Pain

THE CASE

A 14-year-old boy sought care at our clinic for persistent chest pain after being hit in the chest with a teammate’s shoulder during a basketball game 3 weeks earlier. He had aching midsternal chest pain that worsened with direct pressure and when he sneezed, twisted, or bent forward. There was no bruising or swelling.

On examination, the patient demonstrated normal perfusion and normal work of breathing. He had focal tenderness with palpation at the manubrium with no noticeable step-off, and mild tenderness at the adjacent costochondral junctions and over his pectoral muscles. His sternal pain along the proximal sternum was reproducible with a weighted wall push-up. Although the patient maintained full range of motion in his upper extremities, he did have sternal pain with flexion, abduction, and external rotation of the bilateral upper extremities against resistance. Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral chest radiographs were unremarkable.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The unremarkable chest radiographs prompted further investigation with a diagnostic ultrasound, which revealed a small cortical defect with overlying anechoic fluid collection in the area of focal tenderness. T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the chest was performed; it revealed a transverse, nondisplaced fracture of the superior body of the sternum with surrounding bone marrow edema (FIGURE).

DISCUSSION

Fractures of the sternum comprise < 1% of traumatic fractures and have a low mortality rate (0.7%).^1,2 The rarity of these fractures is attributed to the ribs’ elastic recoil, which protects the chest wall from anterior ­forces.^1,3 These fractures are even more unusual in children due to the increased elasticity of their chest walls.^4-6 Thus, it takes a significant amount of force for a child’s sternum to fracture.

While isolated sternum fractures can occur, two-thirds of sternum fractures are nonisolated and are associated with injuries to surrounding structures (including the heart, lungs, and vasculature) or fractures of the ribs and spine.^2,3 Most often, these injuries are caused by significant blunt trauma to the anterior chest, rapid deceleration, or flexion-­compression injury.^2,3 They are typically transverse and localized, with 70% of fractures occurring in the mid-body and 17.6% at the manubriosternal joint.^1,3,6

Athletes with a sternal fracture typically present as our patient did, with a history of blunt force trauma to the chest and with pain and tenderness over the anterior midline of the chest that increases with respiration or movement.¹ A physical examination that includes chest palpation and auscultation of the heart and lungs must be performed to rule out damage to intrathoracic structures and assess the patient’s cardiac and pulmonary stability. An electrocardiogram should be performed to confirm that there are no cardiovascular complications.^3,4

Initial imaging should include AP and lateral chest radiographs because any displacement will occur in the sagittal plane.^1,2,4-6 If the radiograph shows no clear pathology, follow up with computed tomography, ultrasound, MRI, or technetium bone scans to gain additional information.¹ Diagnosis of sternal fractures is especially difficult in children due to the presence of ossification centers for bone growth, which may be misinterpreted as a sternal fracture in the absence of a proper understanding of sternal development.^5,6 On ultrasound, sternal fractures appear as a sharp step-off in the cortex, whereas in the absence of fracture, there is no cortical step-off and the cartilaginous plate between ossification centers appears in line with the cortex.⁷

Continue to: A self-limiting injury that requires proper pain control

Isolated sternal fractures are typically self-limiting with a good prognosis.² These injuries are managed supportively with rest, ice, and analgesics¹; proper pain control is crucial to prevent respiratory compromise.⁸

Complete recovery for most patients occurs in 10 to 12 weeks.⁹ Recovery periods longer than 12 weeks are associated with nonisolated sternal fractures that are complicated by soft-tissue injury, injuries to the chest wall (such as sternoclavicular joint dislocation, usually from a fall on the shoulder), or fracture nonunion.^1,2,5

Although sternum fractures are rare in pediatric patients, twothirds of these fractures are associated with injuries to surrounding structures.

Anterior sternoclavicular joint dislocations and stable posterior dislocations are managed with closed reduction and immobilization in a figure-of-eight brace.¹ Operative management is reserved for patients with displaced fractures, sternal deformity, chest wall instability, respiratory insufficiency, uncontrolled pain, or fracture nonunion.^1,3,8

A return-to-play protocol can begin once the patient is asymptomatic.¹ The timeframe for a full return to play can vary from 6 weeks to 6 months, depending on the severity of the fracture.¹ This process is guided by how quickly the symptoms resolve and by radiographic stability.⁹

Our patient was followed every 3 to 4 weeks and started physical therapy 6 weeks after his injury occurred. He was held from play for 10 weeks and gradually returned to play; he returned to full-contact activity after tolerating a practice without pain.

THE TAKEAWAY

Children typically have greater chest wall elasticity, and thus, it is unusual for them to sustain a sternal fracture. Diagnosis in children is complicated by the presence of ossification centers for bone growth on imaging. In this case, the fracture was first noticed on ultrasound and confirmed with MRI. Since these fractures can be associated with damage to surrounding structures, additional injuries should be considered when evaluating a patient with a sternum fracture.

CORRESPONDENCE
Catherine Romaine, East Carolina University, Brody School of Medicine, 600 Moye Boulevard, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 14-year-old boy sought care at our clinic for persistent chest pain after being hit in the chest with a teammate’s shoulder during a basketball game 3 weeks earlier. He had aching midsternal chest pain that worsened with direct pressure and when he sneezed, twisted, or bent forward. There was no bruising or swelling.

On examination, the patient demonstrated normal perfusion and normal work of breathing. He had focal tenderness with palpation at the manubrium with no noticeable step-off, and mild tenderness at the adjacent costochondral junctions and over his pectoral muscles. His sternal pain along the proximal sternum was reproducible with a weighted wall push-up. Although the patient maintained full range of motion in his upper extremities, he did have sternal pain with flexion, abduction, and external rotation of the bilateral upper extremities against resistance. Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral chest radiographs were unremarkable.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The unremarkable chest radiographs prompted further investigation with a diagnostic ultrasound, which revealed a small cortical defect with overlying anechoic fluid collection in the area of focal tenderness. T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the chest was performed; it revealed a transverse, nondisplaced fracture of the superior body of the sternum with surrounding bone marrow edema (FIGURE).

DISCUSSION

Fractures of the sternum comprise < 1% of traumatic fractures and have a low mortality rate (0.7%).^1,2 The rarity of these fractures is attributed to the ribs’ elastic recoil, which protects the chest wall from anterior ­forces.^1,3 These fractures are even more unusual in children due to the increased elasticity of their chest walls.^4-6 Thus, it takes a significant amount of force for a child’s sternum to fracture.

While isolated sternum fractures can occur, two-thirds of sternum fractures are nonisolated and are associated with injuries to surrounding structures (including the heart, lungs, and vasculature) or fractures of the ribs and spine.^2,3 Most often, these injuries are caused by significant blunt trauma to the anterior chest, rapid deceleration, or flexion-­compression injury.^2,3 They are typically transverse and localized, with 70% of fractures occurring in the mid-body and 17.6% at the manubriosternal joint.^1,3,6

Athletes with a sternal fracture typically present as our patient did, with a history of blunt force trauma to the chest and with pain and tenderness over the anterior midline of the chest that increases with respiration or movement.¹ A physical examination that includes chest palpation and auscultation of the heart and lungs must be performed to rule out damage to intrathoracic structures and assess the patient’s cardiac and pulmonary stability. An electrocardiogram should be performed to confirm that there are no cardiovascular complications.^3,4

Initial imaging should include AP and lateral chest radiographs because any displacement will occur in the sagittal plane.^1,2,4-6 If the radiograph shows no clear pathology, follow up with computed tomography, ultrasound, MRI, or technetium bone scans to gain additional information.¹ Diagnosis of sternal fractures is especially difficult in children due to the presence of ossification centers for bone growth, which may be misinterpreted as a sternal fracture in the absence of a proper understanding of sternal development.^5,6 On ultrasound, sternal fractures appear as a sharp step-off in the cortex, whereas in the absence of fracture, there is no cortical step-off and the cartilaginous plate between ossification centers appears in line with the cortex.⁷

Continue to: A self-limiting injury that requires proper pain control

Isolated sternal fractures are typically self-limiting with a good prognosis.² These injuries are managed supportively with rest, ice, and analgesics¹; proper pain control is crucial to prevent respiratory compromise.⁸

Complete recovery for most patients occurs in 10 to 12 weeks.⁹ Recovery periods longer than 12 weeks are associated with nonisolated sternal fractures that are complicated by soft-tissue injury, injuries to the chest wall (such as sternoclavicular joint dislocation, usually from a fall on the shoulder), or fracture nonunion.^1,2,5

Although sternum fractures are rare in pediatric patients, twothirds of these fractures are associated with injuries to surrounding structures.

Anterior sternoclavicular joint dislocations and stable posterior dislocations are managed with closed reduction and immobilization in a figure-of-eight brace.¹ Operative management is reserved for patients with displaced fractures, sternal deformity, chest wall instability, respiratory insufficiency, uncontrolled pain, or fracture nonunion.^1,3,8

A return-to-play protocol can begin once the patient is asymptomatic.¹ The timeframe for a full return to play can vary from 6 weeks to 6 months, depending on the severity of the fracture.¹ This process is guided by how quickly the symptoms resolve and by radiographic stability.⁹

Our patient was followed every 3 to 4 weeks and started physical therapy 6 weeks after his injury occurred. He was held from play for 10 weeks and gradually returned to play; he returned to full-contact activity after tolerating a practice without pain.

THE TAKEAWAY

Children typically have greater chest wall elasticity, and thus, it is unusual for them to sustain a sternal fracture. Diagnosis in children is complicated by the presence of ossification centers for bone growth on imaging. In this case, the fracture was first noticed on ultrasound and confirmed with MRI. Since these fractures can be associated with damage to surrounding structures, additional injuries should be considered when evaluating a patient with a sternum fracture.

CORRESPONDENCE
Catherine Romaine, East Carolina University, Brody School of Medicine, 600 Moye Boulevard, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 14-year-old boy sought care at our clinic for persistent chest pain after being hit in the chest with a teammate’s shoulder during a basketball game 3 weeks earlier. He had aching midsternal chest pain that worsened with direct pressure and when he sneezed, twisted, or bent forward. There was no bruising or swelling.

On examination, the patient demonstrated normal perfusion and normal work of breathing. He had focal tenderness with palpation at the manubrium with no noticeable step-off, and mild tenderness at the adjacent costochondral junctions and over his pectoral muscles. His sternal pain along the proximal sternum was reproducible with a weighted wall push-up. Although the patient maintained full range of motion in his upper extremities, he did have sternal pain with flexion, abduction, and external rotation of the bilateral upper extremities against resistance. Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral chest radiographs were unremarkable.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The unremarkable chest radiographs prompted further investigation with a diagnostic ultrasound, which revealed a small cortical defect with overlying anechoic fluid collection in the area of focal tenderness. T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the chest was performed; it revealed a transverse, nondisplaced fracture of the superior body of the sternum with surrounding bone marrow edema (FIGURE).

