Pain

Regardless of the severity of their initial illness, 89% of people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had returned to their original work 2 years later, a new study shows.

The burden of persistent COVID-19 symptoms appeared to improve over time, but a higher percentage of former patients reported poor health, compared with the general population. This suggests that some patients need more time to completely recover from COVID-19, wrote the authors of the new study, which was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. Previous research has shown that the health effects of COVID-19 last for up to a year, but data from longer-term studies are limited, said Lixue Huang, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, one of the study authors, and colleagues.

Methods and results

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 1,192 adult patients who were discharged from the hospital after surviving COVID-19 between Jan. 7, 2020, and May 29, 2020. The researchers measured the participants’ health outcomes at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years after their onset of symptoms. A community-based dataset of 3,383 adults with no history of COVID-19 served as controls to measure the recovery of the COVID-19 patients. The median age of the patients at the time of hospital discharge was 57 years, and 46% were women. The median follow-up time after the onset of symptoms was 185 days, 349 days, and 685 days for the 6-month, 12-month, and 2-year visits, respectively. The researchers measured health outcomes using a 6-min walking distance (6MWD) test, laboratory tests, and questionnaires about symptoms, mental health, health-related quality of life, returning to work, and health care use since leaving the hospital.

Overall, the proportion of COVID-19 survivors with at least one symptom decreased from 68% at 6 months to 55% at 2 years (P < .0001). The most frequent symptoms were fatigue and muscle weakness, reported by approximately one-third of the patients (31%); sleep problems also were reported by 31% of the patients.

The proportion of individuals with poor results on the 6MWD decreased continuously over time, not only in COVID-19 survivors overall, but also in three subgroups of varying initial disease severity. Of the 494 survivors who reported working before becoming ill, 438 (89%) had returned to their original jobs 2 years later. The most common reasons for not returning to work were decreased physical function, unwillingness to return, and unemployment, the researchers noted.

However, at 2 years, COVID-19 survivors reported more pain and discomfort, as well as more anxiety and depression, compared with the controls (23% vs. 5% and 12% vs. 5%, respectively).

In addition, significantly more survivors who needed high levels of respiratory support while hospitalized had lung diffusion impairment (65%), reduced residual volume (62%), and total lung capacity (39%), compared with matched controls (36%, 20%, and 6%, respectively) at 2 years.

Long-COVID concerns

Approximately half of the survivors had symptoms of long COVID at 2 years. These individuals were more likely to report pain or discomfort or anxiety or depression, as well as mobility problems, compared to survivors without long COVID. Participants with long-COVID symptoms were more than twice as likely to have an outpatient clinic visit (odds ratio, 2.82), and not quite twice as likely to be rehospitalized (OR, 1.64).

“We found that [health-related quality of life], exercise capacity, and mental health continued to improve throughout the 2 years regardless of initial disease severity, but about half still had symptomatic sequelae at 2 years,” the researchers wrote in their paper.

Findings can inform doctor-patient discussions

“We are increasingly recognizing that the health effects of COVID-19 may persist beyond acute illness, therefore this is a timely study to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 with a long follow-up period,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

The findings are consistent with the existing literature, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.  The data from the study “can help clinicians have discussions regarding expected recovery and long-term prognosis for patients with COVID-19,” he noted.

What patients should know is that “studies such as this can help COVID-19 survivors understand and monitor persistent symptoms they may experience, and bring them to the attention of their clinicians,” said Dr. Pal.

However, “As a single-center study with high attrition of subjects during the study period, the findings may not be generalizable,” Dr. Pal emphasized. “Larger-scale studies and patient registries distributed over different geographical areas and time periods will help obtain a better understanding of the nature and prevalence of long COVID,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of formerly hospitalized controls with respiratory infections other than COVID-19 to determine which outcomes are COVID-19 specific, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of data from only patients at a single center, and from the early stages of the pandemic, as well as the use of self-reports for comorbidities and health outcomes, they said.

However, the results represent the longest-known published longitudinal follow-up of patients who recovered from acute COVID-19, the researchers emphasized. Study strengths included the large sample size, longitudinal design, and long-term follow-up with non-COVID controls to determine outcomes. The researchers noted their plans to conduct annual follow-ups in the current study population. They added that more research is needed to explore rehabilitation programs to promote recovery for COVID-19 survivors and to reduce the effects of long COVID.

The study was supported by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, China Evergrande Group, Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, Ping An Insurance (Group), and New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 5/16/2022.

Regardless of the severity of their initial illness, 89% of people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had returned to their original work 2 years later, a new study shows.

The burden of persistent COVID-19 symptoms appeared to improve over time, but a higher percentage of former patients reported poor health, compared with the general population. This suggests that some patients need more time to completely recover from COVID-19, wrote the authors of the new study, which was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. Previous research has shown that the health effects of COVID-19 last for up to a year, but data from longer-term studies are limited, said Lixue Huang, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, one of the study authors, and colleagues.

Methods and results

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 1,192 adult patients who were discharged from the hospital after surviving COVID-19 between Jan. 7, 2020, and May 29, 2020. The researchers measured the participants’ health outcomes at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years after their onset of symptoms. A community-based dataset of 3,383 adults with no history of COVID-19 served as controls to measure the recovery of the COVID-19 patients. The median age of the patients at the time of hospital discharge was 57 years, and 46% were women. The median follow-up time after the onset of symptoms was 185 days, 349 days, and 685 days for the 6-month, 12-month, and 2-year visits, respectively. The researchers measured health outcomes using a 6-min walking distance (6MWD) test, laboratory tests, and questionnaires about symptoms, mental health, health-related quality of life, returning to work, and health care use since leaving the hospital.

Overall, the proportion of COVID-19 survivors with at least one symptom decreased from 68% at 6 months to 55% at 2 years (P < .0001). The most frequent symptoms were fatigue and muscle weakness, reported by approximately one-third of the patients (31%); sleep problems also were reported by 31% of the patients.

The proportion of individuals with poor results on the 6MWD decreased continuously over time, not only in COVID-19 survivors overall, but also in three subgroups of varying initial disease severity. Of the 494 survivors who reported working before becoming ill, 438 (89%) had returned to their original jobs 2 years later. The most common reasons for not returning to work were decreased physical function, unwillingness to return, and unemployment, the researchers noted.

However, at 2 years, COVID-19 survivors reported more pain and discomfort, as well as more anxiety and depression, compared with the controls (23% vs. 5% and 12% vs. 5%, respectively).

In addition, significantly more survivors who needed high levels of respiratory support while hospitalized had lung diffusion impairment (65%), reduced residual volume (62%), and total lung capacity (39%), compared with matched controls (36%, 20%, and 6%, respectively) at 2 years.

Long-COVID concerns

Approximately half of the survivors had symptoms of long COVID at 2 years. These individuals were more likely to report pain or discomfort or anxiety or depression, as well as mobility problems, compared to survivors without long COVID. Participants with long-COVID symptoms were more than twice as likely to have an outpatient clinic visit (odds ratio, 2.82), and not quite twice as likely to be rehospitalized (OR, 1.64).

“We found that [health-related quality of life], exercise capacity, and mental health continued to improve throughout the 2 years regardless of initial disease severity, but about half still had symptomatic sequelae at 2 years,” the researchers wrote in their paper.

Findings can inform doctor-patient discussions

“We are increasingly recognizing that the health effects of COVID-19 may persist beyond acute illness, therefore this is a timely study to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 with a long follow-up period,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

The findings are consistent with the existing literature, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.  The data from the study “can help clinicians have discussions regarding expected recovery and long-term prognosis for patients with COVID-19,” he noted.

What patients should know is that “studies such as this can help COVID-19 survivors understand and monitor persistent symptoms they may experience, and bring them to the attention of their clinicians,” said Dr. Pal.

However, “As a single-center study with high attrition of subjects during the study period, the findings may not be generalizable,” Dr. Pal emphasized. “Larger-scale studies and patient registries distributed over different geographical areas and time periods will help obtain a better understanding of the nature and prevalence of long COVID,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of formerly hospitalized controls with respiratory infections other than COVID-19 to determine which outcomes are COVID-19 specific, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of data from only patients at a single center, and from the early stages of the pandemic, as well as the use of self-reports for comorbidities and health outcomes, they said.

