Rheumatology News

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A case study of a 65-year-old man in Japan with long COVID describes how he recovered from certain impaired hormone deficiencies that persisted for more than a year.

Days after the patient recovered from respiratory failure and came off a ventilator, he had a sudden drop in blood pressure, which responded to hydrocortisone.

The patient was found to have low levels of growth hormone and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), hypopituitarism, that persisted for more than a year. He also had low levels of testosterone that remained low at 15 months (the study end).

“An important finding in the present case is the eventual recovery from hypopituitarism over time but not from hypogonadism,” the researchers write in their study published in Endocrine Journal.

This is the first published case of secondary adrenal insufficiency after recovery from COVID-19, which was confirmed using an insulin tolerance test, Kai Yoshimura, Kakogawa Medical Center, Japan, and colleagues report.

The findings show that “pituitary insufficiency should be considered in patients with prolonged symptoms of COVID-19,” they report, since it can be treated with hormone supplements that markedly improve symptoms and quality of life.

“It might be worthwhile to screen for endocrine dysfunction in patients with such persistent symptoms after their recovery from the acute disease,” the researchers conclude.
 

Case study timeline

The patient in this study was healthy without obesity, previous endocrine disease, or steroid use. He was admitted to hospital because he had dyspnea and fever for 8 days and a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test that was positive for COVID-19.

He received ciclesonide 200 mcg/day for 2 days. Then he was put on a ventilator and the drug was discontinued and “favipiravir, ritonavir, and lopinavir, a standard regimen during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, were initiated;” the researchers explain.

On day 25 of his hospital stay the patient had recovered from respiratory failure and was extubated.

On day 31, he had a negative PCR test for COVID-19.

On day 36, the patient’s blood pressure suddenly dropped from 120/80 mmHg to 80/50 mmHg. His plasma ACTH and serum cortisol levels were low, suggesting secondary adrenal insufficiency. The low blood pressure responded to hydrocortisone 100 mg, which was gradually tapered.

At day 96, the patient was discharged from hospital with a dose of 15 mg/day hydrocortisone.

At 3 months after discharge, an insulin tolerance test revealed that the patient’s ACTH and cortisol responses were blunted, suggestive of adrenal insufficiency. The patient also had moderate growth hormone deficiency and symptoms of hypogonadism.

At 6 months after discharge, the patient started testosterone therapy because his dysspermatism had worsened.

At 12 months after discharge, a repeat insulin tolerance test showed that both ACTH and cortisol responses were low but improved. The patient was no longer deficient in growth hormone.

At 15 months after discharge, early morning levels of ACTH and cortisol were now in the normal range. The patient discontinued testosterone treatment, but the symptoms returned, so he resumed it.
 

Long COVID symptoms, possible biological mechanism

The present case shows how certain COVID-19–associated conditions develop after the onset of, or the recovery from, respiratory disorders, the authors note.

Symptoms of long COVID-19 include fatigue, weakness, hair loss, diarrhea, arthralgia, and depression, and these symptoms are associated with pituitary insufficiency, especially secondary adrenocortical insufficiency.

In addition, an estimated 25% of sexually active men who recover from COVID have semen disorders such as azoospermia and oligospermia.

The underlying mechanism by which COVID-19 might trigger pituitary insufficiency is unknown, but other viral infections such as influenza-A and herpes simplex are also associated with transient hypopituitarism. An exaggerated immune response triggered by SARS-CoV-2 may explain the dysfunction of multiple endocrine organs, the researchers write.  

The researchers have declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A case study of a 65-year-old man in Japan with long COVID describes how he recovered from certain impaired hormone deficiencies that persisted for more than a year.

Days after the patient recovered from respiratory failure and came off a ventilator, he had a sudden drop in blood pressure, which responded to hydrocortisone.

The patient was found to have low levels of growth hormone and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), hypopituitarism, that persisted for more than a year. He also had low levels of testosterone that remained low at 15 months (the study end).

“An important finding in the present case is the eventual recovery from hypopituitarism over time but not from hypogonadism,” the researchers write in their study published in Endocrine Journal.

This is the first published case of secondary adrenal insufficiency after recovery from COVID-19, which was confirmed using an insulin tolerance test, Kai Yoshimura, Kakogawa Medical Center, Japan, and colleagues report.

The findings show that “pituitary insufficiency should be considered in patients with prolonged symptoms of COVID-19,” they report, since it can be treated with hormone supplements that markedly improve symptoms and quality of life.

“It might be worthwhile to screen for endocrine dysfunction in patients with such persistent symptoms after their recovery from the acute disease,” the researchers conclude.
 

Case study timeline

The patient in this study was healthy without obesity, previous endocrine disease, or steroid use. He was admitted to hospital because he had dyspnea and fever for 8 days and a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test that was positive for COVID-19.

He received ciclesonide 200 mcg/day for 2 days. Then he was put on a ventilator and the drug was discontinued and “favipiravir, ritonavir, and lopinavir, a standard regimen during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, were initiated;” the researchers explain.

On day 25 of his hospital stay the patient had recovered from respiratory failure and was extubated.

On day 31, he had a negative PCR test for COVID-19.

On day 36, the patient’s blood pressure suddenly dropped from 120/80 mmHg to 80/50 mmHg. His plasma ACTH and serum cortisol levels were low, suggesting secondary adrenal insufficiency. The low blood pressure responded to hydrocortisone 100 mg, which was gradually tapered.

At day 96, the patient was discharged from hospital with a dose of 15 mg/day hydrocortisone.

At 3 months after discharge, an insulin tolerance test revealed that the patient’s ACTH and cortisol responses were blunted, suggestive of adrenal insufficiency. The patient also had moderate growth hormone deficiency and symptoms of hypogonadism.

At 6 months after discharge, the patient started testosterone therapy because his dysspermatism had worsened.

At 12 months after discharge, a repeat insulin tolerance test showed that both ACTH and cortisol responses were low but improved. The patient was no longer deficient in growth hormone.

At 15 months after discharge, early morning levels of ACTH and cortisol were now in the normal range. The patient discontinued testosterone treatment, but the symptoms returned, so he resumed it.
 

Long COVID symptoms, possible biological mechanism

The present case shows how certain COVID-19–associated conditions develop after the onset of, or the recovery from, respiratory disorders, the authors note.

Symptoms of long COVID-19 include fatigue, weakness, hair loss, diarrhea, arthralgia, and depression, and these symptoms are associated with pituitary insufficiency, especially secondary adrenocortical insufficiency.

In addition, an estimated 25% of sexually active men who recover from COVID have semen disorders such as azoospermia and oligospermia.

The underlying mechanism by which COVID-19 might trigger pituitary insufficiency is unknown, but other viral infections such as influenza-A and herpes simplex are also associated with transient hypopituitarism. An exaggerated immune response triggered by SARS-CoV-2 may explain the dysfunction of multiple endocrine organs, the researchers write.  

The researchers have declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A case study of a 65-year-old man in Japan with long COVID describes how he recovered from certain impaired hormone deficiencies that persisted for more than a year.

Days after the patient recovered from respiratory failure and came off a ventilator, he had a sudden drop in blood pressure, which responded to hydrocortisone.

The patient was found to have low levels of growth hormone and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), hypopituitarism, that persisted for more than a year. He also had low levels of testosterone that remained low at 15 months (the study end).