DISCUSSION

Fractures of the sternum comprise < 1% of traumatic fractures and have a low mortality rate (0.7%).^1,2 The rarity of these fractures is attributed to the ribs’ elastic recoil, which protects the chest wall from anterior ­forces.^1,3 These fractures are even more unusual in children due to the increased elasticity of their chest walls.^4-6 Thus, it takes a significant amount of force for a child’s sternum to fracture.

While isolated sternum fractures can occur, two-thirds of sternum fractures are nonisolated and are associated with injuries to surrounding structures (including the heart, lungs, and vasculature) or fractures of the ribs and spine.^2,3 Most often, these injuries are caused by significant blunt trauma to the anterior chest, rapid deceleration, or flexion-­compression injury.^2,3 They are typically transverse and localized, with 70% of fractures occurring in the mid-body and 17.6% at the manubriosternal joint.^1,3,6

Athletes with a sternal fracture typically present as our patient did, with a history of blunt force trauma to the chest and with pain and tenderness over the anterior midline of the chest that increases with respiration or movement.¹ A physical examination that includes chest palpation and auscultation of the heart and lungs must be performed to rule out damage to intrathoracic structures and assess the patient’s cardiac and pulmonary stability. An electrocardiogram should be performed to confirm that there are no cardiovascular complications.^3,4

Initial imaging should include AP and lateral chest radiographs because any displacement will occur in the sagittal plane.^1,2,4-6 If the radiograph shows no clear pathology, follow up with computed tomography, ultrasound, MRI, or technetium bone scans to gain additional information.¹ Diagnosis of sternal fractures is especially difficult in children due to the presence of ossification centers for bone growth, which may be misinterpreted as a sternal fracture in the absence of a proper understanding of sternal development.^5,6 On ultrasound, sternal fractures appear as a sharp step-off in the cortex, whereas in the absence of fracture, there is no cortical step-off and the cartilaginous plate between ossification centers appears in line with the cortex.⁷

Continue to: A self-limiting injury that requires proper pain control

Isolated sternal fractures are typically self-limiting with a good prognosis.² These injuries are managed supportively with rest, ice, and analgesics¹; proper pain control is crucial to prevent respiratory compromise.⁸

Complete recovery for most patients occurs in 10 to 12 weeks.⁹ Recovery periods longer than 12 weeks are associated with nonisolated sternal fractures that are complicated by soft-tissue injury, injuries to the chest wall (such as sternoclavicular joint dislocation, usually from a fall on the shoulder), or fracture nonunion.^1,2,5

Although sternum fractures are rare in pediatric patients, twothirds of these fractures are associated with injuries to surrounding structures.

Anterior sternoclavicular joint dislocations and stable posterior dislocations are managed with closed reduction and immobilization in a figure-of-eight brace.¹ Operative management is reserved for patients with displaced fractures, sternal deformity, chest wall instability, respiratory insufficiency, uncontrolled pain, or fracture nonunion.^1,3,8

A return-to-play protocol can begin once the patient is asymptomatic.¹ The timeframe for a full return to play can vary from 6 weeks to 6 months, depending on the severity of the fracture.¹ This process is guided by how quickly the symptoms resolve and by radiographic stability.⁹

Our patient was followed every 3 to 4 weeks and started physical therapy 6 weeks after his injury occurred. He was held from play for 10 weeks and gradually returned to play; he returned to full-contact activity after tolerating a practice without pain.

THE TAKEAWAY

Children typically have greater chest wall elasticity, and thus, it is unusual for them to sustain a sternal fracture. Diagnosis in children is complicated by the presence of ossification centers for bone growth on imaging. In this case, the fracture was first noticed on ultrasound and confirmed with MRI. Since these fractures can be associated with damage to surrounding structures, additional injuries should be considered when evaluating a patient with a sternum fracture.

CORRESPONDENCE
Catherine Romaine, East Carolina University, Brody School of Medicine, 600 Moye Boulevard, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 42-year-old man with a history of bipolar disorder with psychotic features, asthma, and chronic pain was brought to the emergency department (ED) by his father due to altered mental status, coughing, and vomiting. The patient was unable to recall events earlier in the day in detail but stated that he remembered using his inhaler for his cough, which seemed to precipitate his vomiting. The patient’s home medications were listed as albuterol 90 mcg, methadone 90 mg/d, and quetiapine 100 mg.

While in the ED, the patient was tachycardic (heart rate, 102 bpm), but all other vital signs were normal. He was agitated and at one point required restraints. On exam, he had epigastric tenderness to palpation, and his lungs were clear to auscultation bilaterally.

Blood work was notable for an elevated lipase level of 729 U/L (normal range, 0-160 U/L). Complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urinalysis, chest x-ray, and alcohol levels were unremarkable. Computed tomography of the abdomen/pelvis and ultrasound of the abdomen showed excess stool and gallbladder sludge without cholecystitis.

The patient was treated symptomatically with intravenous fluids, ondansetron, and lor­azepam. He was admitted with a working diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and possible acute psychosis in the setting of schizophrenia.

A few hours after presentation, the patient returned to his baseline mental status. Over the next 24 hours, his lipase level trended down to normal.

THE DIAGNOSIS

After the patient’s discharge, the pharmacist from his primary care provider’s office called as part of the routine post-hospital follow-up and a medication reconciliation was performed. During this call, the patient stated he had used 2 different nasal sprays prior to his ED pres­entation.

The pharmacist asked him to read the names of each medication. He related the first was naloxone and the second, fluticasone (neither of which was included on his medication list). Upon further questioning, the pharmacist elicited clarification from the patient that he had, in fact, taken 2 doses of naloxone, shortly after which his vomiting began.

Continue to: This additional history...

This additional history suggested the patient’s true diagnosis was acute opioid withdrawal precipitated by his accidental self-administration of naloxone.

DISCUSSION

Naloxone is a pure mu-opioid receptor antagonist that is used for opioid overdose.¹ In the past decade, in response to the opioid epidemic, naloxone has become increasingly available in the community as a way of decreasing opioid-related deaths.^1,2 The US Food and Drug Administration recommends that all patients who are prescribed opioids for pain or opioid use disorder, as well as those who are at increased risk for opioid overdose, should be prescribed naloxone and educated on its use. Patients who received a naloxone prescription from their primary care provider have been found to have 47% fewer opioid-related ED visits.³

Quick effects, potential for complications. Use of naloxone can rapidly induce opioid withdrawal symptoms, including gastrointestinal effects, tachycardia, and agitation, as well as diaphoresis, shivering, lacrimation, tremor, anxiety, mydriasis, and hypertension. Naloxone use can also lead to severe complications, such as violent behaviors, ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, asystole, or pulmonary edema, in the period immediately following administration.⁴ These effects most often subside within 20 to 60 minutes after administration of naloxone, as the antagonist effect wears off.

The treatment of naloxone toxicity is supportive, with particular attention paid to the patient’s mental and respiratory status.

Our patient was advised by his primary care physician on the proper use of all of his medications, including nasal sprays. The clinic pharmacist also met with him for an additional educational session on the proper use of naloxone.

Continue to: THE TAKEAWAY

THE TAKEAWAY

Given the widespread use of naloxone, proper education and counselling regarding this medication is crucial. Patients should be advised of what to expect after its use. In addition, physicians should always maintain updated patient medication lists, ensuring that they include naloxone if it has been prescribed for use as needed for opioid reversal, to assist in the emergency treatment of affected patients.⁵

CORRESPONDENCE
Erik Weitz, DO, Troy Beaumont Family Medicine Residency, 44250 Dequindre Road, Sterling Heights, MI 48314; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 42-year-old man with a history of bipolar disorder with psychotic features, asthma, and chronic pain was brought to the emergency department (ED) by his father due to altered mental status, coughing, and vomiting. The patient was unable to recall events earlier in the day in detail but stated that he remembered using his inhaler for his cough, which seemed to precipitate his vomiting. The patient’s home medications were listed as albuterol 90 mcg, methadone 90 mg/d, and quetiapine 100 mg.

While in the ED, the patient was tachycardic (heart rate, 102 bpm), but all other vital signs were normal. He was agitated and at one point required restraints. On exam, he had epigastric tenderness to palpation, and his lungs were clear to auscultation bilaterally.

Blood work was notable for an elevated lipase level of 729 U/L (normal range, 0-160 U/L). Complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urinalysis, chest x-ray, and alcohol levels were unremarkable. Computed tomography of the abdomen/pelvis and ultrasound of the abdomen showed excess stool and gallbladder sludge without cholecystitis.

The patient was treated symptomatically with intravenous fluids, ondansetron, and lor­azepam. He was admitted with a working diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and possible acute psychosis in the setting of schizophrenia.

A few hours after presentation, the patient returned to his baseline mental status. Over the next 24 hours, his lipase level trended down to normal.

THE DIAGNOSIS

After the patient’s discharge, the pharmacist from his primary care provider’s office called as part of the routine post-hospital follow-up and a medication reconciliation was performed. During this call, the patient stated he had used 2 different nasal sprays prior to his ED pres­entation.

The pharmacist asked him to read the names of each medication. He related the first was naloxone and the second, fluticasone (neither of which was included on his medication list). Upon further questioning, the pharmacist elicited clarification from the patient that he had, in fact, taken 2 doses of naloxone, shortly after which his vomiting began.

Continue to: This additional history...

This additional history suggested the patient’s true diagnosis was acute opioid withdrawal precipitated by his accidental self-administration of naloxone.

DISCUSSION

Naloxone is a pure mu-opioid receptor antagonist that is used for opioid overdose.¹ In the past decade, in response to the opioid epidemic, naloxone has become increasingly available in the community as a way of decreasing opioid-related deaths.^1,2 The US Food and Drug Administration recommends that all patients who are prescribed opioids for pain or opioid use disorder, as well as those who are at increased risk for opioid overdose, should be prescribed naloxone and educated on its use. Patients who received a naloxone prescription from their primary care provider have been found to have 47% fewer opioid-related ED visits.³

Quick effects, potential for complications. Use of naloxone can rapidly induce opioid withdrawal symptoms, including gastrointestinal effects, tachycardia, and agitation, as well as diaphoresis, shivering, lacrimation, tremor, anxiety, mydriasis, and hypertension. Naloxone use can also lead to severe complications, such as violent behaviors, ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, asystole, or pulmonary edema, in the period immediately following administration.⁴ These effects most often subside within 20 to 60 minutes after administration of naloxone, as the antagonist effect wears off.

The treatment of naloxone toxicity is supportive, with particular attention paid to the patient’s mental and respiratory status.

Our patient was advised by his primary care physician on the proper use of all of his medications, including nasal sprays. The clinic pharmacist also met with him for an additional educational session on the proper use of naloxone.