However, the results represent the longest-known published longitudinal follow-up of patients who recovered from acute COVID-19, the researchers emphasized. Study strengths included the large sample size, longitudinal design, and long-term follow-up with non-COVID controls to determine outcomes. The researchers noted their plans to conduct annual follow-ups in the current study population. They added that more research is needed to explore rehabilitation programs to promote recovery for COVID-19 survivors and to reduce the effects of long COVID.

The study was supported by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, China Evergrande Group, Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, Ping An Insurance (Group), and New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 5/16/2022.

Regardless of the severity of their initial illness, 89% of people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had returned to their original work 2 years later, a new study shows.

The burden of persistent COVID-19 symptoms appeared to improve over time, but a higher percentage of former patients reported poor health, compared with the general population. This suggests that some patients need more time to completely recover from COVID-19, wrote the authors of the new study, which was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. Previous research has shown that the health effects of COVID-19 last for up to a year, but data from longer-term studies are limited, said Lixue Huang, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, one of the study authors, and colleagues.

Methods and results

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 1,192 adult patients who were discharged from the hospital after surviving COVID-19 between Jan. 7, 2020, and May 29, 2020. The researchers measured the participants’ health outcomes at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years after their onset of symptoms. A community-based dataset of 3,383 adults with no history of COVID-19 served as controls to measure the recovery of the COVID-19 patients. The median age of the patients at the time of hospital discharge was 57 years, and 46% were women. The median follow-up time after the onset of symptoms was 185 days, 349 days, and 685 days for the 6-month, 12-month, and 2-year visits, respectively. The researchers measured health outcomes using a 6-min walking distance (6MWD) test, laboratory tests, and questionnaires about symptoms, mental health, health-related quality of life, returning to work, and health care use since leaving the hospital.

Overall, the proportion of COVID-19 survivors with at least one symptom decreased from 68% at 6 months to 55% at 2 years (P < .0001). The most frequent symptoms were fatigue and muscle weakness, reported by approximately one-third of the patients (31%); sleep problems also were reported by 31% of the patients.

The proportion of individuals with poor results on the 6MWD decreased continuously over time, not only in COVID-19 survivors overall, but also in three subgroups of varying initial disease severity. Of the 494 survivors who reported working before becoming ill, 438 (89%) had returned to their original jobs 2 years later. The most common reasons for not returning to work were decreased physical function, unwillingness to return, and unemployment, the researchers noted.

However, at 2 years, COVID-19 survivors reported more pain and discomfort, as well as more anxiety and depression, compared with the controls (23% vs. 5% and 12% vs. 5%, respectively).

In addition, significantly more survivors who needed high levels of respiratory support while hospitalized had lung diffusion impairment (65%), reduced residual volume (62%), and total lung capacity (39%), compared with matched controls (36%, 20%, and 6%, respectively) at 2 years.

Long-COVID concerns

Approximately half of the survivors had symptoms of long COVID at 2 years. These individuals were more likely to report pain or discomfort or anxiety or depression, as well as mobility problems, compared to survivors without long COVID. Participants with long-COVID symptoms were more than twice as likely to have an outpatient clinic visit (odds ratio, 2.82), and not quite twice as likely to be rehospitalized (OR, 1.64).

“We found that [health-related quality of life], exercise capacity, and mental health continued to improve throughout the 2 years regardless of initial disease severity, but about half still had symptomatic sequelae at 2 years,” the researchers wrote in their paper.

Findings can inform doctor-patient discussions

“We are increasingly recognizing that the health effects of COVID-19 may persist beyond acute illness, therefore this is a timely study to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 with a long follow-up period,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

The findings are consistent with the existing literature, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.  The data from the study “can help clinicians have discussions regarding expected recovery and long-term prognosis for patients with COVID-19,” he noted.

What patients should know is that “studies such as this can help COVID-19 survivors understand and monitor persistent symptoms they may experience, and bring them to the attention of their clinicians,” said Dr. Pal.

However, “As a single-center study with high attrition of subjects during the study period, the findings may not be generalizable,” Dr. Pal emphasized. “Larger-scale studies and patient registries distributed over different geographical areas and time periods will help obtain a better understanding of the nature and prevalence of long COVID,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of formerly hospitalized controls with respiratory infections other than COVID-19 to determine which outcomes are COVID-19 specific, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of data from only patients at a single center, and from the early stages of the pandemic, as well as the use of self-reports for comorbidities and health outcomes, they said.

However, the results represent the longest-known published longitudinal follow-up of patients who recovered from acute COVID-19, the researchers emphasized. Study strengths included the large sample size, longitudinal design, and long-term follow-up with non-COVID controls to determine outcomes. The researchers noted their plans to conduct annual follow-ups in the current study population. They added that more research is needed to explore rehabilitation programs to promote recovery for COVID-19 survivors and to reduce the effects of long COVID.

The study was supported by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, China Evergrande Group, Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, Ping An Insurance (Group), and New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 5/16/2022.

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

SAN DIEGO – If a medical professional is trying to figure out the best medical treatment for a pregnant woman with headache, it may be helpful to review data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Well, make that data from the RCT. There’s just been one, Northwestern Medicine obstetrician-gynecologist Catherine Stika, MD, told colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Only a single efficacy RCT has examined headache in pregnancy, said Dr. Stika. “Overall, we have very limited data in pregnancy to tell us exactly what to do,” she added.

But ob.gyns. aren’t entirely in the dark, according to medical specialists who spoke at the session. Expert opinion and fetal safety data offer insight into the best treatments, as does a new ACOG clinical practice guideline on headaches during pregnancy and post partum that was coauthored by the speakers.

And there’s some good news: Pregnancy itself is often a good treatment for headaches.

Pregnant women often find relief from one kind of headache – migraine – as their estradiol levels rise, said Laura Mercer, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. “About half of patients will report that migraines are getting better as early as the first trimester, and upwards of 83% will say that their migraines are better by the time they’re in their third trimester,” she said. “What this means for us as obstetricians is that oftentimes we can actually discontinue preventative therapies for patients during pregnancy.”

But simply discontinuing every headache treatment during pregnancy may not be the right approach, Dr. Mercer said. Instead, she said, consider the benefits and risks.

Divalproex sodium (Depakote) and topiramate (Topamax) must be avoided because of fetal risk, she said. “In fact, we will prefer that people stop these medications before they discontinue their contraception if they’re planning on getting pregnant,” she said.

Other medications, such as ACE inhibitors and the herbal remedy feverfew, should not be used at any time during pregnancy, she said.

On the other hand, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines are alright to use in pregnancy, she said. “These two should be considered first-line because there’s no known risks for them.”

Beta-blockers also may be used “with some consideration to the known risks that we’re familiar with when we use them for other indications,” she said.

There are questions about the safety of oral magnesium in pregnancy, although it’s generally considered safe, she added, and “nerve blocks and nerve stimulators seem very promising and have little known risks.”

Dr. Mercer recommended gradually tapering most medications prior to conception. But it’s crucial to stop higher-risk drugs immediately once pregnancy is confirmed, she said.

In regard to acute headache, Dr. Stika urged caution if a patient reports taking a headache medication more than twice a week. “All the medications we use for the treatment of migraine, both in and outside of pregnancy, carry the risk of what’s called medication overuse” that can lead to rebound headaches, she said.

Excedrin Tension Headache may be used for headaches in pregnancy, she said, but not Excedrin Migraine since it includes aspirin. Triptans are not recommended as first-line therapy, she added, and they “should absolutely not be used in any pregnant patient with a history of known cardiac disease or hypertension.”

Dr. Stika added that ACOG advises against the use of drugs that contain butalbital, a barbiturate that’s combined with other agents to treat headache. “Butalbital is the drug that’s most closely associated with getting people into this medication overuse headache,” she said. “It’s even worse than opioids.”

Unlike multiple other countries and the entire European Union, the United States has not banned compounds that contain butalbital, she said.

In some cases, she said, patients may present to triage with vomiting, an inability to keep food down, and persistent headache despite treatment. “This is a really classic presentation.”

The ACOG clinical practice guideline offers a flow chart about what to do, she said. Hydration is key, she said, and various treatment options can help. A referral to neurology may be needed in extreme cases, she said. But “most of the time, you’re able to get rid of her headache.”