“An important finding in the present case is the eventual recovery from hypopituitarism over time but not from hypogonadism,” the researchers write in their study published in Endocrine Journal.

This is the first published case of secondary adrenal insufficiency after recovery from COVID-19, which was confirmed using an insulin tolerance test, Kai Yoshimura, Kakogawa Medical Center, Japan, and colleagues report.

The findings show that “pituitary insufficiency should be considered in patients with prolonged symptoms of COVID-19,” they report, since it can be treated with hormone supplements that markedly improve symptoms and quality of life.

“It might be worthwhile to screen for endocrine dysfunction in patients with such persistent symptoms after their recovery from the acute disease,” the researchers conclude.
 

Case study timeline

The patient in this study was healthy without obesity, previous endocrine disease, or steroid use. He was admitted to hospital because he had dyspnea and fever for 8 days and a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test that was positive for COVID-19.

He received ciclesonide 200 mcg/day for 2 days. Then he was put on a ventilator and the drug was discontinued and “favipiravir, ritonavir, and lopinavir, a standard regimen during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, were initiated;” the researchers explain.

On day 25 of his hospital stay the patient had recovered from respiratory failure and was extubated.

On day 31, he had a negative PCR test for COVID-19.

On day 36, the patient’s blood pressure suddenly dropped from 120/80 mmHg to 80/50 mmHg. His plasma ACTH and serum cortisol levels were low, suggesting secondary adrenal insufficiency. The low blood pressure responded to hydrocortisone 100 mg, which was gradually tapered.

At day 96, the patient was discharged from hospital with a dose of 15 mg/day hydrocortisone.

At 3 months after discharge, an insulin tolerance test revealed that the patient’s ACTH and cortisol responses were blunted, suggestive of adrenal insufficiency. The patient also had moderate growth hormone deficiency and symptoms of hypogonadism.

At 6 months after discharge, the patient started testosterone therapy because his dysspermatism had worsened.

At 12 months after discharge, a repeat insulin tolerance test showed that both ACTH and cortisol responses were low but improved. The patient was no longer deficient in growth hormone.

At 15 months after discharge, early morning levels of ACTH and cortisol were now in the normal range. The patient discontinued testosterone treatment, but the symptoms returned, so he resumed it.
 

Long COVID symptoms, possible biological mechanism

The present case shows how certain COVID-19–associated conditions develop after the onset of, or the recovery from, respiratory disorders, the authors note.

Symptoms of long COVID-19 include fatigue, weakness, hair loss, diarrhea, arthralgia, and depression, and these symptoms are associated with pituitary insufficiency, especially secondary adrenocortical insufficiency.

In addition, an estimated 25% of sexually active men who recover from COVID have semen disorders such as azoospermia and oligospermia.

The underlying mechanism by which COVID-19 might trigger pituitary insufficiency is unknown, but other viral infections such as influenza-A and herpes simplex are also associated with transient hypopituitarism. An exaggerated immune response triggered by SARS-CoV-2 may explain the dysfunction of multiple endocrine organs, the researchers write.  

The researchers have declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lower limits on serum urate levels applied in gout management may be based on a misreading of data on mortality risks, researchers say.

Low urate levels may not in themselves pose a risk of death but may be a sign of some other illness, said Joshua F. Baker, MD, MSCE, associate professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

jarun011/Thinkstock

“It points us towards being more reassured that we can be aggressive in treating gout without a concern about long-term effects for our patients,” he said in an interview. He and colleagues published their findings online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Previous research has linked high levels of urate with excessive fat and low levels of urate with loss of skeletal muscle mass. And epidemiologic studies have shown a U-shaped relationship between urate levels and mortality, suggesting that very high and very low levels of urate could be harmful.

Based on this correlation, and the theory that urate could have antioxidant benefits, some professional societies have recommended not lowering urate levels below a defined threshold when treating gout. The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has recommended a lower limit of 3 mg/dL.

But the evidence doesn’t entirely support this caution. For example, in a clinical trial of pegloticase (Krystexxa) in patients with refractory gout, patients whose mean serum urate dropped below 2 mg/dL did not die in higher proportions than patients with higher urate levels.

To better understand the risk of low urate, Dr. Baker and colleagues analyzed data on 13,979 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2006. The dataset included whole-body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) body composition measures as well as urate levels.

The researchers argue this measurement reveals more about a person’s overall health than body mass index (BMI), which doesn’t distinguish between mass from fat and mass from muscle.

They defined low lean body mass, or sarcopenia, as an appendicular lean mass index relative to fat mass index z score of –1. And they defined low urate as less than 2.5 mg/dL in women and less than 3.5 mg/dL in men.

They found that 29% of people with low urate had low lean body mass, compared with 16% of people with normal urate levels. The difference was statistically significant (P = .001).

They found an association between low urate and increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-2.28; P = .008). But that association lost its statistical significance when the researchers adjusted for body composition and weight loss (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92-1.85; P = .13).

Dr. Baker thinks the association between elevated mortality and low urate can be explained by conditions such as cancer or lung inflammation that might on one hand increase the risk of death and on the other hand lower urate levels by lowering muscle mass. “Low uric acid levels are observed in people who have lost weight for unhealthy reasons, and that can explain relationships with long-term outcomes,” he said.

Proportions of muscle and fat could not account for the risk of mortality associated with high levels of urate, the researchers found. Those participants with urate levels above 5.7 mg/dL had a higher risk of death with higher levels of urate, and this persisted even after statistical adjustment for body composition.

The study sheds light on an important area of controversy, said Mehdi Fini, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the research.

But body composition does not entirely explain the relationship between urate and mortality, he told this news organization. Medications used to lower urate can cause side effects that might increase mortality, he said.

Also, he said, it’s important to understand the role of comorbidities. He cited evidence that low urate is associated with renal, cardiovascular, and pulmonary conditions. Safe levels of urate might differ depending on these factors. So rather than applying the same target serum level to all patients, perhaps researchers should investigate whether lowering urate by a percentage of the patient’s current level is safer and more effective, he suggested.

He agreed with an editorial that also appeared in Arthritis & Rheumatology saying that there is no evidence for a benefit in lowering urate much below 5 mg/dL. “No matter what, I think we should just be careful,” Dr. Fini said.

Dr. Fini and Dr. Baker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baker acknowledged support from a VA Clinical Science Research & Development Merit Award and a Rehabilitation R&D Merit Award.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lower limits on serum urate levels applied in gout management may be based on a misreading of data on mortality risks, researchers say.

Low urate levels may not in themselves pose a risk of death but may be a sign of some other illness, said Joshua F. Baker, MD, MSCE, associate professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

jarun011/Thinkstock

“It points us towards being more reassured that we can be aggressive in treating gout without a concern about long-term effects for our patients,” he said in an interview. He and colleagues published their findings online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Previous research has linked high levels of urate with excessive fat and low levels of urate with loss of skeletal muscle mass. And epidemiologic studies have shown a U-shaped relationship between urate levels and mortality, suggesting that very high and very low levels of urate could be harmful.

Based on this correlation, and the theory that urate could have antioxidant benefits, some professional societies have recommended not lowering urate levels below a defined threshold when treating gout. The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has recommended a lower limit of 3 mg/dL.

But the evidence doesn’t entirely support this caution. For example, in a clinical trial of pegloticase (Krystexxa) in patients with refractory gout, patients whose mean serum urate dropped below 2 mg/dL did not die in higher proportions than patients with higher urate levels.