Continue to: THE TAKEAWAY

THE TAKEAWAY

Given the widespread use of naloxone, proper education and counselling regarding this medication is crucial. Patients should be advised of what to expect after its use. In addition, physicians should always maintain updated patient medication lists, ensuring that they include naloxone if it has been prescribed for use as needed for opioid reversal, to assist in the emergency treatment of affected patients.⁵

CORRESPONDENCE
Erik Weitz, DO, Troy Beaumont Family Medicine Residency, 44250 Dequindre Road, Sterling Heights, MI 48314; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 42-year-old man with a history of bipolar disorder with psychotic features, asthma, and chronic pain was brought to the emergency department (ED) by his father due to altered mental status, coughing, and vomiting. The patient was unable to recall events earlier in the day in detail but stated that he remembered using his inhaler for his cough, which seemed to precipitate his vomiting. The patient’s home medications were listed as albuterol 90 mcg, methadone 90 mg/d, and quetiapine 100 mg.

While in the ED, the patient was tachycardic (heart rate, 102 bpm), but all other vital signs were normal. He was agitated and at one point required restraints. On exam, he had epigastric tenderness to palpation, and his lungs were clear to auscultation bilaterally.

Blood work was notable for an elevated lipase level of 729 U/L (normal range, 0-160 U/L). Complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urinalysis, chest x-ray, and alcohol levels were unremarkable. Computed tomography of the abdomen/pelvis and ultrasound of the abdomen showed excess stool and gallbladder sludge without cholecystitis.

The patient was treated symptomatically with intravenous fluids, ondansetron, and lor­azepam. He was admitted with a working diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and possible acute psychosis in the setting of schizophrenia.

A few hours after presentation, the patient returned to his baseline mental status. Over the next 24 hours, his lipase level trended down to normal.

THE DIAGNOSIS

After the patient’s discharge, the pharmacist from his primary care provider’s office called as part of the routine post-hospital follow-up and a medication reconciliation was performed. During this call, the patient stated he had used 2 different nasal sprays prior to his ED pres­entation.

The pharmacist asked him to read the names of each medication. He related the first was naloxone and the second, fluticasone (neither of which was included on his medication list). Upon further questioning, the pharmacist elicited clarification from the patient that he had, in fact, taken 2 doses of naloxone, shortly after which his vomiting began.

Continue to: This additional history...

This additional history suggested the patient’s true diagnosis was acute opioid withdrawal precipitated by his accidental self-administration of naloxone.

DISCUSSION

Naloxone is a pure mu-opioid receptor antagonist that is used for opioid overdose.¹ In the past decade, in response to the opioid epidemic, naloxone has become increasingly available in the community as a way of decreasing opioid-related deaths.^1,2 The US Food and Drug Administration recommends that all patients who are prescribed opioids for pain or opioid use disorder, as well as those who are at increased risk for opioid overdose, should be prescribed naloxone and educated on its use. Patients who received a naloxone prescription from their primary care provider have been found to have 47% fewer opioid-related ED visits.³

Quick effects, potential for complications. Use of naloxone can rapidly induce opioid withdrawal symptoms, including gastrointestinal effects, tachycardia, and agitation, as well as diaphoresis, shivering, lacrimation, tremor, anxiety, mydriasis, and hypertension. Naloxone use can also lead to severe complications, such as violent behaviors, ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, asystole, or pulmonary edema, in the period immediately following administration.⁴ These effects most often subside within 20 to 60 minutes after administration of naloxone, as the antagonist effect wears off.

The treatment of naloxone toxicity is supportive, with particular attention paid to the patient’s mental and respiratory status.

Our patient was advised by his primary care physician on the proper use of all of his medications, including nasal sprays. The clinic pharmacist also met with him for an additional educational session on the proper use of naloxone.

Continue to: THE TAKEAWAY

THE TAKEAWAY

Given the widespread use of naloxone, proper education and counselling regarding this medication is crucial. Patients should be advised of what to expect after its use. In addition, physicians should always maintain updated patient medication lists, ensuring that they include naloxone if it has been prescribed for use as needed for opioid reversal, to assist in the emergency treatment of affected patients.⁵

CORRESPONDENCE
Erik Weitz, DO, Troy Beaumont Family Medicine Residency, 44250 Dequindre Road, Sterling Heights, MI 48314; [email protected]

Exercise helps patients with knee osteoarthritis, but more isn’t necessarily better, new research shows.

A low-dose exercise regimen helped patients with knee OA about as much as a more intense workout plan, according to trial results published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

kali9/Getty Images

Both high and low doses of exercise reduced pain and improved function and quality of life.

The improvements with the lower-dose plan and its 98% adherence rate are encouraging, said Nick Trasolini, MD, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“This is a very doable amount of medical exercise therapy for patients with knee osteoarthritis, and one that makes a big difference in patient-reported symptoms,” Dr. Trasolini, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.
 

What’s the right dose?

Exercise is a go-to treatment for knee OA, but the precise dose to recommend has been unclear. To study this question, Tom Arild Torstensen, MSc, RPT, with Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden, and Holten Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a trial at four centers in Sweden and Norway.

The study included 189 men and women with knee OA. Participants were randomly assigned to low- or high-dose exercise plans, which they performed three times per week for 12 weeks under the supervision of a physiotherapist.

Participants in the high-dose group performed 11 exercises during each session, which lasted 70-90 minutes.

The low-dose regimen consisted of five exercises – cycling, squats, step-ups, step-downs, and knee extensions – performed for 20–30 minutes.

The researchers measured outcomes using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, which assesses pain, other symptoms, function in daily living, function in sports and recreation, and knee-related quality of life.

“Patients in both groups improved significantly over time, but high-dose exercise was not superior to low-dose exercise in most comparisons,” the study investigators reported

High-dose exercise was associated with better function in sports and recreational activity and knee-related quality of life at 6 months. Those differences did not persist at 1 year, however. The researchers reported no safety concerns with either intervention.

Adherence was “nearly perfect” in the low-dose group. It was slightly lower in the high-dose group, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, it seems that high-dose treatment could be preferable to low-dose treatment in the long run for people who lead active lives,” they wrote. “This should be the subject of future studies.”

All clinical practice guidelines for knee OA recommend exercise, but “we do not know the optimal dose,” Kim Bennell, PhD, a research physiotherapist at the University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

Dose has components, including number of times per week, number of exercises, sets and repetitions, intensity, and duration of exercise sessions, Dr. Bennell said.

“These results suggest that an exercise program that involves less time and fewer exercises can still offer benefits and may be easier for patients to undertake and stick at than one that involves greater time and effort,” she said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Rheumatic Fund. Dr. Trasolini and Dr. Bennell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exercise helps patients with knee osteoarthritis, but more isn’t necessarily better, new research shows.

A low-dose exercise regimen helped patients with knee OA about as much as a more intense workout plan, according to trial results published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

kali9/Getty Images

Both high and low doses of exercise reduced pain and improved function and quality of life.

The improvements with the lower-dose plan and its 98% adherence rate are encouraging, said Nick Trasolini, MD, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“This is a very doable amount of medical exercise therapy for patients with knee osteoarthritis, and one that makes a big difference in patient-reported symptoms,” Dr. Trasolini, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.
 

What’s the right dose?

Exercise is a go-to treatment for knee OA, but the precise dose to recommend has been unclear. To study this question, Tom Arild Torstensen, MSc, RPT, with Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden, and Holten Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a trial at four centers in Sweden and Norway.

The study included 189 men and women with knee OA. Participants were randomly assigned to low- or high-dose exercise plans, which they performed three times per week for 12 weeks under the supervision of a physiotherapist.

Participants in the high-dose group performed 11 exercises during each session, which lasted 70-90 minutes.

The low-dose regimen consisted of five exercises – cycling, squats, step-ups, step-downs, and knee extensions – performed for 20–30 minutes.

The researchers measured outcomes using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, which assesses pain, other symptoms, function in daily living, function in sports and recreation, and knee-related quality of life.

“Patients in both groups improved significantly over time, but high-dose exercise was not superior to low-dose exercise in most comparisons,” the study investigators reported

High-dose exercise was associated with better function in sports and recreational activity and knee-related quality of life at 6 months. Those differences did not persist at 1 year, however. The researchers reported no safety concerns with either intervention.

Adherence was “nearly perfect” in the low-dose group. It was slightly lower in the high-dose group, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, it seems that high-dose treatment could be preferable to low-dose treatment in the long run for people who lead active lives,” they wrote. “This should be the subject of future studies.”

All clinical practice guidelines for knee OA recommend exercise, but “we do not know the optimal dose,” Kim Bennell, PhD, a research physiotherapist at the University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

Dose has components, including number of times per week, number of exercises, sets and repetitions, intensity, and duration of exercise sessions, Dr. Bennell said.

“These results suggest that an exercise program that involves less time and fewer exercises can still offer benefits and may be easier for patients to undertake and stick at than one that involves greater time and effort,” she said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Rheumatic Fund. Dr. Trasolini and Dr. Bennell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exercise helps patients with knee osteoarthritis, but more isn’t necessarily better, new research shows.

A low-dose exercise regimen helped patients with knee OA about as much as a more intense workout plan, according to trial results published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

kali9/Getty Images

Both high and low doses of exercise reduced pain and improved function and quality of life.

The improvements with the lower-dose plan and its 98% adherence rate are encouraging, said Nick Trasolini, MD, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“This is a very doable amount of medical exercise therapy for patients with knee osteoarthritis, and one that makes a big difference in patient-reported symptoms,” Dr. Trasolini, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.
 

What’s the right dose?

Exercise is a go-to treatment for knee OA, but the precise dose to recommend has been unclear. To study this question, Tom Arild Torstensen, MSc, RPT, with Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden, and Holten Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a trial at four centers in Sweden and Norway.

The study included 189 men and women with knee OA. Participants were randomly assigned to low- or high-dose exercise plans, which they performed three times per week for 12 weeks under the supervision of a physiotherapist.

Participants in the high-dose group performed 11 exercises during each session, which lasted 70-90 minutes.

The low-dose regimen consisted of five exercises – cycling, squats, step-ups, step-downs, and knee extensions – performed for 20–30 minutes.

The researchers measured outcomes using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, which assesses pain, other symptoms, function in daily living, function in sports and recreation, and knee-related quality of life.

“Patients in both groups improved significantly over time, but high-dose exercise was not superior to low-dose exercise in most comparisons,” the study investigators reported

High-dose exercise was associated with better function in sports and recreational activity and knee-related quality of life at 6 months. Those differences did not persist at 1 year, however. The researchers reported no safety concerns with either intervention.

Adherence was “nearly perfect” in the low-dose group. It was slightly lower in the high-dose group, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, it seems that high-dose treatment could be preferable to low-dose treatment in the long run for people who lead active lives,” they wrote. “This should be the subject of future studies.”