Dr. Mercer and Dr. Stika report no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – If a medical professional is trying to figure out the best medical treatment for a pregnant woman with headache, it may be helpful to review data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Well, make that data from the RCT. There’s just been one, Northwestern Medicine obstetrician-gynecologist Catherine Stika, MD, told colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Only a single efficacy RCT has examined headache in pregnancy, said Dr. Stika. “Overall, we have very limited data in pregnancy to tell us exactly what to do,” she added.

But ob.gyns. aren’t entirely in the dark, according to medical specialists who spoke at the session. Expert opinion and fetal safety data offer insight into the best treatments, as does a new ACOG clinical practice guideline on headaches during pregnancy and post partum that was coauthored by the speakers.

And there’s some good news: Pregnancy itself is often a good treatment for headaches.

Pregnant women often find relief from one kind of headache – migraine – as their estradiol levels rise, said Laura Mercer, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. “About half of patients will report that migraines are getting better as early as the first trimester, and upwards of 83% will say that their migraines are better by the time they’re in their third trimester,” she said. “What this means for us as obstetricians is that oftentimes we can actually discontinue preventative therapies for patients during pregnancy.”

But simply discontinuing every headache treatment during pregnancy may not be the right approach, Dr. Mercer said. Instead, she said, consider the benefits and risks.

Divalproex sodium (Depakote) and topiramate (Topamax) must be avoided because of fetal risk, she said. “In fact, we will prefer that people stop these medications before they discontinue their contraception if they’re planning on getting pregnant,” she said.

Other medications, such as ACE inhibitors and the herbal remedy feverfew, should not be used at any time during pregnancy, she said.

On the other hand, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines are alright to use in pregnancy, she said. “These two should be considered first-line because there’s no known risks for them.”

Beta-blockers also may be used “with some consideration to the known risks that we’re familiar with when we use them for other indications,” she said.

There are questions about the safety of oral magnesium in pregnancy, although it’s generally considered safe, she added, and “nerve blocks and nerve stimulators seem very promising and have little known risks.”

Dr. Mercer recommended gradually tapering most medications prior to conception. But it’s crucial to stop higher-risk drugs immediately once pregnancy is confirmed, she said.

In regard to acute headache, Dr. Stika urged caution if a patient reports taking a headache medication more than twice a week. “All the medications we use for the treatment of migraine, both in and outside of pregnancy, carry the risk of what’s called medication overuse” that can lead to rebound headaches, she said.

Excedrin Tension Headache may be used for headaches in pregnancy, she said, but not Excedrin Migraine since it includes aspirin. Triptans are not recommended as first-line therapy, she added, and they “should absolutely not be used in any pregnant patient with a history of known cardiac disease or hypertension.”

Dr. Stika added that ACOG advises against the use of drugs that contain butalbital, a barbiturate that’s combined with other agents to treat headache. “Butalbital is the drug that’s most closely associated with getting people into this medication overuse headache,” she said. “It’s even worse than opioids.”

Unlike multiple other countries and the entire European Union, the United States has not banned compounds that contain butalbital, she said.

In some cases, she said, patients may present to triage with vomiting, an inability to keep food down, and persistent headache despite treatment. “This is a really classic presentation.”

The ACOG clinical practice guideline offers a flow chart about what to do, she said. Hydration is key, she said, and various treatment options can help. A referral to neurology may be needed in extreme cases, she said. But “most of the time, you’re able to get rid of her headache.”

Dr. Mercer and Dr. Stika report no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – If a medical professional is trying to figure out the best medical treatment for a pregnant woman with headache, it may be helpful to review data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Well, make that data from the RCT. There’s just been one, Northwestern Medicine obstetrician-gynecologist Catherine Stika, MD, told colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Only a single efficacy RCT has examined headache in pregnancy, said Dr. Stika. “Overall, we have very limited data in pregnancy to tell us exactly what to do,” she added.

But ob.gyns. aren’t entirely in the dark, according to medical specialists who spoke at the session. Expert opinion and fetal safety data offer insight into the best treatments, as does a new ACOG clinical practice guideline on headaches during pregnancy and post partum that was coauthored by the speakers.

And there’s some good news: Pregnancy itself is often a good treatment for headaches.

Pregnant women often find relief from one kind of headache – migraine – as their estradiol levels rise, said Laura Mercer, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. “About half of patients will report that migraines are getting better as early as the first trimester, and upwards of 83% will say that their migraines are better by the time they’re in their third trimester,” she said. “What this means for us as obstetricians is that oftentimes we can actually discontinue preventative therapies for patients during pregnancy.”

But simply discontinuing every headache treatment during pregnancy may not be the right approach, Dr. Mercer said. Instead, she said, consider the benefits and risks.

Divalproex sodium (Depakote) and topiramate (Topamax) must be avoided because of fetal risk, she said. “In fact, we will prefer that people stop these medications before they discontinue their contraception if they’re planning on getting pregnant,” she said.

Other medications, such as ACE inhibitors and the herbal remedy feverfew, should not be used at any time during pregnancy, she said.

On the other hand, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines are alright to use in pregnancy, she said. “These two should be considered first-line because there’s no known risks for them.”

Beta-blockers also may be used “with some consideration to the known risks that we’re familiar with when we use them for other indications,” she said.

There are questions about the safety of oral magnesium in pregnancy, although it’s generally considered safe, she added, and “nerve blocks and nerve stimulators seem very promising and have little known risks.”

Dr. Mercer recommended gradually tapering most medications prior to conception. But it’s crucial to stop higher-risk drugs immediately once pregnancy is confirmed, she said.

In regard to acute headache, Dr. Stika urged caution if a patient reports taking a headache medication more than twice a week. “All the medications we use for the treatment of migraine, both in and outside of pregnancy, carry the risk of what’s called medication overuse” that can lead to rebound headaches, she said.

Excedrin Tension Headache may be used for headaches in pregnancy, she said, but not Excedrin Migraine since it includes aspirin. Triptans are not recommended as first-line therapy, she added, and they “should absolutely not be used in any pregnant patient with a history of known cardiac disease or hypertension.”

Dr. Stika added that ACOG advises against the use of drugs that contain butalbital, a barbiturate that’s combined with other agents to treat headache. “Butalbital is the drug that’s most closely associated with getting people into this medication overuse headache,” she said. “It’s even worse than opioids.”

Unlike multiple other countries and the entire European Union, the United States has not banned compounds that contain butalbital, she said.

In some cases, she said, patients may present to triage with vomiting, an inability to keep food down, and persistent headache despite treatment. “This is a really classic presentation.”

The ACOG clinical practice guideline offers a flow chart about what to do, she said. Hydration is key, she said, and various treatment options can help. A referral to neurology may be needed in extreme cases, she said. But “most of the time, you’re able to get rid of her headache.”

Dr. Mercer and Dr. Stika report no disclosures.

Evidence summary

Symptoms improve with PRP—but not significantly

A 2014 double-blind RCT (n = 23) explored recovery outcomes in patients with patellar tendinopathy who received either 1 injection of leukocyte-rich PRP or ultrasound-­guided dry needling.¹ Both groups also completed standardized eccentric exercises. Participants were predominantly men, ages ≥ 18 years. Symptomatic improvement was assessed using the Victorian Institute of Sport ­Assessment–Patella (VISA-P), an 8-item subjective questionnaire of functionality with a range of 0 to 100, with 100 as the maximum score for an asymptomatic individual.