To better understand the risk of low urate, Dr. Baker and colleagues analyzed data on 13,979 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2006. The dataset included whole-body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) body composition measures as well as urate levels.

The researchers argue this measurement reveals more about a person’s overall health than body mass index (BMI), which doesn’t distinguish between mass from fat and mass from muscle.

They defined low lean body mass, or sarcopenia, as an appendicular lean mass index relative to fat mass index z score of –1. And they defined low urate as less than 2.5 mg/dL in women and less than 3.5 mg/dL in men.

They found that 29% of people with low urate had low lean body mass, compared with 16% of people with normal urate levels. The difference was statistically significant (P = .001).

They found an association between low urate and increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-2.28; P = .008). But that association lost its statistical significance when the researchers adjusted for body composition and weight loss (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92-1.85; P = .13).

Dr. Baker thinks the association between elevated mortality and low urate can be explained by conditions such as cancer or lung inflammation that might on one hand increase the risk of death and on the other hand lower urate levels by lowering muscle mass. “Low uric acid levels are observed in people who have lost weight for unhealthy reasons, and that can explain relationships with long-term outcomes,” he said.

Proportions of muscle and fat could not account for the risk of mortality associated with high levels of urate, the researchers found. Those participants with urate levels above 5.7 mg/dL had a higher risk of death with higher levels of urate, and this persisted even after statistical adjustment for body composition.

The study sheds light on an important area of controversy, said Mehdi Fini, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the research.

But body composition does not entirely explain the relationship between urate and mortality, he told this news organization. Medications used to lower urate can cause side effects that might increase mortality, he said.

Also, he said, it’s important to understand the role of comorbidities. He cited evidence that low urate is associated with renal, cardiovascular, and pulmonary conditions. Safe levels of urate might differ depending on these factors. So rather than applying the same target serum level to all patients, perhaps researchers should investigate whether lowering urate by a percentage of the patient’s current level is safer and more effective, he suggested.

He agreed with an editorial that also appeared in Arthritis & Rheumatology saying that there is no evidence for a benefit in lowering urate much below 5 mg/dL. “No matter what, I think we should just be careful,” Dr. Fini said.

Dr. Fini and Dr. Baker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baker acknowledged support from a VA Clinical Science Research & Development Merit Award and a Rehabilitation R&D Merit Award.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lower limits on serum urate levels applied in gout management may be based on a misreading of data on mortality risks, researchers say.

Low urate levels may not in themselves pose a risk of death but may be a sign of some other illness, said Joshua F. Baker, MD, MSCE, associate professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

jarun011/Thinkstock

“It points us towards being more reassured that we can be aggressive in treating gout without a concern about long-term effects for our patients,” he said in an interview. He and colleagues published their findings online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Previous research has linked high levels of urate with excessive fat and low levels of urate with loss of skeletal muscle mass. And epidemiologic studies have shown a U-shaped relationship between urate levels and mortality, suggesting that very high and very low levels of urate could be harmful.

Based on this correlation, and the theory that urate could have antioxidant benefits, some professional societies have recommended not lowering urate levels below a defined threshold when treating gout. The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has recommended a lower limit of 3 mg/dL.

But the evidence doesn’t entirely support this caution. For example, in a clinical trial of pegloticase (Krystexxa) in patients with refractory gout, patients whose mean serum urate dropped below 2 mg/dL did not die in higher proportions than patients with higher urate levels.

To better understand the risk of low urate, Dr. Baker and colleagues analyzed data on 13,979 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2006. The dataset included whole-body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) body composition measures as well as urate levels.

The researchers argue this measurement reveals more about a person’s overall health than body mass index (BMI), which doesn’t distinguish between mass from fat and mass from muscle.

They defined low lean body mass, or sarcopenia, as an appendicular lean mass index relative to fat mass index z score of –1. And they defined low urate as less than 2.5 mg/dL in women and less than 3.5 mg/dL in men.

They found that 29% of people with low urate had low lean body mass, compared with 16% of people with normal urate levels. The difference was statistically significant (P = .001).

They found an association between low urate and increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-2.28; P = .008). But that association lost its statistical significance when the researchers adjusted for body composition and weight loss (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92-1.85; P = .13).

Dr. Baker thinks the association between elevated mortality and low urate can be explained by conditions such as cancer or lung inflammation that might on one hand increase the risk of death and on the other hand lower urate levels by lowering muscle mass. “Low uric acid levels are observed in people who have lost weight for unhealthy reasons, and that can explain relationships with long-term outcomes,” he said.

Proportions of muscle and fat could not account for the risk of mortality associated with high levels of urate, the researchers found. Those participants with urate levels above 5.7 mg/dL had a higher risk of death with higher levels of urate, and this persisted even after statistical adjustment for body composition.

The study sheds light on an important area of controversy, said Mehdi Fini, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the research.

But body composition does not entirely explain the relationship between urate and mortality, he told this news organization. Medications used to lower urate can cause side effects that might increase mortality, he said.

Also, he said, it’s important to understand the role of comorbidities. He cited evidence that low urate is associated with renal, cardiovascular, and pulmonary conditions. Safe levels of urate might differ depending on these factors. So rather than applying the same target serum level to all patients, perhaps researchers should investigate whether lowering urate by a percentage of the patient’s current level is safer and more effective, he suggested.

He agreed with an editorial that also appeared in Arthritis & Rheumatology saying that there is no evidence for a benefit in lowering urate much below 5 mg/dL. “No matter what, I think we should just be careful,” Dr. Fini said.

Dr. Fini and Dr. Baker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baker acknowledged support from a VA Clinical Science Research & Development Merit Award and a Rehabilitation R&D Merit Award.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding ultrasound (US) to the clinical exam helps predict the likelihood of future gout flares, results of a prospective, observational study conducted in Italy suggest.

“Baseline US findings indicative of MSU [monosodium urate] burden and US-detected inflammation are independent predictors of gout flares over 12 months,” lead author Edoardo Cipolletta, MD, of the rheumatology unit, department of clinical and molecular sciences at Marche Polytechnic University in Ancona, Italy, and colleagues wrote in Rheumatology.

Bogdanhoda/Thinkstock

“We demonstrated that US findings provided an additional value over clinical data in estimating the risk of flares. Moreover, we reported an association between US findings at a joint and the occurrence of gout flares at the same joint,” they added.

Predicting risk of flares and reducing their occurrence are two main challenges in managing gout, the authors wrote. US can be used to scan multiple joints and is widely used in Europe as a low-cost, radiation-free imaging tool that’s easily integrated into clinical practice.

To investigate whether US can predict gout flares, the researchers enrolled 81 consecutive adult patients with gout in the study between April 2019 and March 2021 at one academic rheumatology treatment site in Italy and followed them for 12 months. The authors compared cases (who developed at least one flare within 12 months of the baseline visit) with controls (who self-reported no gout flares over that period).

Patients diagnosed with other inflammatory arthritis and those with coexisting calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease were excluded from the study.

The 71 participants who completed the study were, on average, in their early 60s, and in both groups, all but one were male. At the baseline visit, all had been on stable urate-lowering therapy for at least 6 months and had not had any gout flares in 4 weeks. The mean gout duration was 7 years in the case group and 8 years in controls.