All clinical practice guidelines for knee OA recommend exercise, but “we do not know the optimal dose,” Kim Bennell, PhD, a research physiotherapist at the University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

Dose has components, including number of times per week, number of exercises, sets and repetitions, intensity, and duration of exercise sessions, Dr. Bennell said.

“These results suggest that an exercise program that involves less time and fewer exercises can still offer benefits and may be easier for patients to undertake and stick at than one that involves greater time and effort,” she said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Rheumatic Fund. Dr. Trasolini and Dr. Bennell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

Delay in treatment will cost hospital millions

A Texas hospital must pay a multimillion-dollar judgment for failing to treat a woman’s spinal injury in time to prevent paralysis, according to a report on WFAA.com, among other news sites.

On March 21, 2019, Judy “Jessie” Adams, then part of a singing-songwriting duo with her husband, Richard, went to Premier Interventional Pain Management, in Flower Mound, Tex., prior to the couple’s drive to Ohio for a funeral. At Premier, Jesse received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) that she hoped would ease her back pain during the long drive.

Instead, the injection ended up increasing her pain.

“He [the pain physician] gave me the shot, but I couldn’t feel my legs. They were tingling, but I couldn’t feel them,” Mrs. Adams explained. “The pain was so bad in my back.” In their suit, Adams and her husband alleged that the doctor had probably “nicked a blood vessel during the ESI procedure, causing Jessie to hemorrhage.” (The couple’s suit against the doctor was settled prior to trial.)

Mrs. Adams remained under observation at the pain facility for about 1½ hours, at which point she was taken by ambulance to nearby Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. There, in the emergency department, staff ordered a “STAT MRI” in preparation for an emergency laminectomy.

For reasons that remain murky, the MRI wasn’t performed for 1 hour and 37 minutes. The emergency laminectomy itself wasn’t started until more than 5 hours after Adams had been admitted to the ED. This was a direct violation of hospital protocol, which required that emergency surgeries be performed within 1 hour of admittance in the first available surgical suite. (At trial, Mrs. Adams’s attorneys from Lyons & Simmons offered evidence that a suite became available 49 minutes after Adams had arrived at the ED.)

During the wait, Mrs. Adams continued to experience excruciating pain. “I kept screaming: ‘Help me,’ ” she recalled. At trial, her attorneys argued that the hospital’s delay in addressing her spinal emergency led directly to her current paralysis, which keeps her confined to a wheelchair and renders her incontinent.

The hospital disagreed. In court, it maintained that Mrs. Adams was already paralyzed when she arrived at the ED and that there was no delay in care.

The jury saw things differently, however. Siding with the plaintiffs, it awarded Mrs. Adams and her husband $10.1 million, including $500,000 for Mr. Adams’s loss of future earnings and $1 million for his “loss of consortium” with his wife.

Their music career now effectively over, Mr. Adams spends most of his time taking care of Mrs. Adams.

“Music was our lifeblood for so many years, and he can’t do it anymore,” Mrs. Adams said. “He goes upstairs to play his guitar and write, and suddenly I need him to come and cath me. I just feel like I’m going to wake up from this bad dream, but it’s the same routine.”
 

Two doctors are absolved in woman’s sudden death

In a 3-2 decision in December 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations in wrongful-death cases applies even in cases in which plaintiffs fail to identify the cause of death in a timely manner, as a report in the Claims Journal indicates.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Linda Reibenstein on behalf of her mother, Mary Ann Whitman, who died in late April 2010 from a ruptured aortic aneurysm.

On April 12, 2010, Ms. Whitman visited Patrick D. Conaboy, MD, a Scranton family physician, complaining of a persistent cough, fever, and lower-back pain. Following an initial examination, Dr. Conaboy ordered an aortic duplex ultrasound scan and a CT scan of the patient’s abdomen.

The ultrasound was performed by radiologist Charles Barax, MD, who reviewed both scans. He identified a “poorly visualized aortic aneurysm.” At this point, Dr. Conaboy referred Ms. Whitman to a vascular surgeon. But before this visit could take place, Whitman’s aneurysm ruptured, killing her. This was listed as the medical cause of death on the patient’s death certificate.

In April 2011, Ms. Reibenstein filed a claim against Dr. Barax, alleging that he had failed to gauge the severity of her mother’s condition. Ms. Reibenstein’s attorney wasn’t able to question Dr. Barax on the record until well after the state’s 2-year statute of limitations had elapsed. When he did testify, Dr. Barax explained that the scans’ image quality prevented him from determining whether Whitman’s aneurysm was rupturing or simply bleeding. Despite this, he insisted that he had warned Dr. Conaboy of the potential for Ms. Whitman’s aneurysm to rupture.

In March 2016, nearly 6 years after her mother’s death, Ms. Reibenstein filed a new lawsuit, this one against Dr. Conaboy, whom she alleged had failed to properly treat her mother’s condition. Dr. Conaboy, in turn, asked the court for summary judgment – that is, a judgment in his favor without a full trial – arguing that the state’s window for filing a wrongful-death claim had long since closed. For their part, Ms. Reibenstein and her attorney argued that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations didn’t start until the plaintiff had discovered the cause of her mother’s death.

Initially refusing to dismiss the case, a lower court reconsidered Dr. Conaboy’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Ms. Reibenstein had failed to present any evidence of “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.” In other words, in the absence of any willful attempt on the part of the defendant to hide the legal cause of death, which includes “acts, omissions, or events having some causative connection with the death,” the statute of limitations remained in effect, and the defendant’s motion was thereby granted.

Continuing the legal seesaw, a state appeals court reversed the lower-court ruling. Noting that the Pennsylvania malpractice statute was ambiguous, the court argued that it should be interpreted in a way that protects plaintiffs who seek “fair compensation” but encounter willfully erected obstacles in pursuit of their claim.

Dr. Conaboy then took his case to the state’s highest court. In its majority decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court staked out a narrow definition of cause of death – one based on the death certificate – and ruled that only willful fraud in that document would constitute the necessary condition for halting the claim’s clock. Furthermore, the high court said, when lawmakers adopted the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act in 2002, they did so with no guarantee “that all of the information necessary to sustain a claim will be gathered in the limitations period.”

Similarly, the court ruled, “at some point the clock must run out, lest health care providers remain subject to liability exposure indefinitely, with the prospect of a trial marred by the death or diminished memory of material witnesses or the loss of critical evidence.”

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

Delay in treatment will cost hospital millions

A Texas hospital must pay a multimillion-dollar judgment for failing to treat a woman’s spinal injury in time to prevent paralysis, according to a report on WFAA.com, among other news sites.

On March 21, 2019, Judy “Jessie” Adams, then part of a singing-songwriting duo with her husband, Richard, went to Premier Interventional Pain Management, in Flower Mound, Tex., prior to the couple’s drive to Ohio for a funeral. At Premier, Jesse received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) that she hoped would ease her back pain during the long drive.

Instead, the injection ended up increasing her pain.

“He [the pain physician] gave me the shot, but I couldn’t feel my legs. They were tingling, but I couldn’t feel them,” Mrs. Adams explained. “The pain was so bad in my back.” In their suit, Adams and her husband alleged that the doctor had probably “nicked a blood vessel during the ESI procedure, causing Jessie to hemorrhage.” (The couple’s suit against the doctor was settled prior to trial.)

Mrs. Adams remained under observation at the pain facility for about 1½ hours, at which point she was taken by ambulance to nearby Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. There, in the emergency department, staff ordered a “STAT MRI” in preparation for an emergency laminectomy.

For reasons that remain murky, the MRI wasn’t performed for 1 hour and 37 minutes. The emergency laminectomy itself wasn’t started until more than 5 hours after Adams had been admitted to the ED. This was a direct violation of hospital protocol, which required that emergency surgeries be performed within 1 hour of admittance in the first available surgical suite. (At trial, Mrs. Adams’s attorneys from Lyons & Simmons offered evidence that a suite became available 49 minutes after Adams had arrived at the ED.)

During the wait, Mrs. Adams continued to experience excruciating pain. “I kept screaming: ‘Help me,’ ” she recalled. At trial, her attorneys argued that the hospital’s delay in addressing her spinal emergency led directly to her current paralysis, which keeps her confined to a wheelchair and renders her incontinent.

The hospital disagreed. In court, it maintained that Mrs. Adams was already paralyzed when she arrived at the ED and that there was no delay in care.

The jury saw things differently, however. Siding with the plaintiffs, it awarded Mrs. Adams and her husband $10.1 million, including $500,000 for Mr. Adams’s loss of future earnings and $1 million for his “loss of consortium” with his wife.

Their music career now effectively over, Mr. Adams spends most of his time taking care of Mrs. Adams.

“Music was our lifeblood for so many years, and he can’t do it anymore,” Mrs. Adams said. “He goes upstairs to play his guitar and write, and suddenly I need him to come and cath me. I just feel like I’m going to wake up from this bad dream, but it’s the same routine.”
 

Two doctors are absolved in woman’s sudden death

In a 3-2 decision in December 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations in wrongful-death cases applies even in cases in which plaintiffs fail to identify the cause of death in a timely manner, as a report in the Claims Journal indicates.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Linda Reibenstein on behalf of her mother, Mary Ann Whitman, who died in late April 2010 from a ruptured aortic aneurysm.

On April 12, 2010, Ms. Whitman visited Patrick D. Conaboy, MD, a Scranton family physician, complaining of a persistent cough, fever, and lower-back pain. Following an initial examination, Dr. Conaboy ordered an aortic duplex ultrasound scan and a CT scan of the patient’s abdomen.

The ultrasound was performed by radiologist Charles Barax, MD, who reviewed both scans. He identified a “poorly visualized aortic aneurysm.” At this point, Dr. Conaboy referred Ms. Whitman to a vascular surgeon. But before this visit could take place, Whitman’s aneurysm ruptured, killing her. This was listed as the medical cause of death on the patient’s death certificate.

In April 2011, Ms. Reibenstein filed a claim against Dr. Barax, alleging that he had failed to gauge the severity of her mother’s condition. Ms. Reibenstein’s attorney wasn’t able to question Dr. Barax on the record until well after the state’s 2-year statute of limitations had elapsed. When he did testify, Dr. Barax explained that the scans’ image quality prevented him from determining whether Whitman’s aneurysm was rupturing or simply bleeding. Despite this, he insisted that he had warned Dr. Conaboy of the potential for Ms. Whitman’s aneurysm to rupture.

In March 2016, nearly 6 years after her mother’s death, Ms. Reibenstein filed a new lawsuit, this one against Dr. Conaboy, whom she alleged had failed to properly treat her mother’s condition. Dr. Conaboy, in turn, asked the court for summary judgment – that is, a judgment in his favor without a full trial – arguing that the state’s window for filing a wrongful-death claim had long since closed. For their part, Ms. Reibenstein and her attorney argued that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations didn’t start until the plaintiff had discovered the cause of her mother’s death.

