, and the patient is not rotated.

13

Computed Tomography

The benefits of computed tomography (CT) outweigh the risk of radiation exposure. CT is most useful in characterizing osseous morphology.²¹ In FAI cases, CT can distinguish acetabular version abnormalities from femoral torsion (Figures 7A-7C), entities with very different treatment approaches.²¹

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MRI is becoming essential in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain.^11,22 It is used for assessment of osseous, chondral, and musculotendinous soft tissues. Further, it affords appreciation of outside-the-hip-joint pathology that may mimic joint-centered pathology.

MRI techniques range from noncontrast to indirect and direct magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA).²² Indirect MRA is performed with contrast medium administered through an intravenous line. Direct MRA has contrast administered intra-articularly and is more sensitive and specific for labral tears and ligamentous injury.²³ Excellent detection of intra-articular pathology on noncontrast studies questions the need for MRA.²⁴ Nevertheless, direct MRA can also be used as a therapeutic procedure when lidocaine is included in the injected gadolinium.

Labral tears, focal chondral defects, and stress or insufficiency fractures are important differentials in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain. Over the dysplasia-to-FAI spectrum, MRI distinguishes symptomatic pathoanatomy from asymptomatic anatomical variants by revealing underlying bone edema. Capsule findings should also be considered.²¹The most practical classification of labral tears, proposed by Blankenbaker and colleagues,²⁵ is based on tear type (frayed, unstable, flap), location, and extent. More than half of labral tears occur in the anterosuperior quadrant of the labrum.²⁵

26

MRI detects osseous pathology from surrounding soft-tissue edema and bone remodeling to stress and fragility fractures. In athletes, the most common fractures are pubic rami, sacral, and apophyseal avulsion fractures.²⁸ In all patients, attention should be given to the lower spine and the proximal femurs. Aside from MRI, nuclear medicine bone scan might also identify active osseous reaction representative of a fracture.

Conclusion

The work-up for nonarthritic hip pain substantiates differential diagnoses. A case’s complexity determines the course of diagnostic imaging. At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.

Am J Orthop . 2017;46(1):17-22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Be sure to have a well centered AP pelvis without rotation.
• Get at least 3 plain radiographs—AP pelvis, false profile, and lateral hip view.
• Ensure that there is sufficient acetabular coverage, LCEA >20° on AP pelvis and ACEA >20° on false profile view.
• CT scans are helpful for precise hip pathomor­phology but must be weighed against risk of radiation exposure.
• MRI or MRA can be helpful to diagnose intra-articular as well as extra-articular hip and pelvis abnormalities.

In the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain, the value of diagnostic imaging is in objective findings, which can support or weaken the leading diagnoses based on subjective complaints, recalled history, and, in some cases, elusive physical examination findings. Morphologic changes alone, however, do not always indicate pathology.^1,2 At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.

Radiography

The first step in diagnostic imaging is radiography. Although use of plain radiographs is routine, their value cannot be understated. Standard hip radiographs—an anteroposterior (AP) radiograph of the pelvis and AP and frog-leg (cross-table lateral) radiographs of the hip—provide a wealth of information.^3-6

Evaluated first is the radiograph itself. For example, the ideal AP radiograph of the pelvis (Figure 1) is centered on the lower sacrum, and the patient is not rotated.

13

Computed Tomography

The benefits of computed tomography (CT) outweigh the risk of radiation exposure. CT is most useful in characterizing osseous morphology.²¹ In FAI cases, CT can distinguish acetabular version abnormalities from femoral torsion (Figures 7A-7C), entities with very different treatment approaches.²¹

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MRI is becoming essential in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain.^11,22 It is used for assessment of osseous, chondral, and musculotendinous soft tissues. Further, it affords appreciation of outside-the-hip-joint pathology that may mimic joint-centered pathology.

MRI techniques range from noncontrast to indirect and direct magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA).²² Indirect MRA is performed with contrast medium administered through an intravenous line. Direct MRA has contrast administered intra-articularly and is more sensitive and specific for labral tears and ligamentous injury.²³ Excellent detection of intra-articular pathology on noncontrast studies questions the need for MRA.²⁴ Nevertheless, direct MRA can also be used as a therapeutic procedure when lidocaine is included in the injected gadolinium.

Labral tears, focal chondral defects, and stress or insufficiency fractures are important differentials in the work-up for nonarthritic hip pain. Over the dysplasia-to-FAI spectrum, MRI distinguishes symptomatic pathoanatomy from asymptomatic anatomical variants by revealing underlying bone edema. Capsule findings should also be considered.²¹The most practical classification of labral tears, proposed by Blankenbaker and colleagues,²⁵ is based on tear type (frayed, unstable, flap), location, and extent. More than half of labral tears occur in the anterosuperior quadrant of the labrum.²⁵

26

MRI detects osseous pathology from surrounding soft-tissue edema and bone remodeling to stress and fragility fractures. In athletes, the most common fractures are pubic rami, sacral, and apophyseal avulsion fractures.²⁸ In all patients, attention should be given to the lower spine and the proximal femurs. Aside from MRI, nuclear medicine bone scan might also identify active osseous reaction representative of a fracture.

Conclusion

The work-up for nonarthritic hip pain substantiates differential diagnoses. A case’s complexity determines the course of diagnostic imaging. At presentation and at each step in the work-up, it is imperative to evaluate the entire clinical picture. The prudent clinician uses both clinical and radiographic findings to make the diagnosis and direct treatment.

Am J Orthop . 2017;46(1):17-22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.