At baseline, all participants underwent physical examination and US of elbows, wrists, second metacarpophalangeal joints, knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints by a member of the research team who was blinded to the clinical and laboratory data.

Clinical assessments were scheduled at baseline and at 6-month intervals, and all participants were evaluated by a second researcher who was blinded to US findings.

During follow-up visits, participants were asked to report any gout flare, considered to meet at least three of four criteria: patient-defined flare, pain at rest score higher than 3 on a 0-10 scale, at least one swollen joint, and at least one warm joint. Patients not reaching their target serum urate goal received escalated urate-lowering therapy dosage and anti-inflammatory prophylaxis.

The US indicators of MSU deposits – aggregates, double contour sign, and tophi – were recorded as present or absent. The power Doppler signal was scored from 0 through 4, and summated scores for each US finding were calculated.

Over 12 months, the researchers found:

• Thirty (42.3%) patients had at least one flare, with a median of 2.0 flares. Patients with flares had higher a US median total MSU score (5.0 vs. 2.0; P = .01) and power Doppler signal (3.0 vs. 0; P < .01) than controls.
• In multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the occurrence of flares. The adjusted odds ratio for total MSU score was 1.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.43) and for power Doppler score was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.12-2.40).
• Also in a multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the number of flares. The incidence risk ratio for total MSU score adjusted was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.08-1.26) and for power Doppler score was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.19-1.40).

Four rheumatologists welcome findings

Gout remains the most common cause of inflammatory arthritis and a significant reason for hospital visits, noted Narender Annapureddy, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn..

“The study adds to the growing utility of musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology practices to treat various diseases,” he said. “Data that could provide risk prediction for gout flares would be associated with significant benefits in terms of reducing ED visits, hospital admission, and lost work productivity.”

One study limitation, Dr. Annapureddy mentioned, was the single experienced US reader, “which may limit generalizability of results at this time, at least in the United States.”

Yeohan Song, MD, an instructor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, integrates US into his practice.

“In gout management, musculoskeletal ultrasound is a useful adjunct to the clinical exam and laboratory markers, particularly [in patients] with recurrent flares despite guideline-directed target serum urate levels,” he said.

Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, pointed out that the US protocol in the study involved imaging knees, ankles, first metatarsophalangeal joints, elbows, wrists, and second metacarpophalangeal joints, and took around 30 minutes to complete.

“That would not be practical in the United States due to time constraints in most rheumatology clinics,” she said. 

“The authors report that a ‘reduced scanning protocol’ of the bilateral knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints demonstrated similar predictive ability as the full protocol,” she added, “although scanning six joints still might not be feasible during a typical return patient clinic visit in the United States.”

Philip Chu, MD, clinical associate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., uses diagnostic US to help differentiate borderline gout cases from other arthropathies.

“A baseline scan, a follow-up scan before deciding to stop prophylaxis, or a follow-up scan in the setting of recurrent gout flares despite reaching goal serum uric acid, may be cost-effective time points to perform diagnostic US,” he advised.

“Unfortunately,” he added, “reimbursement for diagnostic US has been decreasing over the years, which makes it challenging to increase diagnostic US to the [frequency of its use] in Europe.”

Asked how most gout care being provided by primary care doctors in the United States affects gout management, Dr. Chu said: “Depending on which guidelines one follows for treating gout – from the American College of Rheumatology or the American College of Physicians – one may be more or less likely to start urate-lowering therapy after the first gout flare.”

“Understanding MSU burden in each patient, or even seeing active inflammation at these sites by increased Doppler signal, may change the threshold for physicians to initiate therapy,” he added.

The study received no funding. Three study authors reported financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cipolletta, Dr. Annapureddy, Dr. Song, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Chu reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding ultrasound (US) to the clinical exam helps predict the likelihood of future gout flares, results of a prospective, observational study conducted in Italy suggest.

“Baseline US findings indicative of MSU [monosodium urate] burden and US-detected inflammation are independent predictors of gout flares over 12 months,” lead author Edoardo Cipolletta, MD, of the rheumatology unit, department of clinical and molecular sciences at Marche Polytechnic University in Ancona, Italy, and colleagues wrote in Rheumatology.

Bogdanhoda/Thinkstock

“We demonstrated that US findings provided an additional value over clinical data in estimating the risk of flares. Moreover, we reported an association between US findings at a joint and the occurrence of gout flares at the same joint,” they added.

Predicting risk of flares and reducing their occurrence are two main challenges in managing gout, the authors wrote. US can be used to scan multiple joints and is widely used in Europe as a low-cost, radiation-free imaging tool that’s easily integrated into clinical practice.

To investigate whether US can predict gout flares, the researchers enrolled 81 consecutive adult patients with gout in the study between April 2019 and March 2021 at one academic rheumatology treatment site in Italy and followed them for 12 months. The authors compared cases (who developed at least one flare within 12 months of the baseline visit) with controls (who self-reported no gout flares over that period).

Patients diagnosed with other inflammatory arthritis and those with coexisting calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease were excluded from the study.

The 71 participants who completed the study were, on average, in their early 60s, and in both groups, all but one were male. At the baseline visit, all had been on stable urate-lowering therapy for at least 6 months and had not had any gout flares in 4 weeks. The mean gout duration was 7 years in the case group and 8 years in controls.

At baseline, all participants underwent physical examination and US of elbows, wrists, second metacarpophalangeal joints, knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints by a member of the research team who was blinded to the clinical and laboratory data.

Clinical assessments were scheduled at baseline and at 6-month intervals, and all participants were evaluated by a second researcher who was blinded to US findings.

During follow-up visits, participants were asked to report any gout flare, considered to meet at least three of four criteria: patient-defined flare, pain at rest score higher than 3 on a 0-10 scale, at least one swollen joint, and at least one warm joint. Patients not reaching their target serum urate goal received escalated urate-lowering therapy dosage and anti-inflammatory prophylaxis.

The US indicators of MSU deposits – aggregates, double contour sign, and tophi – were recorded as present or absent. The power Doppler signal was scored from 0 through 4, and summated scores for each US finding were calculated.

Over 12 months, the researchers found:

• Thirty (42.3%) patients had at least one flare, with a median of 2.0 flares. Patients with flares had higher a US median total MSU score (5.0 vs. 2.0; P = .01) and power Doppler signal (3.0 vs. 0; P < .01) than controls.
• In multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the occurrence of flares. The adjusted odds ratio for total MSU score was 1.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.43) and for power Doppler score was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.12-2.40).
• Also in a multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the number of flares. The incidence risk ratio for total MSU score adjusted was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.08-1.26) and for power Doppler score was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.19-1.40).

Four rheumatologists welcome findings

Gout remains the most common cause of inflammatory arthritis and a significant reason for hospital visits, noted Narender Annapureddy, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn..

“The study adds to the growing utility of musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology practices to treat various diseases,” he said. “Data that could provide risk prediction for gout flares would be associated with significant benefits in terms of reducing ED visits, hospital admission, and lost work productivity.”

One study limitation, Dr. Annapureddy mentioned, was the single experienced US reader, “which may limit generalizability of results at this time, at least in the United States.”

Yeohan Song, MD, an instructor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, integrates US into his practice.

“In gout management, musculoskeletal ultrasound is a useful adjunct to the clinical exam and laboratory markers, particularly [in patients] with recurrent flares despite guideline-directed target serum urate levels,” he said.

Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, pointed out that the US protocol in the study involved imaging knees, ankles, first metatarsophalangeal joints, elbows, wrists, and second metacarpophalangeal joints, and took around 30 minutes to complete.

“That would not be practical in the United States due to time constraints in most rheumatology clinics,” she said. 

“The authors report that a ‘reduced scanning protocol’ of the bilateral knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints demonstrated similar predictive ability as the full protocol,” she added, “although scanning six joints still might not be feasible during a typical return patient clinic visit in the United States.”

Philip Chu, MD, clinical associate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., uses diagnostic US to help differentiate borderline gout cases from other arthropathies.

“A baseline scan, a follow-up scan before deciding to stop prophylaxis, or a follow-up scan in the setting of recurrent gout flares despite reaching goal serum uric acid, may be cost-effective time points to perform diagnostic US,” he advised.

“Unfortunately,” he added, “reimbursement for diagnostic US has been decreasing over the years, which makes it challenging to increase diagnostic US to the [frequency of its use] in Europe.”

Asked how most gout care being provided by primary care doctors in the United States affects gout management, Dr. Chu said: “Depending on which guidelines one follows for treating gout – from the American College of Rheumatology or the American College of Physicians – one may be more or less likely to start urate-lowering therapy after the first gout flare.”

“Understanding MSU burden in each patient, or even seeing active inflammation at these sites by increased Doppler signal, may change the threshold for physicians to initiate therapy,” he added.

The study received no funding. Three study authors reported financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cipolletta, Dr. Annapureddy, Dr. Song, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Chu reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding ultrasound (US) to the clinical exam helps predict the likelihood of future gout flares, results of a prospective, observational study conducted in Italy suggest.

“Baseline US findings indicative of MSU [monosodium urate] burden and US-detected inflammation are independent predictors of gout flares over 12 months,” lead author Edoardo Cipolletta, MD, of the rheumatology unit, department of clinical and molecular sciences at Marche Polytechnic University in Ancona, Italy, and colleagues wrote in Rheumatology.

Bogdanhoda/Thinkstock

“We demonstrated that US findings provided an additional value over clinical data in estimating the risk of flares. Moreover, we reported an association between US findings at a joint and the occurrence of gout flares at the same joint,” they added.

Predicting risk of flares and reducing their occurrence are two main challenges in managing gout, the authors wrote. US can be used to scan multiple joints and is widely used in Europe as a low-cost, radiation-free imaging tool that’s easily integrated into clinical practice.

To investigate whether US can predict gout flares, the researchers enrolled 81 consecutive adult patients with gout in the study between April 2019 and March 2021 at one academic rheumatology treatment site in Italy and followed them for 12 months. The authors compared cases (who developed at least one flare within 12 months of the baseline visit) with controls (who self-reported no gout flares over that period).

Patients diagnosed with other inflammatory arthritis and those with coexisting calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease were excluded from the study.

The 71 participants who completed the study were, on average, in their early 60s, and in both groups, all but one were male. At the baseline visit, all had been on stable urate-lowering therapy for at least 6 months and had not had any gout flares in 4 weeks. The mean gout duration was 7 years in the case group and 8 years in controls.

At baseline, all participants underwent physical examination and US of elbows, wrists, second metacarpophalangeal joints, knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints by a member of the research team who was blinded to the clinical and laboratory data.

Clinical assessments were scheduled at baseline and at 6-month intervals, and all participants were evaluated by a second researcher who was blinded to US findings.

During follow-up visits, participants were asked to report any gout flare, considered to meet at least three of four criteria: patient-defined flare, pain at rest score higher than 3 on a 0-10 scale, at least one swollen joint, and at least one warm joint. Patients not reaching their target serum urate goal received escalated urate-lowering therapy dosage and anti-inflammatory prophylaxis.

The US indicators of MSU deposits – aggregates, double contour sign, and tophi – were recorded as present or absent. The power Doppler signal was scored from 0 through 4, and summated scores for each US finding were calculated.

Over 12 months, the researchers found:

• Thirty (42.3%) patients had at least one flare, with a median of 2.0 flares. Patients with flares had higher a US median total MSU score (5.0 vs. 2.0; P = .01) and power Doppler signal (3.0 vs. 0; P < .01) than controls.
• In multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the occurrence of flares. The adjusted odds ratio for total MSU score was 1.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.43) and for power Doppler score was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.12-2.40).
• Also in a multivariate analysis, baseline US scores indicating MSU deposits and US-detected inflammation were significantly linked with the number of flares. The incidence risk ratio for total MSU score adjusted was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.08-1.26) and for power Doppler score was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.19-1.40).

Four rheumatologists welcome findings

Gout remains the most common cause of inflammatory arthritis and a significant reason for hospital visits, noted Narender Annapureddy, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn..

“The study adds to the growing utility of musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology practices to treat various diseases,” he said. “Data that could provide risk prediction for gout flares would be associated with significant benefits in terms of reducing ED visits, hospital admission, and lost work productivity.”

One study limitation, Dr. Annapureddy mentioned, was the single experienced US reader, “which may limit generalizability of results at this time, at least in the United States.”

Yeohan Song, MD, an instructor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, integrates US into his practice.

“In gout management, musculoskeletal ultrasound is a useful adjunct to the clinical exam and laboratory markers, particularly [in patients] with recurrent flares despite guideline-directed target serum urate levels,” he said.

Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, pointed out that the US protocol in the study involved imaging knees, ankles, first metatarsophalangeal joints, elbows, wrists, and second metacarpophalangeal joints, and took around 30 minutes to complete.

“That would not be practical in the United States due to time constraints in most rheumatology clinics,” she said. 

“The authors report that a ‘reduced scanning protocol’ of the bilateral knees, ankles, and first metatarsophalangeal joints demonstrated similar predictive ability as the full protocol,” she added, “although scanning six joints still might not be feasible during a typical return patient clinic visit in the United States.”

Philip Chu, MD, clinical associate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., uses diagnostic US to help differentiate borderline gout cases from other arthropathies.

“A baseline scan, a follow-up scan before deciding to stop prophylaxis, or a follow-up scan in the setting of recurrent gout flares despite reaching goal serum uric acid, may be cost-effective time points to perform diagnostic US,” he advised.

“Unfortunately,” he added, “reimbursement for diagnostic US has been decreasing over the years, which makes it challenging to increase diagnostic US to the [frequency of its use] in Europe.”

Asked how most gout care being provided by primary care doctors in the United States affects gout management, Dr. Chu said: “Depending on which guidelines one follows for treating gout – from the American College of Rheumatology or the American College of Physicians – one may be more or less likely to start urate-lowering therapy after the first gout flare.”

“Understanding MSU burden in each patient, or even seeing active inflammation at these sites by increased Doppler signal, may change the threshold for physicians to initiate therapy,” he added.

The study received no funding. Three study authors reported financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cipolletta, Dr. Annapureddy, Dr. Song, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Chu reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Gout prevalence is more common in Black Americans than White Americans, and the disparity in prevalence is attributable to social determinants of health, according to a recently published article in JAMA Network Open.

“There has been evidence from recent cohort studies in the U.S. that was suggesting that the prevalence and incidence [of gout] was growing among non-White populations,” said Natalie McCormick, PhD, the study’s lead author and postdoctoral research fellow in medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “We wanted to do this at the general population level to see how generalizable [that evidence] is.”