Initially refusing to dismiss the case, a lower court reconsidered Dr. Conaboy’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Ms. Reibenstein had failed to present any evidence of “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.” In other words, in the absence of any willful attempt on the part of the defendant to hide the legal cause of death, which includes “acts, omissions, or events having some causative connection with the death,” the statute of limitations remained in effect, and the defendant’s motion was thereby granted.

Continuing the legal seesaw, a state appeals court reversed the lower-court ruling. Noting that the Pennsylvania malpractice statute was ambiguous, the court argued that it should be interpreted in a way that protects plaintiffs who seek “fair compensation” but encounter willfully erected obstacles in pursuit of their claim.

Dr. Conaboy then took his case to the state’s highest court. In its majority decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court staked out a narrow definition of cause of death – one based on the death certificate – and ruled that only willful fraud in that document would constitute the necessary condition for halting the claim’s clock. Furthermore, the high court said, when lawmakers adopted the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act in 2002, they did so with no guarantee “that all of the information necessary to sustain a claim will be gathered in the limitations period.”

Similarly, the court ruled, “at some point the clock must run out, lest health care providers remain subject to liability exposure indefinitely, with the prospect of a trial marred by the death or diminished memory of material witnesses or the loss of critical evidence.”

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

Delay in treatment will cost hospital millions

A Texas hospital must pay a multimillion-dollar judgment for failing to treat a woman’s spinal injury in time to prevent paralysis, according to a report on WFAA.com, among other news sites.

On March 21, 2019, Judy “Jessie” Adams, then part of a singing-songwriting duo with her husband, Richard, went to Premier Interventional Pain Management, in Flower Mound, Tex., prior to the couple’s drive to Ohio for a funeral. At Premier, Jesse received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) that she hoped would ease her back pain during the long drive.

Instead, the injection ended up increasing her pain.

“He [the pain physician] gave me the shot, but I couldn’t feel my legs. They were tingling, but I couldn’t feel them,” Mrs. Adams explained. “The pain was so bad in my back.” In their suit, Adams and her husband alleged that the doctor had probably “nicked a blood vessel during the ESI procedure, causing Jessie to hemorrhage.” (The couple’s suit against the doctor was settled prior to trial.)

Mrs. Adams remained under observation at the pain facility for about 1½ hours, at which point she was taken by ambulance to nearby Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. There, in the emergency department, staff ordered a “STAT MRI” in preparation for an emergency laminectomy.

For reasons that remain murky, the MRI wasn’t performed for 1 hour and 37 minutes. The emergency laminectomy itself wasn’t started until more than 5 hours after Adams had been admitted to the ED. This was a direct violation of hospital protocol, which required that emergency surgeries be performed within 1 hour of admittance in the first available surgical suite. (At trial, Mrs. Adams’s attorneys from Lyons & Simmons offered evidence that a suite became available 49 minutes after Adams had arrived at the ED.)

During the wait, Mrs. Adams continued to experience excruciating pain. “I kept screaming: ‘Help me,’ ” she recalled. At trial, her attorneys argued that the hospital’s delay in addressing her spinal emergency led directly to her current paralysis, which keeps her confined to a wheelchair and renders her incontinent.

The hospital disagreed. In court, it maintained that Mrs. Adams was already paralyzed when she arrived at the ED and that there was no delay in care.

The jury saw things differently, however. Siding with the plaintiffs, it awarded Mrs. Adams and her husband $10.1 million, including $500,000 for Mr. Adams’s loss of future earnings and $1 million for his “loss of consortium” with his wife.

Their music career now effectively over, Mr. Adams spends most of his time taking care of Mrs. Adams.

“Music was our lifeblood for so many years, and he can’t do it anymore,” Mrs. Adams said. “He goes upstairs to play his guitar and write, and suddenly I need him to come and cath me. I just feel like I’m going to wake up from this bad dream, but it’s the same routine.”
 

Two doctors are absolved in woman’s sudden death

In a 3-2 decision in December 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations in wrongful-death cases applies even in cases in which plaintiffs fail to identify the cause of death in a timely manner, as a report in the Claims Journal indicates.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Linda Reibenstein on behalf of her mother, Mary Ann Whitman, who died in late April 2010 from a ruptured aortic aneurysm.

On April 12, 2010, Ms. Whitman visited Patrick D. Conaboy, MD, a Scranton family physician, complaining of a persistent cough, fever, and lower-back pain. Following an initial examination, Dr. Conaboy ordered an aortic duplex ultrasound scan and a CT scan of the patient’s abdomen.

The ultrasound was performed by radiologist Charles Barax, MD, who reviewed both scans. He identified a “poorly visualized aortic aneurysm.” At this point, Dr. Conaboy referred Ms. Whitman to a vascular surgeon. But before this visit could take place, Whitman’s aneurysm ruptured, killing her. This was listed as the medical cause of death on the patient’s death certificate.

In April 2011, Ms. Reibenstein filed a claim against Dr. Barax, alleging that he had failed to gauge the severity of her mother’s condition. Ms. Reibenstein’s attorney wasn’t able to question Dr. Barax on the record until well after the state’s 2-year statute of limitations had elapsed. When he did testify, Dr. Barax explained that the scans’ image quality prevented him from determining whether Whitman’s aneurysm was rupturing or simply bleeding. Despite this, he insisted that he had warned Dr. Conaboy of the potential for Ms. Whitman’s aneurysm to rupture.

In March 2016, nearly 6 years after her mother’s death, Ms. Reibenstein filed a new lawsuit, this one against Dr. Conaboy, whom she alleged had failed to properly treat her mother’s condition. Dr. Conaboy, in turn, asked the court for summary judgment – that is, a judgment in his favor without a full trial – arguing that the state’s window for filing a wrongful-death claim had long since closed. For their part, Ms. Reibenstein and her attorney argued that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations didn’t start until the plaintiff had discovered the cause of her mother’s death.

Initially refusing to dismiss the case, a lower court reconsidered Dr. Conaboy’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Ms. Reibenstein had failed to present any evidence of “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.” In other words, in the absence of any willful attempt on the part of the defendant to hide the legal cause of death, which includes “acts, omissions, or events having some causative connection with the death,” the statute of limitations remained in effect, and the defendant’s motion was thereby granted.

Continuing the legal seesaw, a state appeals court reversed the lower-court ruling. Noting that the Pennsylvania malpractice statute was ambiguous, the court argued that it should be interpreted in a way that protects plaintiffs who seek “fair compensation” but encounter willfully erected obstacles in pursuit of their claim.

Dr. Conaboy then took his case to the state’s highest court. In its majority decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court staked out a narrow definition of cause of death – one based on the death certificate – and ruled that only willful fraud in that document would constitute the necessary condition for halting the claim’s clock. Furthermore, the high court said, when lawmakers adopted the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act in 2002, they did so with no guarantee “that all of the information necessary to sustain a claim will be gathered in the limitations period.”

Similarly, the court ruled, “at some point the clock must run out, lest health care providers remain subject to liability exposure indefinitely, with the prospect of a trial marred by the death or diminished memory of material witnesses or the loss of critical evidence.”

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

Long COVID is typically characterized by anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations, with younger patients showing greatest improvements at 1 year, according to a nationwide cohort study conducted in Israel.

These findings help define long COVID, guiding providers and patients through the recovery process, Barak Mizrahi, MSc, of KI Research Institute, Kfar Malal, Israel, and colleagues reported.

“To provide efficient continuous treatment and prevent adverse events related to potential long term effects and delayed symptoms of COVID-19, determining the magnitude and severity of this phenomenon and distinguishing it from similar clinical manifestations that occur normally or following infections with other pathogens is essential,” the investigators wrote in The BMJ.

To this end, they conducted a retrospective, nationwide cohort study involving 1,913,234 people who took a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2021. They compared a range of long-term outcomes at different intervals post infection, and compared these trends across subgroups sorted by age, sex, and variant. Outcomes ranged broadly, including respiratory disorders, cough, arthralgia, weakness, hair loss, and others.

The investigators compared hazard ratios for each of these outcomes among patients who tested positive versus those who tested negative at three intervals after testing: 30-90 days, 30-180 days, and 180-360 days. Statistically significant differences in the risks of these outcomes between infected versus uninfected groups suggested that COVID was playing a role.

“The health outcomes that represent long COVID showed a significant increase in both early and late phases,” the investigators wrote. These outcomes included anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations. In contrast, chest pain, myalgia, arthralgia, cough, and dizziness were associated with patients who were in the early phase, but not the late phase of long COVID.

“Vaccinated patients with a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection had a lower risk for dyspnea and similar risk for other outcomes compared with unvaccinated infected patients,” the investigators noted.

For the long COVID outcomes, plots of risk differences over time showed that symptoms tended to get milder or resolve within a few months to a year. Patients 41-60 years were most likely to be impacted by long COVID outcomes, and show least improvement at 1 year, compared with other age groups.

“We believe that these findings will shed light on what is ‘long COVID’, support patients and doctors, and facilitate better and more efficient care,” Mr. Mizrahi and coauthor Maytal Bivas-Benita, PhD said in a joint written comment. “Primary care physicians (and patients) will now more clearly understand what are the symptoms that might be related to COVID and for how long they might linger. This would help physicians monitor the patients efficiently, ease their patients’ concerns and navigate a more efficient disease management.”

They suggested that the findings should hold consistent for future variants, although they could not “rule out the possibility of the emergence of new and more severe variants which will be more virulent and cause a more severe illness.”

One “major limitation” of the study, according to Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a physiatrist and professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, is the lack of data for fatigue and dysautonomia, which are “the major presentations” that she sees in her long COVID clinic.

“The authors of the article focus on the primary damage being related to the lungs, though we know this is a systemic disease beyond the respiratory system, with endothelial dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez, who is also director of COVID recovery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, said in an interview.

Although it was reassuring to see that younger adults with long COVID trended toward improvement, she noted that patients 41-60 years “still had pretty significant symptoms” after 12 months.

“That [age group comprises] probably the majority of my patients that I’m seeing in the long COVID clinic,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “If you look at the whole thing, it looks better, but then when you drill down to that age group where you’re seeing patients, then it’s not.”

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez is so busy managing patients with long COVID that new appointments in her clinic are now delayed until May 31, so most patients will remain under the care of their primary care providers. She recommended that these physicians follow guidance from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, who offer consensus statements based on clinical characteristics, with separate recommendations for pediatric patients.

Our understanding of long COVID will continue to improve, and with it, available recommendations, she predicted, but further advances will require persistent effort.

“I think no matter what this [study] shows us, more research is needed,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “We can’t just forget about it, just because there is a population of people who get better. What about the ones who don’t?”

The investigators and Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Long COVID is typically characterized by anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations, with younger patients showing greatest improvements at 1 year, according to a nationwide cohort study conducted in Israel.