At 12 weeks posttreatment, VISA-P scores improved in both groups. However, the improvement in the dry needling group was not statistically significant (5.2 points; 95% CI, –2.2 to 12.6; P = .20), while in the PRP group it was statistically significant (25.4 points; 95% CI, 10.3 to 40.6; P = .01). At ≥ 26 weeks, statistically significant improvement was observed in both treatment groups: scores improved by 33.2 points (95% CI, 24.1 to 42.4; P = .001) in the dry needling group and by 28.9 points (95% CI, 11.4 to 46.3; P = .01) in the PRP group. However, the difference between the groups’ VISA-P scores at ≥ 26 weeks was not significant (P = .66).¹

No significant differences observed for PRP vs placebo or physical therapy

A 2019 single-blind RCT (n = 57) involved patients who were treated with 1 injection of either leukocyte-rich PRP, leukocyte-poor PRP, or saline, all in combination with 6 weeks of physical therapy.² Participants were predominantly men, ages 18 to 50 years, and engaged in recreational sporting activities. There was no statistically significant difference in mean change in VISA-P score at any timepoint of the 2-year study period. P values were not reported.²

A 2010 RCT (n = 31) compared PRP (unspecified whether leukocyte-rich or -poor) in combination with physical therapy to physical therapy alone.³ Groups were matched for sex, age, and sports activity level; patients in the PRP group were required to have failed previous treatment, while control subjects must not have received any treatment for at least 2 months. Subjects were evaluated pretreatment, immediately posttreatment, and 6 months posttreatment. Clinical evaluation was aided by use of the Tegner activity score, a 1-item score that grades activity level on a scale of 0 to 10; the EuroQol-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), which evaluates subjective rating of overall health; and pain level scores.

At 6 months posttreatment, no statistically significant differences were observed between groups in EQ-VAS and pain level scores. However, Tegner activity scores among PRP recipients showed significant percent improvement over controls at 6 months posttreatment (39% vs 20%; P = .048).³

Recommendations from others

Currently, national orthopedic and professional athletic medical associations have recommended that further research be conducted in order to make a strong statement in favor of or against PRP.^4,5

Editor’s takeaway

Existing data regarding PRP fails, again, to show consistent benefits. These small sample sizes, inconsistent comparators, and heterogeneous results limit our certainty. This lack of quality evidence does not prove a lack of effect, but it raises serious doubts.

Evidence summary

Symptoms improve with PRP—but not significantly

A 2014 double-blind RCT (n = 23) explored recovery outcomes in patients with patellar tendinopathy who received either 1 injection of leukocyte-rich PRP or ultrasound-­guided dry needling.¹ Both groups also completed standardized eccentric exercises. Participants were predominantly men, ages ≥ 18 years. Symptomatic improvement was assessed using the Victorian Institute of Sport ­Assessment–Patella (VISA-P), an 8-item subjective questionnaire of functionality with a range of 0 to 100, with 100 as the maximum score for an asymptomatic individual.

At 12 weeks posttreatment, VISA-P scores improved in both groups. However, the improvement in the dry needling group was not statistically significant (5.2 points; 95% CI, –2.2 to 12.6; P = .20), while in the PRP group it was statistically significant (25.4 points; 95% CI, 10.3 to 40.6; P = .01). At ≥ 26 weeks, statistically significant improvement was observed in both treatment groups: scores improved by 33.2 points (95% CI, 24.1 to 42.4; P = .001) in the dry needling group and by 28.9 points (95% CI, 11.4 to 46.3; P = .01) in the PRP group. However, the difference between the groups’ VISA-P scores at ≥ 26 weeks was not significant (P = .66).¹

No significant differences observed for PRP vs placebo or physical therapy

A 2019 single-blind RCT (n = 57) involved patients who were treated with 1 injection of either leukocyte-rich PRP, leukocyte-poor PRP, or saline, all in combination with 6 weeks of physical therapy.² Participants were predominantly men, ages 18 to 50 years, and engaged in recreational sporting activities. There was no statistically significant difference in mean change in VISA-P score at any timepoint of the 2-year study period. P values were not reported.²

A 2010 RCT (n = 31) compared PRP (unspecified whether leukocyte-rich or -poor) in combination with physical therapy to physical therapy alone.³ Groups were matched for sex, age, and sports activity level; patients in the PRP group were required to have failed previous treatment, while control subjects must not have received any treatment for at least 2 months. Subjects were evaluated pretreatment, immediately posttreatment, and 6 months posttreatment. Clinical evaluation was aided by use of the Tegner activity score, a 1-item score that grades activity level on a scale of 0 to 10; the EuroQol-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), which evaluates subjective rating of overall health; and pain level scores.

At 6 months posttreatment, no statistically significant differences were observed between groups in EQ-VAS and pain level scores. However, Tegner activity scores among PRP recipients showed significant percent improvement over controls at 6 months posttreatment (39% vs 20%; P = .048).³

Recommendations from others

Currently, national orthopedic and professional athletic medical associations have recommended that further research be conducted in order to make a strong statement in favor of or against PRP.^4,5

Editor’s takeaway

Existing data regarding PRP fails, again, to show consistent benefits. These small sample sizes, inconsistent comparators, and heterogeneous results limit our certainty. This lack of quality evidence does not prove a lack of effect, but it raises serious doubts.

Evidence summary

Symptoms improve with PRP—but not significantly

A 2014 double-blind RCT (n = 23) explored recovery outcomes in patients with patellar tendinopathy who received either 1 injection of leukocyte-rich PRP or ultrasound-­guided dry needling.¹ Both groups also completed standardized eccentric exercises. Participants were predominantly men, ages ≥ 18 years. Symptomatic improvement was assessed using the Victorian Institute of Sport ­Assessment–Patella (VISA-P), an 8-item subjective questionnaire of functionality with a range of 0 to 100, with 100 as the maximum score for an asymptomatic individual.

At 12 weeks posttreatment, VISA-P scores improved in both groups. However, the improvement in the dry needling group was not statistically significant (5.2 points; 95% CI, –2.2 to 12.6; P = .20), while in the PRP group it was statistically significant (25.4 points; 95% CI, 10.3 to 40.6; P = .01). At ≥ 26 weeks, statistically significant improvement was observed in both treatment groups: scores improved by 33.2 points (95% CI, 24.1 to 42.4; P = .001) in the dry needling group and by 28.9 points (95% CI, 11.4 to 46.3; P = .01) in the PRP group. However, the difference between the groups’ VISA-P scores at ≥ 26 weeks was not significant (P = .66).¹

No significant differences observed for PRP vs placebo or physical therapy

A 2019 single-blind RCT (n = 57) involved patients who were treated with 1 injection of either leukocyte-rich PRP, leukocyte-poor PRP, or saline, all in combination with 6 weeks of physical therapy.² Participants were predominantly men, ages 18 to 50 years, and engaged in recreational sporting activities. There was no statistically significant difference in mean change in VISA-P score at any timepoint of the 2-year study period. P values were not reported.²

A 2010 RCT (n = 31) compared PRP (unspecified whether leukocyte-rich or -poor) in combination with physical therapy to physical therapy alone.³ Groups were matched for sex, age, and sports activity level; patients in the PRP group were required to have failed previous treatment, while control subjects must not have received any treatment for at least 2 months. Subjects were evaluated pretreatment, immediately posttreatment, and 6 months posttreatment. Clinical evaluation was aided by use of the Tegner activity score, a 1-item score that grades activity level on a scale of 0 to 10; the EuroQol-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), which evaluates subjective rating of overall health; and pain level scores.

At 6 months posttreatment, no statistically significant differences were observed between groups in EQ-VAS and pain level scores. However, Tegner activity scores among PRP recipients showed significant percent improvement over controls at 6 months posttreatment (39% vs 20%; P = .048).³

Recommendations from others

Currently, national orthopedic and professional athletic medical associations have recommended that further research be conducted in order to make a strong statement in favor of or against PRP.^4,5

Editor’s takeaway

Existing data regarding PRP fails, again, to show consistent benefits. These small sample sizes, inconsistent comparators, and heterogeneous results limit our certainty. This lack of quality evidence does not prove a lack of effect, but it raises serious doubts.

Combination therapy with relugolix (Orgovyx, Relumina), a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, significantly reduced the pain of uterine fibroids, an undertreated aspect of this disease.

In pooled results from the multicenter randomized placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 and 2 trials, relugolix combination therapy (CT) with the progestin norethindrone (Aygestin, Camila) markedly decreased both menstrual and nonmenstrual fibroid pain, as well as heavy bleeding and other symptoms of leiomyomas. This hormone-dependent condition occurs in 70%-80% of premenopausal women.

“Historically, studies of uterine fibroids have not asked about pain, so one of strengths of these studies is that they asked women to rate their pain and found a substantial proportion listed pain as a symptom,” lead author Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The combination was effective against all categories of leiomyoma symptoms, she said, and adverse events were few.