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Medical Group, Franklin, Wisc., noted the findings highlight inequities in care for patients with gout that could be improved with greater emphasis on educating patients about their condition.

“I think that what this shows is that in the U.S. ... there still are some disparities in treating gout,” said Dr. Wells, who was not involved with the study. “And that we have ways to mitigate that, with not only aggressive therapy, but also with other tools like counseling patients. At the end of the day, people all want to be educated about the disease.”
 

Greater prevalence disappears with adjustment for socioclinical factors

The cross-sectional analysis involved data from U.S. adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2007 to 2016 who self-reported Black or White race.

Investigators considered factors such as excess body mass index (BMI), chronic kidney disease (defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), poverty, poor-quality diet, lower educational level, alcohol consumption, and diuretic use in their analysis.

Dr. McCormick and coinvestigators included a total of 18,693 participants, consisting of 3,304 Black women, 6,195 White women, 3,085 Black men, and 6,109 White men.

They determined that the age-standardized prevalence of gout was 3.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.7%-4.3%) in Black women and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.5% - 2.5%) in White women (age-adjusted odds ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.29-2.53). They calculated that the prevalence was 7.0% (95% CI, 6.2%-7.9%) in Black men and 5.4% (95% CI, 4.7%-6.2%) in White men (age-adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.55). They found similar differences in the prevalence of hyperuricemia between Black and White Americans.

The increased prevalence of gout in Black Americans, compared with White Americans, does not arise from genetics, according to McCormick. “Our conclusion was that it was due to social determinants of health,” she said. “When we adjusted for all socioclinical risk factors, the racial differences in gout and hyperuricemia prevalence disappeared. Importantly, stepwise regression analysis showed the two biggest drivers of the racial difference in gout prevalence among women were poverty itself, and excess BMI, which can be influenced by poverty.”

Dr. McCormick pointed out that in contrast to the current data, there was no racial difference in the prevalence of gout approximately 2 decades earlier, looking at data from the 1988-1994 NHANES III.

Given the findings, which included the fact that significantly more Black women and men were currently taking diuretics, compared with their White counterparts, Dr. McCormick pointed out clinicians should give more thought to medical therapies prescribed for conditions like high blood pressure to patients with gout or at risk for gout.

“One thing we found was that diuretic use was a driver” of gout, Dr. McCormick said. A prescriber “may want to consider different therapies that present a lower risk of gout if someone has hypertension. There could be greater consideration for prescribing alternatives to diuretics.”

More patient education and rheumatology referrals needed

An impediment to providing that education to patients with gout is unconscious bias on the part of the primary care provider, Dr. Wells said.

“It is about what your perspectives are and what you bring to the table,” he explained. “If you saw [a patient] who looked like someone in your family, that person will be treated differently [than someone who does not look like a family member]. That is where the whole concept [of unconscious bias] comes in.”

Primary care providers need to adopt a holistic approach to gout management that involves counseling about good nutrition, smoking cessation, regular exercise, and limiting alcohol consumption, in addition to medication adherence. Primary care providers may have a bias in treating their Black patients, failing to devote sufficient time and attention to assist them in getting their disease under control, he said.

“Gout should be just like any other chronic disease,” Dr. Wells said. “You need to have a target in mind, and you and your patient need to work together to get to that target. When [patients] end up in rheumatology offices, it is almost too late. I think the take-home message here is that in 2022 ... for any patient who has gout, that patient probably needs to be seen by a rheumatologist because, indeed, with aggressive therapy, preventive therapy, [and] education, and if they are on the right medications, they won’t end up with these crippling joints that we see all the time.”

Dr. McCormick and Dr. Wells disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Gout prevalence is more common in Black Americans than White Americans, and the disparity in prevalence is attributable to social determinants of health, according to a recently published article in JAMA Network Open.

“There has been evidence from recent cohort studies in the U.S. that was suggesting that the prevalence and incidence [of gout] was growing among non-White populations,” said Natalie McCormick, PhD, the study’s lead author and postdoctoral research fellow in medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “We wanted to do this at the general population level to see how generalizable [that evidence] is.”

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Medical Group, Franklin, Wisc., noted the findings highlight inequities in care for patients with gout that could be improved with greater emphasis on educating patients about their condition.

“I think that what this shows is that in the U.S. ... there still are some disparities in treating gout,” said Dr. Wells, who was not involved with the study. “And that we have ways to mitigate that, with not only aggressive therapy, but also with other tools like counseling patients. At the end of the day, people all want to be educated about the disease.”
 

Greater prevalence disappears with adjustment for socioclinical factors

The cross-sectional analysis involved data from U.S. adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2007 to 2016 who self-reported Black or White race.

Investigators considered factors such as excess body mass index (BMI), chronic kidney disease (defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), poverty, poor-quality diet, lower educational level, alcohol consumption, and diuretic use in their analysis.

Dr. McCormick and coinvestigators included a total of 18,693 participants, consisting of 3,304 Black women, 6,195 White women, 3,085 Black men, and 6,109 White men.

They determined that the age-standardized prevalence of gout was 3.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.7%-4.3%) in Black women and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.5% - 2.5%) in White women (age-adjusted odds ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.29-2.53). They calculated that the prevalence was 7.0% (95% CI, 6.2%-7.9%) in Black men and 5.4% (95% CI, 4.7%-6.2%) in White men (age-adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.55). They found similar differences in the prevalence of hyperuricemia between Black and White Americans.

The increased prevalence of gout in Black Americans, compared with White Americans, does not arise from genetics, according to McCormick. “Our conclusion was that it was due to social determinants of health,” she said. “When we adjusted for all socioclinical risk factors, the racial differences in gout and hyperuricemia prevalence disappeared. Importantly, stepwise regression analysis showed the two biggest drivers of the racial difference in gout prevalence among women were poverty itself, and excess BMI, which can be influenced by poverty.”

Dr. McCormick pointed out that in contrast to the current data, there was no racial difference in the prevalence of gout approximately 2 decades earlier, looking at data from the 1988-1994 NHANES III.

Given the findings, which included the fact that significantly more Black women and men were currently taking diuretics, compared with their White counterparts, Dr. McCormick pointed out clinicians should give more thought to medical therapies prescribed for conditions like high blood pressure to patients with gout or at risk for gout.

“One thing we found was that diuretic use was a driver” of gout, Dr. McCormick said. A prescriber “may want to consider different therapies that present a lower risk of gout if someone has hypertension. There could be greater consideration for prescribing alternatives to diuretics.”

More patient education and rheumatology referrals needed

An impediment to providing that education to patients with gout is unconscious bias on the part of the primary care provider, Dr. Wells said.

“It is about what your perspectives are and what you bring to the table,” he explained. “If you saw [a patient] who looked like someone in your family, that person will be treated differently [than someone who does not look like a family member]. That is where the whole concept [of unconscious bias] comes in.”

Primary care providers need to adopt a holistic approach to gout management that involves counseling about good nutrition, smoking cessation, regular exercise, and limiting alcohol consumption, in addition to medication adherence. Primary care providers may have a bias in treating their Black patients, failing to devote sufficient time and attention to assist them in getting their disease under control, he said.