These findings help define long COVID, guiding providers and patients through the recovery process, Barak Mizrahi, MSc, of KI Research Institute, Kfar Malal, Israel, and colleagues reported.

“To provide efficient continuous treatment and prevent adverse events related to potential long term effects and delayed symptoms of COVID-19, determining the magnitude and severity of this phenomenon and distinguishing it from similar clinical manifestations that occur normally or following infections with other pathogens is essential,” the investigators wrote in The BMJ.

To this end, they conducted a retrospective, nationwide cohort study involving 1,913,234 people who took a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2021. They compared a range of long-term outcomes at different intervals post infection, and compared these trends across subgroups sorted by age, sex, and variant. Outcomes ranged broadly, including respiratory disorders, cough, arthralgia, weakness, hair loss, and others.

The investigators compared hazard ratios for each of these outcomes among patients who tested positive versus those who tested negative at three intervals after testing: 30-90 days, 30-180 days, and 180-360 days. Statistically significant differences in the risks of these outcomes between infected versus uninfected groups suggested that COVID was playing a role.

“The health outcomes that represent long COVID showed a significant increase in both early and late phases,” the investigators wrote. These outcomes included anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations. In contrast, chest pain, myalgia, arthralgia, cough, and dizziness were associated with patients who were in the early phase, but not the late phase of long COVID.

“Vaccinated patients with a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection had a lower risk for dyspnea and similar risk for other outcomes compared with unvaccinated infected patients,” the investigators noted.

For the long COVID outcomes, plots of risk differences over time showed that symptoms tended to get milder or resolve within a few months to a year. Patients 41-60 years were most likely to be impacted by long COVID outcomes, and show least improvement at 1 year, compared with other age groups.

“We believe that these findings will shed light on what is ‘long COVID’, support patients and doctors, and facilitate better and more efficient care,” Mr. Mizrahi and coauthor Maytal Bivas-Benita, PhD said in a joint written comment. “Primary care physicians (and patients) will now more clearly understand what are the symptoms that might be related to COVID and for how long they might linger. This would help physicians monitor the patients efficiently, ease their patients’ concerns and navigate a more efficient disease management.”

They suggested that the findings should hold consistent for future variants, although they could not “rule out the possibility of the emergence of new and more severe variants which will be more virulent and cause a more severe illness.”

One “major limitation” of the study, according to Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a physiatrist and professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, is the lack of data for fatigue and dysautonomia, which are “the major presentations” that she sees in her long COVID clinic.

“The authors of the article focus on the primary damage being related to the lungs, though we know this is a systemic disease beyond the respiratory system, with endothelial dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez, who is also director of COVID recovery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, said in an interview.

Although it was reassuring to see that younger adults with long COVID trended toward improvement, she noted that patients 41-60 years “still had pretty significant symptoms” after 12 months.

“That [age group comprises] probably the majority of my patients that I’m seeing in the long COVID clinic,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “If you look at the whole thing, it looks better, but then when you drill down to that age group where you’re seeing patients, then it’s not.”

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez is so busy managing patients with long COVID that new appointments in her clinic are now delayed until May 31, so most patients will remain under the care of their primary care providers. She recommended that these physicians follow guidance from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, who offer consensus statements based on clinical characteristics, with separate recommendations for pediatric patients.

Our understanding of long COVID will continue to improve, and with it, available recommendations, she predicted, but further advances will require persistent effort.

“I think no matter what this [study] shows us, more research is needed,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “We can’t just forget about it, just because there is a population of people who get better. What about the ones who don’t?”

The investigators and Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Long COVID is typically characterized by anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations, with younger patients showing greatest improvements at 1 year, according to a nationwide cohort study conducted in Israel.

These findings help define long COVID, guiding providers and patients through the recovery process, Barak Mizrahi, MSc, of KI Research Institute, Kfar Malal, Israel, and colleagues reported.

“To provide efficient continuous treatment and prevent adverse events related to potential long term effects and delayed symptoms of COVID-19, determining the magnitude and severity of this phenomenon and distinguishing it from similar clinical manifestations that occur normally or following infections with other pathogens is essential,” the investigators wrote in The BMJ.

To this end, they conducted a retrospective, nationwide cohort study involving 1,913,234 people who took a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2021. They compared a range of long-term outcomes at different intervals post infection, and compared these trends across subgroups sorted by age, sex, and variant. Outcomes ranged broadly, including respiratory disorders, cough, arthralgia, weakness, hair loss, and others.

The investigators compared hazard ratios for each of these outcomes among patients who tested positive versus those who tested negative at three intervals after testing: 30-90 days, 30-180 days, and 180-360 days. Statistically significant differences in the risks of these outcomes between infected versus uninfected groups suggested that COVID was playing a role.

“The health outcomes that represent long COVID showed a significant increase in both early and late phases,” the investigators wrote. These outcomes included anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations. In contrast, chest pain, myalgia, arthralgia, cough, and dizziness were associated with patients who were in the early phase, but not the late phase of long COVID.

“Vaccinated patients with a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection had a lower risk for dyspnea and similar risk for other outcomes compared with unvaccinated infected patients,” the investigators noted.

For the long COVID outcomes, plots of risk differences over time showed that symptoms tended to get milder or resolve within a few months to a year. Patients 41-60 years were most likely to be impacted by long COVID outcomes, and show least improvement at 1 year, compared with other age groups.

“We believe that these findings will shed light on what is ‘long COVID’, support patients and doctors, and facilitate better and more efficient care,” Mr. Mizrahi and coauthor Maytal Bivas-Benita, PhD said in a joint written comment. “Primary care physicians (and patients) will now more clearly understand what are the symptoms that might be related to COVID and for how long they might linger. This would help physicians monitor the patients efficiently, ease their patients’ concerns and navigate a more efficient disease management.”

They suggested that the findings should hold consistent for future variants, although they could not “rule out the possibility of the emergence of new and more severe variants which will be more virulent and cause a more severe illness.”

One “major limitation” of the study, according to Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a physiatrist and professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, is the lack of data for fatigue and dysautonomia, which are “the major presentations” that she sees in her long COVID clinic.

“The authors of the article focus on the primary damage being related to the lungs, though we know this is a systemic disease beyond the respiratory system, with endothelial dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez, who is also director of COVID recovery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, said in an interview.

Although it was reassuring to see that younger adults with long COVID trended toward improvement, she noted that patients 41-60 years “still had pretty significant symptoms” after 12 months.

“That [age group comprises] probably the majority of my patients that I’m seeing in the long COVID clinic,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “If you look at the whole thing, it looks better, but then when you drill down to that age group where you’re seeing patients, then it’s not.”

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez is so busy managing patients with long COVID that new appointments in her clinic are now delayed until May 31, so most patients will remain under the care of their primary care providers. She recommended that these physicians follow guidance from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, who offer consensus statements based on clinical characteristics, with separate recommendations for pediatric patients.

Our understanding of long COVID will continue to improve, and with it, available recommendations, she predicted, but further advances will require persistent effort.

“I think no matter what this [study] shows us, more research is needed,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “We can’t just forget about it, just because there is a population of people who get better. What about the ones who don’t?”

The investigators and Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

Two conservative interventions are effective for treating acute and subacute spine pain, new research suggests.

Results from the SPINE CARE randomized controlled trial showed that 6-8 weeks of an individualized postural therapy (IPT) or a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention known as ICE (identify, coordinate, and enhance) that includes physical therapy were associated with small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months compared with usual care.

In addition, spine-related health care spending did not differ significantly between ICE and usual care. However, IPT significantly increased spending compared with usual care.

“We found that, compared to usual primary care, both interventions reduced pain-related disability at 3 months and that these changes were sustained and clinically meaningful at 12 months – long after the interventions were over,” lead author Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Common complaint

Spine pain is defined as pain that occurs in the neck or back, the investigators noted. It “accounted for more health spending than any other health condition in the U.S. in 2016,” they added.

“Spine pain is an exceptionally common reason for patients to visit their primary care providers,” Dr. Choudhry said.

The SPINE CARE trial enrolled 2,971 adults (60% were women; mean age was 51 years) with back or neck pain that had lasted less than 12 weeks. All were randomly allocated to usual care (no intervention, n = 992) or to the ICE (n = 829) or IPT (n = 1150) interventions.

The ICE care model stratifies patients on the basis of their risk of progression from acute to chronic pain and addresses biopsychosocial contributors to pain. Low-risk patients received one physical therapy (PT) visit and one coaching call, while higher-risk patients received three PT visits, three coaching calls, and one e-consultation.

The IPT intervention, which was delivered in 8 weekly sessions, focuses on postural realignment. IPT also emphasizes self-efficacy and self-management, including daily exercises to improve postural control, coordination, and muscle balance.

Results at 3 months showed that both the ICE and IPT groups improved significantly more in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores than in the usual care group (ICE, 31.2 to 15.4; IPT, 29.3 to 15.4; usual care, 28.9 to 19.5).

At 3 months, the absolute difference in ODI score vs. usual care was −5.8 for ICE (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.7 to −3.9; P < .001) and −4.3 for IPT (95% CI, −5.9 to −2.6; P < .001) for IPT.

Both interventions reduced resource utilization, such as diagnostic imaging, procedures, and specialist visits, Dr. Choudhry reported. “Because of this, both reduced spending unrelated to the interventions themselves,” he added.

When the intervention costs were included, ICE resulted in lower costs overall than those of usual care ($139 less), while overall spending for IPT was higher than for usual care (by $941).

“We tested the interventions in a way that was integrated into primary care, so implementing them in other practice settings should be quite straightforward,” Dr. Choudhry said.

He noted that the ICE model does not currently exist as a complete program – but its components, such as physical therapy or specialist e-consults, do. “And we think that our results justify exploring how to set this up more broadly,” he said.

Dr. Choudhry added that IPT was tested using a specific provider (Egoscue), “which has locations in a variety of places in the U.S. and internationally, and so should also be straightforward to integrate into routine practice.”

However, other important factors, such as insurance coverage, will need to be explored in the future, he said.
 

Confirmatory evidence?

In an accompanying editorial, Erin Krebs, MD, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, and colleagues, noted that past systematic reviews have concluded that exercise therapies are “generally effective” for chronic back and neck pain, which is usually defined as pain lasting more than 12 weeks, but not for acute pain, defined as pain lasting less than 4-6 weeks.

“The present trial contributes evidence for effectiveness of exercise therapy among patients with a current episode of less than 12 weeks, meaning not yet chronic, but not necessarily acute,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clinicians should more often recommend structured exercise programs for subacute back or neck pain, especially when the pain is recurrent,” they added.

The study was funded by unrestricted philanthropic gifts to Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Choudhry received grants from Stanford University during the conduct of the study.

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

Two conservative interventions are effective for treating acute and subacute spine pain, new research suggests.

Results from the SPINE CARE randomized controlled trial showed that 6-8 weeks of an individualized postural therapy (IPT) or a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention known as ICE (identify, coordinate, and enhance) that includes physical therapy were associated with small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months compared with usual care.