Bleeding has been the main focus of studies of leiomyoma therapies, while chronic pain has been largely neglected, said James H. Segars Jr., MD, director of the division of reproductive science and women’s health research at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was not involved in the studies. Across both of the LIBERTY trials, involving 509 women randomized during the period April 2017 to December 2018, more than half overall (54.4%) met their pain reduction goals in a subpopulation analysis. Pain reduction was a secondary outcome of the trials, with bleeding reduction the primary endpoint. Other fibroid symptoms are abdominal bloating and pressure.

“The consistent and significant reduction in measures of pain with relugolix-CT observed in the LIBERTY program is clinically meaningful, patient-relevant, and together with an improvement of heavy menstrual bleeding and other uterine leiomyoma–associated symptoms, is likely to have a substantial effect on the life of women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas,” Dr. Stewart and colleagues wrote. Their report was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Dr. Segars concurred. “This study is important because sometimes the only fibroid symptom women have is pain. If we ignore that, we miss a lot of women who have pain but no bleeding.”
 

The study

The premenopausal participants had a mean age of just over 42 years (range, 18-50) and were enrolled from North and South America, Europe, and Africa. All reported leiomyoma-associated heavy menstrual bleeding of 80 mL or greater per cycle for two cycles, or 160 mL or greater during one cycle.

In both arms, the mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², while menstrual blood loss volume was 245.4 (± 186.4) mL in the relugolix-CT and 207.4 (± 114.3) mL in the placebo group.

Pain was a frequent symptom, with approximately 70% in the intervention group and 74% in the placebo group reporting fibroid pain at baseline.

Women were randomized 1:1:1 to receive:

• Relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg, estradiol 1 mg, norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg)
• Delayed relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg monotherapy followed by relugolix-CT, each for 12 weeks)
• Placebo, taken orally once daily for 24 weeks

The therapy was well tolerated and adverse events were low.

The subpopulation analysis found that over the study period, the proportion of women achieving minimal to no pain (level 0 to 1) during the last 35 days of treatment was notably higher in the relugolix-CT arm than in the placebo arm: 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.4%-54.3%) versus 13.9% (95% CI, 8.8%-20.5%) in the placebo group (nominal P = .001).

Moreover, the proportions of women with minimal to no pain during both menstrual days and nonmenstrual days were significantly higher with relugolix-CT: 65.0% (95% CI, 55.6%-73.5%) and 44.6% (95% CI, 32.3%-7.5%), respectively, compared with placebo: 19.3% (95% CI 13.2%–26.7%, nominal P = 001), and 21.6% (95% CI, 12.9%-32.7%, nominal P = 004), respectively.

Studies of relugolix monotherapy in Japanese women with uterine leiomyomas have demonstrated reductions in pain.

“Significantly, this combination therapy allows women to be treated over 2 years and to take the oral tablet themselves, unlike Lupron [leuprolide], which is injected and can only be taken for a couple of months because of bone loss,” Dr. Segars said. And the add-back component of combination therapy prevents the adverse symptoms of a hypoestrogenic state.

“The pain of fibroids is chronic, and the longer treatment allows time for the pain fibers to revert to a normal state,” he explained. “The pain pathways get etched into the nerves and it takes time to revert.”

He noted that the LIBERTY trials showed a slight downward trend in pain continuing after 24 weeks of treatment. Other studies of similar hormonal treatments have shown a reduction in the size of fibroids, which can be as large as a tennis ball.

As in endometriosis, leiomyomas are associated with elevated circulating cytokines and a systemic proinflammatory state. In endometriosis, this milieu is linked to the risk of inflammatory arthritis, fibromyalgia, lupus, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Segars said. “If we did a deeper dive, we might find the same associations for fibroids.” Apart from chronic depression and fatigue, fibroids are linked to downstream pregnancy complications and poor outcomes such as miscarriage and preterm birth, he said.

“There remains a high unmet need for effective treatments, especially nonsurgical interventions, for women with uterine leiomyomas,” the authors wrote. Dr. Stewart added that “it would be helpful to learn more about how relugolix and other drugs in its class work in fibroids. No category of symptoms has been unresponsive to these medications – they are powerful drugs to help women with uterine fibroids.” She noted that relugolix-CT has already been approved outside the United States for symptoms beyond heavy menstrual bleeding.

Future research should focus on developing a therapy that does not interfere with fertility, Dr. Segars said. “We need a treatment that will allow women to get pregnant on it.”

Myovant Sciences GmbH sponsored LIBERTY 1 and 2 and oversaw all aspects of the studies. Dr. Stewart has provided consulting services to Myovant, Bayer, AbbVie, and ObsEva. She has received royalties from UpToDate and fees from Med Learning Group, Med-IQ, Medscape, Peer View, and PER, as well as honoraria from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Massachusetts Medical Society. She holds a patent for methods and compounds for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. Dr. Segars has consulted for Bayer and Organon. Several coauthors reported similar financial relationships with private-sector entities and two coauthors are employees of Myovant.

Combination therapy with relugolix (Orgovyx, Relumina), a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, significantly reduced the pain of uterine fibroids, an undertreated aspect of this disease.

In pooled results from the multicenter randomized placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 and 2 trials, relugolix combination therapy (CT) with the progestin norethindrone (Aygestin, Camila) markedly decreased both menstrual and nonmenstrual fibroid pain, as well as heavy bleeding and other symptoms of leiomyomas. This hormone-dependent condition occurs in 70%-80% of premenopausal women.

“Historically, studies of uterine fibroids have not asked about pain, so one of strengths of these studies is that they asked women to rate their pain and found a substantial proportion listed pain as a symptom,” lead author Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The combination was effective against all categories of leiomyoma symptoms, she said, and adverse events were few.

Bleeding has been the main focus of studies of leiomyoma therapies, while chronic pain has been largely neglected, said James H. Segars Jr., MD, director of the division of reproductive science and women’s health research at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was not involved in the studies. Across both of the LIBERTY trials, involving 509 women randomized during the period April 2017 to December 2018, more than half overall (54.4%) met their pain reduction goals in a subpopulation analysis. Pain reduction was a secondary outcome of the trials, with bleeding reduction the primary endpoint. Other fibroid symptoms are abdominal bloating and pressure.

“The consistent and significant reduction in measures of pain with relugolix-CT observed in the LIBERTY program is clinically meaningful, patient-relevant, and together with an improvement of heavy menstrual bleeding and other uterine leiomyoma–associated symptoms, is likely to have a substantial effect on the life of women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas,” Dr. Stewart and colleagues wrote. Their report was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Dr. Segars concurred. “This study is important because sometimes the only fibroid symptom women have is pain. If we ignore that, we miss a lot of women who have pain but no bleeding.”
 

The study

The premenopausal participants had a mean age of just over 42 years (range, 18-50) and were enrolled from North and South America, Europe, and Africa. All reported leiomyoma-associated heavy menstrual bleeding of 80 mL or greater per cycle for two cycles, or 160 mL or greater during one cycle.

In both arms, the mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², while menstrual blood loss volume was 245.4 (± 186.4) mL in the relugolix-CT and 207.4 (± 114.3) mL in the placebo group.

Pain was a frequent symptom, with approximately 70% in the intervention group and 74% in the placebo group reporting fibroid pain at baseline.

Women were randomized 1:1:1 to receive:

• Relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg, estradiol 1 mg, norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg)
• Delayed relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg monotherapy followed by relugolix-CT, each for 12 weeks)
• Placebo, taken orally once daily for 24 weeks

The therapy was well tolerated and adverse events were low.

The subpopulation analysis found that over the study period, the proportion of women achieving minimal to no pain (level 0 to 1) during the last 35 days of treatment was notably higher in the relugolix-CT arm than in the placebo arm: 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.4%-54.3%) versus 13.9% (95% CI, 8.8%-20.5%) in the placebo group (nominal P = .001).

Moreover, the proportions of women with minimal to no pain during both menstrual days and nonmenstrual days were significantly higher with relugolix-CT: 65.0% (95% CI, 55.6%-73.5%) and 44.6% (95% CI, 32.3%-7.5%), respectively, compared with placebo: 19.3% (95% CI 13.2%–26.7%, nominal P = 001), and 21.6% (95% CI, 12.9%-32.7%, nominal P = 004), respectively.