“Gout should be just like any other chronic disease,” Dr. Wells said. “You need to have a target in mind, and you and your patient need to work together to get to that target. When [patients] end up in rheumatology offices, it is almost too late. I think the take-home message here is that in 2022 ... for any patient who has gout, that patient probably needs to be seen by a rheumatologist because, indeed, with aggressive therapy, preventive therapy, [and] education, and if they are on the right medications, they won’t end up with these crippling joints that we see all the time.”

Dr. McCormick and Dr. Wells disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Gout prevalence is more common in Black Americans than White Americans, and the disparity in prevalence is attributable to social determinants of health, according to a recently published article in JAMA Network Open.

“There has been evidence from recent cohort studies in the U.S. that was suggesting that the prevalence and incidence [of gout] was growing among non-White populations,” said Natalie McCormick, PhD, the study’s lead author and postdoctoral research fellow in medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “We wanted to do this at the general population level to see how generalizable [that evidence] is.”

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Medical Group, Franklin, Wisc., noted the findings highlight inequities in care for patients with gout that could be improved with greater emphasis on educating patients about their condition.

“I think that what this shows is that in the U.S. ... there still are some disparities in treating gout,” said Dr. Wells, who was not involved with the study. “And that we have ways to mitigate that, with not only aggressive therapy, but also with other tools like counseling patients. At the end of the day, people all want to be educated about the disease.”
 

Greater prevalence disappears with adjustment for socioclinical factors

The cross-sectional analysis involved data from U.S. adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2007 to 2016 who self-reported Black or White race.

Investigators considered factors such as excess body mass index (BMI), chronic kidney disease (defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), poverty, poor-quality diet, lower educational level, alcohol consumption, and diuretic use in their analysis.

Dr. McCormick and coinvestigators included a total of 18,693 participants, consisting of 3,304 Black women, 6,195 White women, 3,085 Black men, and 6,109 White men.

They determined that the age-standardized prevalence of gout was 3.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.7%-4.3%) in Black women and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.5% - 2.5%) in White women (age-adjusted odds ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.29-2.53). They calculated that the prevalence was 7.0% (95% CI, 6.2%-7.9%) in Black men and 5.4% (95% CI, 4.7%-6.2%) in White men (age-adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.55). They found similar differences in the prevalence of hyperuricemia between Black and White Americans.

The increased prevalence of gout in Black Americans, compared with White Americans, does not arise from genetics, according to McCormick. “Our conclusion was that it was due to social determinants of health,” she said. “When we adjusted for all socioclinical risk factors, the racial differences in gout and hyperuricemia prevalence disappeared. Importantly, stepwise regression analysis showed the two biggest drivers of the racial difference in gout prevalence among women were poverty itself, and excess BMI, which can be influenced by poverty.”

Dr. McCormick pointed out that in contrast to the current data, there was no racial difference in the prevalence of gout approximately 2 decades earlier, looking at data from the 1988-1994 NHANES III.

Given the findings, which included the fact that significantly more Black women and men were currently taking diuretics, compared with their White counterparts, Dr. McCormick pointed out clinicians should give more thought to medical therapies prescribed for conditions like high blood pressure to patients with gout or at risk for gout.

“One thing we found was that diuretic use was a driver” of gout, Dr. McCormick said. A prescriber “may want to consider different therapies that present a lower risk of gout if someone has hypertension. There could be greater consideration for prescribing alternatives to diuretics.”

More patient education and rheumatology referrals needed

An impediment to providing that education to patients with gout is unconscious bias on the part of the primary care provider, Dr. Wells said.

“It is about what your perspectives are and what you bring to the table,” he explained. “If you saw [a patient] who looked like someone in your family, that person will be treated differently [than someone who does not look like a family member]. That is where the whole concept [of unconscious bias] comes in.”

Primary care providers need to adopt a holistic approach to gout management that involves counseling about good nutrition, smoking cessation, regular exercise, and limiting alcohol consumption, in addition to medication adherence. Primary care providers may have a bias in treating their Black patients, failing to devote sufficient time and attention to assist them in getting their disease under control, he said.

“Gout should be just like any other chronic disease,” Dr. Wells said. “You need to have a target in mind, and you and your patient need to work together to get to that target. When [patients] end up in rheumatology offices, it is almost too late. I think the take-home message here is that in 2022 ... for any patient who has gout, that patient probably needs to be seen by a rheumatologist because, indeed, with aggressive therapy, preventive therapy, [and] education, and if they are on the right medications, they won’t end up with these crippling joints that we see all the time.”

Dr. McCormick and Dr. Wells disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights

It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.

A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.

liseykina/thinkstockphotos

Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …

Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.

The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
 

After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest

Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.

A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.

“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.

©thinkstockphotos.com

The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.

For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.

Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
 

Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side

Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?

Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.

“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.

Aubrey Kelly

For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.

The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”

The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
 

Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?

COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?

Yes and no.

A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.

PxHere

Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.

Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.

But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.

So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.

Music to our ears.

Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights

It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.

A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.

liseykina/thinkstockphotos

Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …

Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.

The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
 

After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest

Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.

A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.

“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.

©thinkstockphotos.com

The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.

For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.

Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
 

Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side

Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?

Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.

“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.

Aubrey Kelly

For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.

The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”

The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
 

Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?

COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?

Yes and no.

A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.

PxHere

Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.

Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.

But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.

So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.

Music to our ears.

Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights

It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.

A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.

liseykina/thinkstockphotos

Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …

Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.

The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
 

After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest

Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.

A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.

“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.

©thinkstockphotos.com

The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.

For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.

Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
 

Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side

Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?

Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.

“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.

Aubrey Kelly

For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.

The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”

The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
 

Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?

COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?

Yes and no.

A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.

PxHere

Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.

Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.

But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.

So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.

Music to our ears.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation of adalimumab-bwwd (Hadlima), the manufacturer, Samsung Bioepis, and its commercialization partner Organon said in an announcement.

Hadlima is a biosimilar of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor reference product adalimumab (Humira).

Hadlima was first approved in July 2019 in a citrated, 50-mg/mL formulation. The new citrate-free, 100-mg/mL version will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector options.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The 100-mg/mL formulation is indicated for the same seven conditions as its 50-mg/mL counterpart: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.

The approval was based on clinical data from a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, parallel group, single-dose study that compared the pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the 100-mg/mL and 50-mg/mL formulations of Hadlima in healthy volunteers.

Both low- and high-concentration formulations of Humira are currently marketed in the United States. Organon said that it expects to market Hadlima in the United States on or after July 1, 2023, in accordance with a licensing agreement with AbbVie.

The prescribing information for Hadlima includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals who are known to be hypersensitive to adalimumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, including serious infections leading to hospitalization or death, such as tuberculosis, bacterial sepsis, invasive fungal infections (such as histoplasmosis), and infections attributable to other opportunistic pathogens.

A test for latent TB infection should be given before administration, and treatment of TB should begin before administration of Hadlima.

Patients taking Hadlima should not take a live vaccine.

The most common adverse effects (incidence > 10%) include infections (for example, upper respiratory infections, sinusitis), injection site reactions, headache, and rash.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation of adalimumab-bwwd (Hadlima), the manufacturer, Samsung Bioepis, and its commercialization partner Organon said in an announcement.

Hadlima is a biosimilar of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor reference product adalimumab (Humira).

Hadlima was first approved in July 2019 in a citrated, 50-mg/mL formulation. The new citrate-free, 100-mg/mL version will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector options.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The 100-mg/mL formulation is indicated for the same seven conditions as its 50-mg/mL counterpart: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.