In addition, spine-related health care spending did not differ significantly between ICE and usual care. However, IPT significantly increased spending compared with usual care.

“We found that, compared to usual primary care, both interventions reduced pain-related disability at 3 months and that these changes were sustained and clinically meaningful at 12 months – long after the interventions were over,” lead author Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Common complaint

Spine pain is defined as pain that occurs in the neck or back, the investigators noted. It “accounted for more health spending than any other health condition in the U.S. in 2016,” they added.

“Spine pain is an exceptionally common reason for patients to visit their primary care providers,” Dr. Choudhry said.

The SPINE CARE trial enrolled 2,971 adults (60% were women; mean age was 51 years) with back or neck pain that had lasted less than 12 weeks. All were randomly allocated to usual care (no intervention, n = 992) or to the ICE (n = 829) or IPT (n = 1150) interventions.

The ICE care model stratifies patients on the basis of their risk of progression from acute to chronic pain and addresses biopsychosocial contributors to pain. Low-risk patients received one physical therapy (PT) visit and one coaching call, while higher-risk patients received three PT visits, three coaching calls, and one e-consultation.

The IPT intervention, which was delivered in 8 weekly sessions, focuses on postural realignment. IPT also emphasizes self-efficacy and self-management, including daily exercises to improve postural control, coordination, and muscle balance.

Results at 3 months showed that both the ICE and IPT groups improved significantly more in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores than in the usual care group (ICE, 31.2 to 15.4; IPT, 29.3 to 15.4; usual care, 28.9 to 19.5).

At 3 months, the absolute difference in ODI score vs. usual care was −5.8 for ICE (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.7 to −3.9; P < .001) and −4.3 for IPT (95% CI, −5.9 to −2.6; P < .001) for IPT.

Both interventions reduced resource utilization, such as diagnostic imaging, procedures, and specialist visits, Dr. Choudhry reported. “Because of this, both reduced spending unrelated to the interventions themselves,” he added.

When the intervention costs were included, ICE resulted in lower costs overall than those of usual care ($139 less), while overall spending for IPT was higher than for usual care (by $941).

“We tested the interventions in a way that was integrated into primary care, so implementing them in other practice settings should be quite straightforward,” Dr. Choudhry said.

He noted that the ICE model does not currently exist as a complete program – but its components, such as physical therapy or specialist e-consults, do. “And we think that our results justify exploring how to set this up more broadly,” he said.

Dr. Choudhry added that IPT was tested using a specific provider (Egoscue), “which has locations in a variety of places in the U.S. and internationally, and so should also be straightforward to integrate into routine practice.”

However, other important factors, such as insurance coverage, will need to be explored in the future, he said.
 

Confirmatory evidence?

In an accompanying editorial, Erin Krebs, MD, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, and colleagues, noted that past systematic reviews have concluded that exercise therapies are “generally effective” for chronic back and neck pain, which is usually defined as pain lasting more than 12 weeks, but not for acute pain, defined as pain lasting less than 4-6 weeks.

“The present trial contributes evidence for effectiveness of exercise therapy among patients with a current episode of less than 12 weeks, meaning not yet chronic, but not necessarily acute,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clinicians should more often recommend structured exercise programs for subacute back or neck pain, especially when the pain is recurrent,” they added.

The study was funded by unrestricted philanthropic gifts to Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Choudhry received grants from Stanford University during the conduct of the study.

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

Two conservative interventions are effective for treating acute and subacute spine pain, new research suggests.

Results from the SPINE CARE randomized controlled trial showed that 6-8 weeks of an individualized postural therapy (IPT) or a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention known as ICE (identify, coordinate, and enhance) that includes physical therapy were associated with small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months compared with usual care.

In addition, spine-related health care spending did not differ significantly between ICE and usual care. However, IPT significantly increased spending compared with usual care.

“We found that, compared to usual primary care, both interventions reduced pain-related disability at 3 months and that these changes were sustained and clinically meaningful at 12 months – long after the interventions were over,” lead author Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Common complaint

Spine pain is defined as pain that occurs in the neck or back, the investigators noted. It “accounted for more health spending than any other health condition in the U.S. in 2016,” they added.

“Spine pain is an exceptionally common reason for patients to visit their primary care providers,” Dr. Choudhry said.

The SPINE CARE trial enrolled 2,971 adults (60% were women; mean age was 51 years) with back or neck pain that had lasted less than 12 weeks. All were randomly allocated to usual care (no intervention, n = 992) or to the ICE (n = 829) or IPT (n = 1150) interventions.

The ICE care model stratifies patients on the basis of their risk of progression from acute to chronic pain and addresses biopsychosocial contributors to pain. Low-risk patients received one physical therapy (PT) visit and one coaching call, while higher-risk patients received three PT visits, three coaching calls, and one e-consultation.

The IPT intervention, which was delivered in 8 weekly sessions, focuses on postural realignment. IPT also emphasizes self-efficacy and self-management, including daily exercises to improve postural control, coordination, and muscle balance.

Results at 3 months showed that both the ICE and IPT groups improved significantly more in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores than in the usual care group (ICE, 31.2 to 15.4; IPT, 29.3 to 15.4; usual care, 28.9 to 19.5).

At 3 months, the absolute difference in ODI score vs. usual care was −5.8 for ICE (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.7 to −3.9; P < .001) and −4.3 for IPT (95% CI, −5.9 to −2.6; P < .001) for IPT.

Both interventions reduced resource utilization, such as diagnostic imaging, procedures, and specialist visits, Dr. Choudhry reported. “Because of this, both reduced spending unrelated to the interventions themselves,” he added.

When the intervention costs were included, ICE resulted in lower costs overall than those of usual care ($139 less), while overall spending for IPT was higher than for usual care (by $941).

“We tested the interventions in a way that was integrated into primary care, so implementing them in other practice settings should be quite straightforward,” Dr. Choudhry said.

He noted that the ICE model does not currently exist as a complete program – but its components, such as physical therapy or specialist e-consults, do. “And we think that our results justify exploring how to set this up more broadly,” he said.

Dr. Choudhry added that IPT was tested using a specific provider (Egoscue), “which has locations in a variety of places in the U.S. and internationally, and so should also be straightforward to integrate into routine practice.”

However, other important factors, such as insurance coverage, will need to be explored in the future, he said.
 

Confirmatory evidence?

In an accompanying editorial, Erin Krebs, MD, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, and colleagues, noted that past systematic reviews have concluded that exercise therapies are “generally effective” for chronic back and neck pain, which is usually defined as pain lasting more than 12 weeks, but not for acute pain, defined as pain lasting less than 4-6 weeks.

“The present trial contributes evidence for effectiveness of exercise therapy among patients with a current episode of less than 12 weeks, meaning not yet chronic, but not necessarily acute,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clinicians should more often recommend structured exercise programs for subacute back or neck pain, especially when the pain is recurrent,” they added.

The study was funded by unrestricted philanthropic gifts to Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Choudhry received grants from Stanford University during the conduct of the study.

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

Cluster headache is associated with a significantly increased risk for comorbid conditions, including mental disorders and other neurologic disease, leading to significant disability and absenteeism, new research shows.

Results from a Swedish register-based study also showed that patients with cluster headache had a sixfold increased risk for central nervous system disorders and a twofold increased risk for musculoskeletal disorders.

Although cluster headaches are often more prevalent in men, researchers found that multimorbidity rates were significantly higher in women. In addition, rates of external injuries were significantly higher among individuals with cluster headache than among persons without cluster headache.

“The findings very clearly indicate that cluster headache patients suffer from other health issues as well and that they are at risk of having longer periods of times when they cannot work,” said lead investigator Caroline Ran, PhD, a research specialist in the department of neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

“It’s really important for clinicians to look at cluster headache from a broader perspective and make sure that patients are followed up so that they don’t risk ending up in a situation where they have several comorbidities,” Dr. Ran added.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

‘Striking’ finding

Cluster headache is one of the most severe and debilitating types of headache. It causes intense pain behind the eyes, which has been described as being worse than pain associated with childbirth or kidney stones.

Attacks can occur multiple times in a single day and can last up to 3 hours. Cluster headache is rare, occurring in about 1 in 1,000 individuals, and is more common in men. Underdiagnosis is common – especially in women.

The study drew on two Swedish population-based registries and included 3,240 patients with cluster headache aged 16-64 years and 16,200 matched control persons. The analysis covered medical visits from 2001 to 2010.

Results showed that 91.9% of participants with cluster headache had some type of multimorbidity. By comparison, 77.6% of the control group had some type of multimorbidity (odds ratio, 3.26; P < .0001).

Prior studies have shown a higher incidence of mental health and behavioral disorders among patients with cluster headache. However, when the researchers removed those conditions along with external injuries from the dataset, patients with headache were still significantly more likely to have multiple co-occurring illnesses (86.7% vs. 68.8%; OR, 2.95; P < .0001).

The most common comorbid conditions in the overall cluster headache group were diseases of the nervous system (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 5.46 -6.42); 51.8% of the cluster headache group reported these disorders, compared with just 15.4% of the control group.

Diseases of the eye, the respiratory, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal systems, and connective tissue were also significantly more common among patients with cluster headache.

“For each diagnosis that we investigated, we found a higher incidence in the cluster headache group, and we thought this was a very striking finding and worth discussing in the clinical setting that these patients are at risk of general ill health,” Dr. Ran said.
 

Risky behavior?

Another novel finding was the higher rate of external injuries among the cluster headache group, compared with the control group. The finding seems to back up the theory that patients with cluster headache are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, the researchers noted.

In the cluster headache group, external injuries were reported by 47.1% of men and 41% of women, versus 34.9% and 26.0%, respectively, in the control group.

“Now we can also show that cluster headache patients have more injuries and that is totally unrelated to the biological health of the individuals, so that could also indicate higher risk taking,” Dr. Ran said.

Overall multimorbidity rates and diagnoses in each medical category except external injury were higher among women with cluster headache than men with headaches. In addition, the mean number of days on sick leave and disability pension was higher among women with cluster headache than among men with cluster headache (83.71 days vs. 52.56 days).

Overall, the mean number of sickness absence and disability pension net days in 2010 was nearly twice as high in the cluster headache group as in the control group (63.15 days vs. 34.08 days).

Removing mental and behavioral health disorders from the mix did not lower those numbers.

“Our numbers indicate that the mental health issues that are related to cluster headache might not impact their work situation as much as the other comorbidities,” Dr. Ran said.
 

Struggle is real

Commenting on the findings, Heidi Schwarz, MD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, called the study a “valuable contribution” to the field and to the treatment of cluster headache.

“It’s a good study that addresses factors that really need to be considered as you take care of these patients,” said Dr. Schwarz, who was not involved with the research.