Studies of relugolix monotherapy in Japanese women with uterine leiomyomas have demonstrated reductions in pain.

“Significantly, this combination therapy allows women to be treated over 2 years and to take the oral tablet themselves, unlike Lupron [leuprolide], which is injected and can only be taken for a couple of months because of bone loss,” Dr. Segars said. And the add-back component of combination therapy prevents the adverse symptoms of a hypoestrogenic state.

“The pain of fibroids is chronic, and the longer treatment allows time for the pain fibers to revert to a normal state,” he explained. “The pain pathways get etched into the nerves and it takes time to revert.”

He noted that the LIBERTY trials showed a slight downward trend in pain continuing after 24 weeks of treatment. Other studies of similar hormonal treatments have shown a reduction in the size of fibroids, which can be as large as a tennis ball.

As in endometriosis, leiomyomas are associated with elevated circulating cytokines and a systemic proinflammatory state. In endometriosis, this milieu is linked to the risk of inflammatory arthritis, fibromyalgia, lupus, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Segars said. “If we did a deeper dive, we might find the same associations for fibroids.” Apart from chronic depression and fatigue, fibroids are linked to downstream pregnancy complications and poor outcomes such as miscarriage and preterm birth, he said.

“There remains a high unmet need for effective treatments, especially nonsurgical interventions, for women with uterine leiomyomas,” the authors wrote. Dr. Stewart added that “it would be helpful to learn more about how relugolix and other drugs in its class work in fibroids. No category of symptoms has been unresponsive to these medications – they are powerful drugs to help women with uterine fibroids.” She noted that relugolix-CT has already been approved outside the United States for symptoms beyond heavy menstrual bleeding.

Future research should focus on developing a therapy that does not interfere with fertility, Dr. Segars said. “We need a treatment that will allow women to get pregnant on it.”

Myovant Sciences GmbH sponsored LIBERTY 1 and 2 and oversaw all aspects of the studies. Dr. Stewart has provided consulting services to Myovant, Bayer, AbbVie, and ObsEva. She has received royalties from UpToDate and fees from Med Learning Group, Med-IQ, Medscape, Peer View, and PER, as well as honoraria from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Massachusetts Medical Society. She holds a patent for methods and compounds for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. Dr. Segars has consulted for Bayer and Organon. Several coauthors reported similar financial relationships with private-sector entities and two coauthors are employees of Myovant.

Combination therapy with relugolix (Orgovyx, Relumina), a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, significantly reduced the pain of uterine fibroids, an undertreated aspect of this disease.

In pooled results from the multicenter randomized placebo-controlled LIBERTY 1 and 2 trials, relugolix combination therapy (CT) with the progestin norethindrone (Aygestin, Camila) markedly decreased both menstrual and nonmenstrual fibroid pain, as well as heavy bleeding and other symptoms of leiomyomas. This hormone-dependent condition occurs in 70%-80% of premenopausal women.

“Historically, studies of uterine fibroids have not asked about pain, so one of strengths of these studies is that they asked women to rate their pain and found a substantial proportion listed pain as a symptom,” lead author Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, director of reproductive endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The combination was effective against all categories of leiomyoma symptoms, she said, and adverse events were few.

Bleeding has been the main focus of studies of leiomyoma therapies, while chronic pain has been largely neglected, said James H. Segars Jr., MD, director of the division of reproductive science and women’s health research at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who was not involved in the studies. Across both of the LIBERTY trials, involving 509 women randomized during the period April 2017 to December 2018, more than half overall (54.4%) met their pain reduction goals in a subpopulation analysis. Pain reduction was a secondary outcome of the trials, with bleeding reduction the primary endpoint. Other fibroid symptoms are abdominal bloating and pressure.

“The consistent and significant reduction in measures of pain with relugolix-CT observed in the LIBERTY program is clinically meaningful, patient-relevant, and together with an improvement of heavy menstrual bleeding and other uterine leiomyoma–associated symptoms, is likely to have a substantial effect on the life of women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas,” Dr. Stewart and colleagues wrote. Their report was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Dr. Segars concurred. “This study is important because sometimes the only fibroid symptom women have is pain. If we ignore that, we miss a lot of women who have pain but no bleeding.”
 

The study

The premenopausal participants had a mean age of just over 42 years (range, 18-50) and were enrolled from North and South America, Europe, and Africa. All reported leiomyoma-associated heavy menstrual bleeding of 80 mL or greater per cycle for two cycles, or 160 mL or greater during one cycle.

In both arms, the mean body mass index was 32 kg/m², while menstrual blood loss volume was 245.4 (± 186.4) mL in the relugolix-CT and 207.4 (± 114.3) mL in the placebo group.

Pain was a frequent symptom, with approximately 70% in the intervention group and 74% in the placebo group reporting fibroid pain at baseline.

Women were randomized 1:1:1 to receive:

• Relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg, estradiol 1 mg, norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg)
• Delayed relugolix-CT (relugolix 40 mg monotherapy followed by relugolix-CT, each for 12 weeks)
• Placebo, taken orally once daily for 24 weeks

The therapy was well tolerated and adverse events were low.

The subpopulation analysis found that over the study period, the proportion of women achieving minimal to no pain (level 0 to 1) during the last 35 days of treatment was notably higher in the relugolix-CT arm than in the placebo arm: 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.4%-54.3%) versus 13.9% (95% CI, 8.8%-20.5%) in the placebo group (nominal P = .001).

Moreover, the proportions of women with minimal to no pain during both menstrual days and nonmenstrual days were significantly higher with relugolix-CT: 65.0% (95% CI, 55.6%-73.5%) and 44.6% (95% CI, 32.3%-7.5%), respectively, compared with placebo: 19.3% (95% CI 13.2%–26.7%, nominal P = 001), and 21.6% (95% CI, 12.9%-32.7%, nominal P = 004), respectively.

Studies of relugolix monotherapy in Japanese women with uterine leiomyomas have demonstrated reductions in pain.

“Significantly, this combination therapy allows women to be treated over 2 years and to take the oral tablet themselves, unlike Lupron [leuprolide], which is injected and can only be taken for a couple of months because of bone loss,” Dr. Segars said. And the add-back component of combination therapy prevents the adverse symptoms of a hypoestrogenic state.

“The pain of fibroids is chronic, and the longer treatment allows time for the pain fibers to revert to a normal state,” he explained. “The pain pathways get etched into the nerves and it takes time to revert.”

He noted that the LIBERTY trials showed a slight downward trend in pain continuing after 24 weeks of treatment. Other studies of similar hormonal treatments have shown a reduction in the size of fibroids, which can be as large as a tennis ball.

As in endometriosis, leiomyomas are associated with elevated circulating cytokines and a systemic proinflammatory state. In endometriosis, this milieu is linked to the risk of inflammatory arthritis, fibromyalgia, lupus, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Segars said. “If we did a deeper dive, we might find the same associations for fibroids.” Apart from chronic depression and fatigue, fibroids are linked to downstream pregnancy complications and poor outcomes such as miscarriage and preterm birth, he said.

“There remains a high unmet need for effective treatments, especially nonsurgical interventions, for women with uterine leiomyomas,” the authors wrote. Dr. Stewart added that “it would be helpful to learn more about how relugolix and other drugs in its class work in fibroids. No category of symptoms has been unresponsive to these medications – they are powerful drugs to help women with uterine fibroids.” She noted that relugolix-CT has already been approved outside the United States for symptoms beyond heavy menstrual bleeding.

Future research should focus on developing a therapy that does not interfere with fertility, Dr. Segars said. “We need a treatment that will allow women to get pregnant on it.”