The approval was based on clinical data from a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, parallel group, single-dose study that compared the pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the 100-mg/mL and 50-mg/mL formulations of Hadlima in healthy volunteers.

Both low- and high-concentration formulations of Humira are currently marketed in the United States. Organon said that it expects to market Hadlima in the United States on or after July 1, 2023, in accordance with a licensing agreement with AbbVie.

The prescribing information for Hadlima includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals who are known to be hypersensitive to adalimumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, including serious infections leading to hospitalization or death, such as tuberculosis, bacterial sepsis, invasive fungal infections (such as histoplasmosis), and infections attributable to other opportunistic pathogens.

A test for latent TB infection should be given before administration, and treatment of TB should begin before administration of Hadlima.

Patients taking Hadlima should not take a live vaccine.

The most common adverse effects (incidence > 10%) include infections (for example, upper respiratory infections, sinusitis), injection site reactions, headache, and rash.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation of adalimumab-bwwd (Hadlima), the manufacturer, Samsung Bioepis, and its commercialization partner Organon said in an announcement.

Hadlima is a biosimilar of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor reference product adalimumab (Humira).

Hadlima was first approved in July 2019 in a citrated, 50-mg/mL formulation. The new citrate-free, 100-mg/mL version will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector options.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The 100-mg/mL formulation is indicated for the same seven conditions as its 50-mg/mL counterpart: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.

The approval was based on clinical data from a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, parallel group, single-dose study that compared the pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the 100-mg/mL and 50-mg/mL formulations of Hadlima in healthy volunteers.

Both low- and high-concentration formulations of Humira are currently marketed in the United States. Organon said that it expects to market Hadlima in the United States on or after July 1, 2023, in accordance with a licensing agreement with AbbVie.

The prescribing information for Hadlima includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals who are known to be hypersensitive to adalimumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, including serious infections leading to hospitalization or death, such as tuberculosis, bacterial sepsis, invasive fungal infections (such as histoplasmosis), and infections attributable to other opportunistic pathogens.

A test for latent TB infection should be given before administration, and treatment of TB should begin before administration of Hadlima.

Patients taking Hadlima should not take a live vaccine.

The most common adverse effects (incidence > 10%) include infections (for example, upper respiratory infections, sinusitis), injection site reactions, headache, and rash.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks for preoperative pain management after hip fracture provide improvements over conventional anesthesia including greater pain reduction and fewer adverse events, results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.

With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.

“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.

Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.

Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.

“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.

To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.

The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.

Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).

Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).

Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.

Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.

“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.

Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.

No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.

However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.

“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
 

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible

Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.

Stephen C. Haskins, MD, a coauthor on that study, said that the low utilization underscores that, in real-world practice, an ultrasound-guided approach isn’t always convenient.

“I think our findings demonstrate a common misconception that exists for those of us that work at academic institutions and/or within the ivory towers of regional anesthesia, which is that everyone is performing cutting edge ultrasound-guided techniques for all procedures,” Dr. Haskins, an associate attending anesthesiologist and chief medical diversity officer with the department of anesthesiology, critical care & pain management at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.

However, “there are many limitations to use of ultrasound for these blocks, including limited access to machines, limited access to training, and limited interest and support from our surgical colleagues,” he explained.

“Ultimately, the best nerve block is the one performed in a timely and successful fashion, regardless of technique,” he said. “But we will continue to see a trend towards ultrasound use in the future due to increasing access in the form of portability and affordability.”

Haskins noted that newer ultrasound-guided nerve blocks that were not reviewed in the study, such as the pericapsular nerve group block, regional block, and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which provide additional benefits such as avoiding quadriceps weakness.

Jeff Gadsden, MD, chief of the orthopedics, plastic, and regional anesthesiology division at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed, noting that much has changed since some of the older studies in the analysis, that date back to 2010.

“A fascia iliaca block done in 2022 looks a lot different than it did in 2012, and we would expect it to be more consistent, reliable and longer-lasting with current techniques and technology,” he said in an interview. “So, if anything, I would expect the findings of this analysis to undersell the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks in this population.”

Although the quality of evidence in the meta-analysis is described as “low,” the downsides of the procedures are few, and “the potential benefits [of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks] are just too good to ignore,” Dr. Gadsden emphasized.

“If we can avoid or reduce opioids in this population and at the same time reduce the acute pain from the injury, there is no question that the incidence of delirium will go down,” he said. “Delirium is associated with a number of poor outcomes following hip fracture, including increased mortality.

“The bottom line is that the risk/benefit ratio is so far in favor of performing the blocks that even in the face of ‘modest’ levels of evidence, we should all be doing these.”

The authors, Dr. Haskins, and Dr. Gadsden had no disclosures relating to the study to report.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks for preoperative pain management after hip fracture provide improvements over conventional anesthesia including greater pain reduction and fewer adverse events, results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.

With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.

“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.

Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.

Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.

“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.

To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.

The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.

Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).

Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).

Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.

Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.

“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.

Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.

No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.

However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.

“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
 

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible

Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.

Stephen C. Haskins, MD, a coauthor on that study, said that the low utilization underscores that, in real-world practice, an ultrasound-guided approach isn’t always convenient.

“I think our findings demonstrate a common misconception that exists for those of us that work at academic institutions and/or within the ivory towers of regional anesthesia, which is that everyone is performing cutting edge ultrasound-guided techniques for all procedures,” Dr. Haskins, an associate attending anesthesiologist and chief medical diversity officer with the department of anesthesiology, critical care & pain management at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.

However, “there are many limitations to use of ultrasound for these blocks, including limited access to machines, limited access to training, and limited interest and support from our surgical colleagues,” he explained.

“Ultimately, the best nerve block is the one performed in a timely and successful fashion, regardless of technique,” he said. “But we will continue to see a trend towards ultrasound use in the future due to increasing access in the form of portability and affordability.”

Haskins noted that newer ultrasound-guided nerve blocks that were not reviewed in the study, such as the pericapsular nerve group block, regional block, and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which provide additional benefits such as avoiding quadriceps weakness.

Jeff Gadsden, MD, chief of the orthopedics, plastic, and regional anesthesiology division at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed, noting that much has changed since some of the older studies in the analysis, that date back to 2010.

“A fascia iliaca block done in 2022 looks a lot different than it did in 2012, and we would expect it to be more consistent, reliable and longer-lasting with current techniques and technology,” he said in an interview. “So, if anything, I would expect the findings of this analysis to undersell the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks in this population.”

Although the quality of evidence in the meta-analysis is described as “low,” the downsides of the procedures are few, and “the potential benefits [of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks] are just too good to ignore,” Dr. Gadsden emphasized.

“If we can avoid or reduce opioids in this population and at the same time reduce the acute pain from the injury, there is no question that the incidence of delirium will go down,” he said. “Delirium is associated with a number of poor outcomes following hip fracture, including increased mortality.

“The bottom line is that the risk/benefit ratio is so far in favor of performing the blocks that even in the face of ‘modest’ levels of evidence, we should all be doing these.”

The authors, Dr. Haskins, and Dr. Gadsden had no disclosures relating to the study to report.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks for preoperative pain management after hip fracture provide improvements over conventional anesthesia including greater pain reduction and fewer adverse events, results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.

With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.

“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.

Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.

Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.

“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.

To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.

The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.

Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).

Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).

Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.

Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.

“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.

Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.

No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.

However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.

“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
 

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible

Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.