“The most salient features of this is that cluster headache is quite disabling, and if you add a comorbidity to it, it’s even more disabling,” she said.

Dr. Schwarz noted that cluster headache is often misdiagnosed as migraine or is overlooked altogether, especially in women. These data underscore that, although cluster headache is more common in men, it affects women too and could lead to even greater disability.

“This has a direct impact on patient quality of life, and in the end, that really should be what we’re looking to enhance,” Dr. Schwarz said. “When a patient with cluster comes in and they tell you they’re really struggling, believe them because it’s quite real.”

The findings also fill a gap in the literature and offer the kind of data that could not be collected in the United States, she noted. Sweden provides paid sick time for all workers aged 16 and older and offers a disability pension to all workers whose ability to work is temporarily or permanently inhibited because of illness or injury.

“You will never get this kind of data in the United States because this kind of data comes from two datasets that are extremely inclusive and detailed in a society, Sweden, where they have a social support system,” Dr. Schwarz said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and Mellby Gård, Region Stockholm, Märta Lundkvist stiftelse and Karolinska Institutet research funds. Dr. Ran and Dr. Schwarz report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cluster headache is associated with a significantly increased risk for comorbid conditions, including mental disorders and other neurologic disease, leading to significant disability and absenteeism, new research shows.

Results from a Swedish register-based study also showed that patients with cluster headache had a sixfold increased risk for central nervous system disorders and a twofold increased risk for musculoskeletal disorders.

Although cluster headaches are often more prevalent in men, researchers found that multimorbidity rates were significantly higher in women. In addition, rates of external injuries were significantly higher among individuals with cluster headache than among persons without cluster headache.

“The findings very clearly indicate that cluster headache patients suffer from other health issues as well and that they are at risk of having longer periods of times when they cannot work,” said lead investigator Caroline Ran, PhD, a research specialist in the department of neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

“It’s really important for clinicians to look at cluster headache from a broader perspective and make sure that patients are followed up so that they don’t risk ending up in a situation where they have several comorbidities,” Dr. Ran added.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

‘Striking’ finding

Cluster headache is one of the most severe and debilitating types of headache. It causes intense pain behind the eyes, which has been described as being worse than pain associated with childbirth or kidney stones.

Attacks can occur multiple times in a single day and can last up to 3 hours. Cluster headache is rare, occurring in about 1 in 1,000 individuals, and is more common in men. Underdiagnosis is common – especially in women.

The study drew on two Swedish population-based registries and included 3,240 patients with cluster headache aged 16-64 years and 16,200 matched control persons. The analysis covered medical visits from 2001 to 2010.

Results showed that 91.9% of participants with cluster headache had some type of multimorbidity. By comparison, 77.6% of the control group had some type of multimorbidity (odds ratio, 3.26; P < .0001).

Prior studies have shown a higher incidence of mental health and behavioral disorders among patients with cluster headache. However, when the researchers removed those conditions along with external injuries from the dataset, patients with headache were still significantly more likely to have multiple co-occurring illnesses (86.7% vs. 68.8%; OR, 2.95; P < .0001).

The most common comorbid conditions in the overall cluster headache group were diseases of the nervous system (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 5.46 -6.42); 51.8% of the cluster headache group reported these disorders, compared with just 15.4% of the control group.

Diseases of the eye, the respiratory, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal systems, and connective tissue were also significantly more common among patients with cluster headache.

“For each diagnosis that we investigated, we found a higher incidence in the cluster headache group, and we thought this was a very striking finding and worth discussing in the clinical setting that these patients are at risk of general ill health,” Dr. Ran said.
 

Risky behavior?

Another novel finding was the higher rate of external injuries among the cluster headache group, compared with the control group. The finding seems to back up the theory that patients with cluster headache are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, the researchers noted.

In the cluster headache group, external injuries were reported by 47.1% of men and 41% of women, versus 34.9% and 26.0%, respectively, in the control group.

“Now we can also show that cluster headache patients have more injuries and that is totally unrelated to the biological health of the individuals, so that could also indicate higher risk taking,” Dr. Ran said.

Overall multimorbidity rates and diagnoses in each medical category except external injury were higher among women with cluster headache than men with headaches. In addition, the mean number of days on sick leave and disability pension was higher among women with cluster headache than among men with cluster headache (83.71 days vs. 52.56 days).

Overall, the mean number of sickness absence and disability pension net days in 2010 was nearly twice as high in the cluster headache group as in the control group (63.15 days vs. 34.08 days).

Removing mental and behavioral health disorders from the mix did not lower those numbers.

“Our numbers indicate that the mental health issues that are related to cluster headache might not impact their work situation as much as the other comorbidities,” Dr. Ran said.
 

Struggle is real

Commenting on the findings, Heidi Schwarz, MD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, called the study a “valuable contribution” to the field and to the treatment of cluster headache.

“It’s a good study that addresses factors that really need to be considered as you take care of these patients,” said Dr. Schwarz, who was not involved with the research.

“The most salient features of this is that cluster headache is quite disabling, and if you add a comorbidity to it, it’s even more disabling,” she said.

Dr. Schwarz noted that cluster headache is often misdiagnosed as migraine or is overlooked altogether, especially in women. These data underscore that, although cluster headache is more common in men, it affects women too and could lead to even greater disability.

“This has a direct impact on patient quality of life, and in the end, that really should be what we’re looking to enhance,” Dr. Schwarz said. “When a patient with cluster comes in and they tell you they’re really struggling, believe them because it’s quite real.”

The findings also fill a gap in the literature and offer the kind of data that could not be collected in the United States, she noted. Sweden provides paid sick time for all workers aged 16 and older and offers a disability pension to all workers whose ability to work is temporarily or permanently inhibited because of illness or injury.

“You will never get this kind of data in the United States because this kind of data comes from two datasets that are extremely inclusive and detailed in a society, Sweden, where they have a social support system,” Dr. Schwarz said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and Mellby Gård, Region Stockholm, Märta Lundkvist stiftelse and Karolinska Institutet research funds. Dr. Ran and Dr. Schwarz report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cluster headache is associated with a significantly increased risk for comorbid conditions, including mental disorders and other neurologic disease, leading to significant disability and absenteeism, new research shows.

Results from a Swedish register-based study also showed that patients with cluster headache had a sixfold increased risk for central nervous system disorders and a twofold increased risk for musculoskeletal disorders.

Although cluster headaches are often more prevalent in men, researchers found that multimorbidity rates were significantly higher in women. In addition, rates of external injuries were significantly higher among individuals with cluster headache than among persons without cluster headache.

“The findings very clearly indicate that cluster headache patients suffer from other health issues as well and that they are at risk of having longer periods of times when they cannot work,” said lead investigator Caroline Ran, PhD, a research specialist in the department of neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

“It’s really important for clinicians to look at cluster headache from a broader perspective and make sure that patients are followed up so that they don’t risk ending up in a situation where they have several comorbidities,” Dr. Ran added.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

‘Striking’ finding

Cluster headache is one of the most severe and debilitating types of headache. It causes intense pain behind the eyes, which has been described as being worse than pain associated with childbirth or kidney stones.

Attacks can occur multiple times in a single day and can last up to 3 hours. Cluster headache is rare, occurring in about 1 in 1,000 individuals, and is more common in men. Underdiagnosis is common – especially in women.

The study drew on two Swedish population-based registries and included 3,240 patients with cluster headache aged 16-64 years and 16,200 matched control persons. The analysis covered medical visits from 2001 to 2010.

Results showed that 91.9% of participants with cluster headache had some type of multimorbidity. By comparison, 77.6% of the control group had some type of multimorbidity (odds ratio, 3.26; P < .0001).

Prior studies have shown a higher incidence of mental health and behavioral disorders among patients with cluster headache. However, when the researchers removed those conditions along with external injuries from the dataset, patients with headache were still significantly more likely to have multiple co-occurring illnesses (86.7% vs. 68.8%; OR, 2.95; P < .0001).

The most common comorbid conditions in the overall cluster headache group were diseases of the nervous system (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 5.46 -6.42); 51.8% of the cluster headache group reported these disorders, compared with just 15.4% of the control group.

Diseases of the eye, the respiratory, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal systems, and connective tissue were also significantly more common among patients with cluster headache.

“For each diagnosis that we investigated, we found a higher incidence in the cluster headache group, and we thought this was a very striking finding and worth discussing in the clinical setting that these patients are at risk of general ill health,” Dr. Ran said.
 

Risky behavior?

Another novel finding was the higher rate of external injuries among the cluster headache group, compared with the control group. The finding seems to back up the theory that patients with cluster headache are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, the researchers noted.

In the cluster headache group, external injuries were reported by 47.1% of men and 41% of women, versus 34.9% and 26.0%, respectively, in the control group.

“Now we can also show that cluster headache patients have more injuries and that is totally unrelated to the biological health of the individuals, so that could also indicate higher risk taking,” Dr. Ran said.

Overall multimorbidity rates and diagnoses in each medical category except external injury were higher among women with cluster headache than men with headaches. In addition, the mean number of days on sick leave and disability pension was higher among women with cluster headache than among men with cluster headache (83.71 days vs. 52.56 days).

Overall, the mean number of sickness absence and disability pension net days in 2010 was nearly twice as high in the cluster headache group as in the control group (63.15 days vs. 34.08 days).

Removing mental and behavioral health disorders from the mix did not lower those numbers.

“Our numbers indicate that the mental health issues that are related to cluster headache might not impact their work situation as much as the other comorbidities,” Dr. Ran said.
 

Struggle is real

Commenting on the findings, Heidi Schwarz, MD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, called the study a “valuable contribution” to the field and to the treatment of cluster headache.

“It’s a good study that addresses factors that really need to be considered as you take care of these patients,” said Dr. Schwarz, who was not involved with the research.

“The most salient features of this is that cluster headache is quite disabling, and if you add a comorbidity to it, it’s even more disabling,” she said.

Dr. Schwarz noted that cluster headache is often misdiagnosed as migraine or is overlooked altogether, especially in women. These data underscore that, although cluster headache is more common in men, it affects women too and could lead to even greater disability.

“This has a direct impact on patient quality of life, and in the end, that really should be what we’re looking to enhance,” Dr. Schwarz said. “When a patient with cluster comes in and they tell you they’re really struggling, believe them because it’s quite real.”

The findings also fill a gap in the literature and offer the kind of data that could not be collected in the United States, she noted. Sweden provides paid sick time for all workers aged 16 and older and offers a disability pension to all workers whose ability to work is temporarily or permanently inhibited because of illness or injury.

“You will never get this kind of data in the United States because this kind of data comes from two datasets that are extremely inclusive and detailed in a society, Sweden, where they have a social support system,” Dr. Schwarz said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and Mellby Gård, Region Stockholm, Märta Lundkvist stiftelse and Karolinska Institutet research funds. Dr. Ran and Dr. Schwarz report no relevant financial relationships.

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