Myovant Sciences GmbH sponsored LIBERTY 1 and 2 and oversaw all aspects of the studies. Dr. Stewart has provided consulting services to Myovant, Bayer, AbbVie, and ObsEva. She has received royalties from UpToDate and fees from Med Learning Group, Med-IQ, Medscape, Peer View, and PER, as well as honoraria from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Massachusetts Medical Society. She holds a patent for methods and compounds for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. Dr. Segars has consulted for Bayer and Organon. Several coauthors reported similar financial relationships with private-sector entities and two coauthors are employees of Myovant.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 23-year-old man with no significant past medical history presents to an urgent care center after a fall on his right arm while playing football. He reports a pain level of 6 using the visual analog scale (VAS). Physical exam reveals minor erythema and edema of his forearm with pain to palpation. Range of motion, strength, and sensation are intact. No lacerations are present. His vital signs are normal. No fracture is found on imaging. The physician decides that treatment with a topical analgesic is reasonable for this uncomplicated contusion of the right forearm. Is there a role for topical capsaicin in the treatment of this patient’s pain?

Topical nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective for the treatment of acute non–low back pain musculoskeletal injuries.² They are generally well tolerated and just as effective as oral NSAIDS or acetaminophen for localized injuries. Their ubiquitous availability, affordability, and low adverse effect profile make them an attractive first-line treatment option for acute musculoskeletal pain.

Capsaicin, a topical agent derived from a genus of red peppers, has been used for the treatment of neuropathic and chronic pain via its interactions with substance P, transient receptor potential vanilloid subtype 1 (TRPV1), and nociceptive nerve fibers.^3,4 It has demonstrated effectiveness in the management of diabetic neuropathy, knee osteoarthritis, and postherpetic neuralgia, as well as various causes of pruritus.^5,6

Although many studies have compared oral and topical NSAIDs, opiates, and acetaminophen, few studies have directly compared topical NSAIDs and capsaicin. This study compared the topical NSAID piroxicam with topical capsaicin.

STUDY SUMMARY

Topical capsaicin demonstrated superior pain reduction

This prospective, double-blind RCT compared the efficacy of topical capsaicin vs topical piroxicam for the treatment of acute pain following upper extremity blunt trauma. Patients (ages ≥ 18 years) who presented to a Turkish emergency department within 2 hours of upper extremity injury were randomized to receive either 0.05% capsaicin gel (n = 69) or 0.5% piroxicam gel (n = 67). Patients reported level 5 or higher pain on the VAS. Those with fractures, dislocations, skin disruption, or other trauma were excluded. Age, gender, pain duration, and mechanism of injury did not differ significantly between study groups.¹

Blinding was ensured by placing the gels in opaque containers containing 30 mg of either capsaicin or piroxicam and dyeing the medicine with red and yellow food coloring. A thin layer of medication was applied to an area no larger than 5 × 5 cm on the upper extremity and rubbed for 1 minute. Patients were observed in the emergency department for 2 hours and discharged with instructions to apply the medication 3 times daily for 72 hours.

Topical capsaicin is an effective alternative to a topical NSAID in reducing pain associated with acute upper extremity injuries.

The investigators measured pain using VAS scores at 1 hour, 2 hours, 24 hours, and 72 hours after treatment. Topical capsaicin was superior to topical piroxicam at achieving both primary outcomes: a VAS score of ≤ 4 (85.5% vs 50.7%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 2.9; P < .001) and a > 50% reduction in VAS score (87% vs 62.7%; NNT = 4.1; P < .01) at the end of treatment.¹ (These outcomes were based on earlier determinations of the minimal clinically important difference.^7,8)

Additionally, capsaicin was more effective than piroxicam at each time interval. This difference was most pronounced at 72 hours, with a mean difference of delta VAS scores of 1.53 (95% CI, 0.85-2.221) and a mean percentage of the reduction in VAS scores of 19.7% (95% CI, 12.4%-27.2%) (P < .001).¹

Reported adverse effects, such as burning, itching, and rash, were mild and infrequent and showed no significant difference between the treatment groups.

WHAT’S NEW

First study comparing topical capsaicin and a topical NSAID in acute trauma

Although both capsaicin and topical piroxicam have proven efficacy for the treatment of pain, this RCT is the first study to directly compare these agents in the setting of acute upper extremity blunt trauma. Capsaicin is currently more commonly prescribed as a treatment for chronic neuropathic pain.^4,9 In this study, capsaicin demonstrated superior results in pain reduction at each assessed time interval and at the primary end point of 72 hours.

CAVEATS

Limited generalizability to lower extremity and truncal trauma

This RCT included a relatively small sample size (136 patients). Researchers evaluated only blunt upper extremity injuries; as such, the generalizability of the effectiveness of topical capsaicin in blunt lower extremity and truncal trauma is limited, especially over larger surface areas.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

No major challenges found

There are no major challenges to implementing this inexpensive treatment.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 23-year-old man with no significant past medical history presents to an urgent care center after a fall on his right arm while playing football. He reports a pain level of 6 using the visual analog scale (VAS). Physical exam reveals minor erythema and edema of his forearm with pain to palpation. Range of motion, strength, and sensation are intact. No lacerations are present. His vital signs are normal. No fracture is found on imaging. The physician decides that treatment with a topical analgesic is reasonable for this uncomplicated contusion of the right forearm. Is there a role for topical capsaicin in the treatment of this patient’s pain?

Topical nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective for the treatment of acute non–low back pain musculoskeletal injuries.² They are generally well tolerated and just as effective as oral NSAIDS or acetaminophen for localized injuries. Their ubiquitous availability, affordability, and low adverse effect profile make them an attractive first-line treatment option for acute musculoskeletal pain.

Capsaicin, a topical agent derived from a genus of red peppers, has been used for the treatment of neuropathic and chronic pain via its interactions with substance P, transient receptor potential vanilloid subtype 1 (TRPV1), and nociceptive nerve fibers.^3,4 It has demonstrated effectiveness in the management of diabetic neuropathy, knee osteoarthritis, and postherpetic neuralgia, as well as various causes of pruritus.^5,6

Although many studies have compared oral and topical NSAIDs, opiates, and acetaminophen, few studies have directly compared topical NSAIDs and capsaicin. This study compared the topical NSAID piroxicam with topical capsaicin.

STUDY SUMMARY

Topical capsaicin demonstrated superior pain reduction

This prospective, double-blind RCT compared the efficacy of topical capsaicin vs topical piroxicam for the treatment of acute pain following upper extremity blunt trauma. Patients (ages ≥ 18 years) who presented to a Turkish emergency department within 2 hours of upper extremity injury were randomized to receive either 0.05% capsaicin gel (n = 69) or 0.5% piroxicam gel (n = 67). Patients reported level 5 or higher pain on the VAS. Those with fractures, dislocations, skin disruption, or other trauma were excluded. Age, gender, pain duration, and mechanism of injury did not differ significantly between study groups.¹

Blinding was ensured by placing the gels in opaque containers containing 30 mg of either capsaicin or piroxicam and dyeing the medicine with red and yellow food coloring. A thin layer of medication was applied to an area no larger than 5 × 5 cm on the upper extremity and rubbed for 1 minute. Patients were observed in the emergency department for 2 hours and discharged with instructions to apply the medication 3 times daily for 72 hours.

Topical capsaicin is an effective alternative to a topical NSAID in reducing pain associated with acute upper extremity injuries.

The investigators measured pain using VAS scores at 1 hour, 2 hours, 24 hours, and 72 hours after treatment. Topical capsaicin was superior to topical piroxicam at achieving both primary outcomes: a VAS score of ≤ 4 (85.5% vs 50.7%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 2.9; P < .001) and a > 50% reduction in VAS score (87% vs 62.7%; NNT = 4.1; P < .01) at the end of treatment.¹ (These outcomes were based on earlier determinations of the minimal clinically important difference.^7,8)

Additionally, capsaicin was more effective than piroxicam at each time interval. This difference was most pronounced at 72 hours, with a mean difference of delta VAS scores of 1.53 (95% CI, 0.85-2.221) and a mean percentage of the reduction in VAS scores of 19.7% (95% CI, 12.4%-27.2%) (P < .001).¹

Reported adverse effects, such as burning, itching, and rash, were mild and infrequent and showed no significant difference between the treatment groups.

WHAT’S NEW

First study comparing topical capsaicin and a topical NSAID in acute trauma

Although both capsaicin and topical piroxicam have proven efficacy for the treatment of pain, this RCT is the first study to directly compare these agents in the setting of acute upper extremity blunt trauma. Capsaicin is currently more commonly prescribed as a treatment for chronic neuropathic pain.^4,9 In this study, capsaicin demonstrated superior results in pain reduction at each assessed time interval and at the primary end point of 72 hours.

CAVEATS

Limited generalizability to lower extremity and truncal trauma

This RCT included a relatively small sample size (136 patients). Researchers evaluated only blunt upper extremity injuries; as such, the generalizability of the effectiveness of topical capsaicin in blunt lower extremity and truncal trauma is limited, especially over larger surface areas.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

No major challenges found

There are no major challenges to implementing this inexpensive treatment.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 23-year-old man with no significant past medical history presents to an urgent care center after a fall on his right arm while playing football. He reports a pain level of 6 using the visual analog scale (VAS). Physical exam reveals minor erythema and edema of his forearm with pain to palpation. Range of motion, strength, and sensation are intact. No lacerations are present. His vital signs are normal. No fracture is found on imaging. The physician decides that treatment with a topical analgesic is reasonable for this uncomplicated contusion of the right forearm. Is there a role for topical capsaicin in the treatment of this patient’s pain?

Topical nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective for the treatment of acute non–low back pain musculoskeletal injuries.² They are generally well tolerated and just as effective as oral NSAIDS or acetaminophen for localized injuries. Their ubiquitous availability, affordability, and low adverse effect profile make them an attractive first-line treatment option for acute musculoskeletal pain.

Capsaicin, a topical agent derived from a genus of red peppers, has been used for the treatment of neuropathic and chronic pain via its interactions with substance P, transient receptor potential vanilloid subtype 1 (TRPV1), and nociceptive nerve fibers.^3,4 It has demonstrated effectiveness in the management of diabetic neuropathy, knee osteoarthritis, and postherpetic neuralgia, as well as various causes of pruritus.^5,6

Although many studies have compared oral and topical NSAIDs, opiates, and acetaminophen, few studies have directly compared topical NSAIDs and capsaicin. This study compared the topical NSAID piroxicam with topical capsaicin.

STUDY SUMMARY

Topical capsaicin demonstrated superior pain reduction

This prospective, double-blind RCT compared the efficacy of topical capsaicin vs topical piroxicam for the treatment of acute pain following upper extremity blunt trauma. Patients (ages ≥ 18 years) who presented to a Turkish emergency department within 2 hours of upper extremity injury were randomized to receive either 0.05% capsaicin gel (n = 69) or 0.5% piroxicam gel (n = 67). Patients reported level 5 or higher pain on the VAS. Those with fractures, dislocations, skin disruption, or other trauma were excluded. Age, gender, pain duration, and mechanism of injury did not differ significantly between study groups.¹

Blinding was ensured by placing the gels in opaque containers containing 30 mg of either capsaicin or piroxicam and dyeing the medicine with red and yellow food coloring. A thin layer of medication was applied to an area no larger than 5 × 5 cm on the upper extremity and rubbed for 1 minute. Patients were observed in the emergency department for 2 hours and discharged with instructions to apply the medication 3 times daily for 72 hours.

Topical capsaicin is an effective alternative to a topical NSAID in reducing pain associated with acute upper extremity injuries.

The investigators measured pain using VAS scores at 1 hour, 2 hours, 24 hours, and 72 hours after treatment. Topical capsaicin was superior to topical piroxicam at achieving both primary outcomes: a VAS score of ≤ 4 (85.5% vs 50.7%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 2.9; P < .001) and a > 50% reduction in VAS score (87% vs 62.7%; NNT = 4.1; P < .01) at the end of treatment.¹ (These outcomes were based on earlier determinations of the minimal clinically important difference.^7,8)

Additionally, capsaicin was more effective than piroxicam at each time interval. This difference was most pronounced at 72 hours, with a mean difference of delta VAS scores of 1.53 (95% CI, 0.85-2.221) and a mean percentage of the reduction in VAS scores of 19.7% (95% CI, 12.4%-27.2%) (P < .001).¹

Reported adverse effects, such as burning, itching, and rash, were mild and infrequent and showed no significant difference between the treatment groups.

WHAT’S NEW

First study comparing topical capsaicin and a topical NSAID in acute trauma

Although both capsaicin and topical piroxicam have proven efficacy for the treatment of pain, this RCT is the first study to directly compare these agents in the setting of acute upper extremity blunt trauma. Capsaicin is currently more commonly prescribed as a treatment for chronic neuropathic pain.^4,9 In this study, capsaicin demonstrated superior results in pain reduction at each assessed time interval and at the primary end point of 72 hours.

CAVEATS

Limited generalizability to lower extremity and truncal trauma

This RCT included a relatively small sample size (136 patients). Researchers evaluated only blunt upper extremity injuries; as such, the generalizability of the effectiveness of topical capsaicin in blunt lower extremity and truncal trauma is limited, especially over larger surface areas.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

No major challenges found

There are no major challenges to implementing this inexpensive treatment.

CHICAGO – Many physicians still hold beliefs despite the existence of clear evidence that they are incorrect, said a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

These long-held pieces of dogma – or “medical myths” – were engraved during training or early in the careers of many physicians, and are difficult to overcome, noted Douglas Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“I think that myths persist because medical professionals get taught one way in training, given a ‘truth’ or ‘This is the way we do it,’ and then do not ever rethink, ‘Is it true?’ ” he said in an interview. “Studies pop up to question conventional wisdom, but unless the studies get highly publicized, they aren’t noticed.”

During his presentation, Dr. Paauw discussed three of what he considers to be some of the some of the medical myths that are in greatest need of being dispelled.
 

Shellfish allergy and radiocontrast

A myth persists that people with a shellfish allergy could have an allergic reaction when a contrast agent is used for a scan, he said.

This belief arose, because fish and shellfish contain iodine, and allergic reactions to seafood are fairly common, and contrast agents contain iodine, too, Dr. Paauw said.

The belief is widespread, with 65% of radiologists and 88.9% of interventional cardiologists saying they ask about seafood or shellfish allergies before administering contrast. And a third of radiologists and 50% of cardiologists said they would withhold contrast media or recommend a premedication for patients with such an allergy.

But the belief makes no sense, Dr. Pauuw said. Iodine is present in many other foods, including milk and bread, and allergies to shellfish are because of parvalbumin protein and tropomyosins, not iodine.
 

Colonoscopy dogma

It’s been long believed that people need to be on a clear, liquid diet for 1 or 2 days and need to drink a bowel-prep liquid before a colonoscopy, noted Dr. Paauw.

But the evidence shows this isn’t necessary, he said.

A 2020 study found that a low-residual diet, allowing foods such as meat, eggs, dairy, and bread, were comparable to the clear liquid diet in terms of bowel prep and detection of polyps during the exam. The patients on the low-residual diet had less nausea, less vomiting, and less hunger, and expressed more willingness to have a repeat colonoscopy.

“Let them eat,” Dr. Paauw said in his presentation.
 

Metronidazole and alcohol

There is a belief that patients shouldn’t drink alcohol if they are taking metronidazole, because of concerns about nausea, vomiting, flushing and other symptoms – also known as a disulfiramlike reaction, Dr. Paauw explained.

Case reports have been published, but the cases were presented as though a metronidazole-ethanol reaction was an established fact, and the authors didn’t provide evidence to justify this, Dr. Paauw said.

But it’s been shown in rat models that metronidazole can increase levels of acetaldehyde, the trigger of symptoms, in the colon, but not in the blood. And in a small placebo-controlled, randomized trial, six people were given metronidazole and ethanol and, after regular blood testing, no difference was seen in acetaldehyde blood levels, vital signs, or symptoms.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that avoiding alcohol while taking metronidazole is unnecessary, said Dr. Paauw.
 

Sinus headaches

Contrary to common belief, headaches thought to be “sinus headaches” are usually migraine headaches, Dr. Paauw said.

In one study, 2,991 patients with six headaches in the previous 6 months were self-diagnosed or were physician-diagnosed with sinus headaches. But 88% of these headaches met the International Headache Society criteria for migraine headache.

Dr. Paauw said he hopes that clinicians reconsider the evidence regularly when deciding how to treat their patients, and not rely on bits of dogma.

“They stay with us,” he said, “and sometimes there are other ways to do it.”

Shien Tze, MD, an internist in Fargo, N,D,, said that patients sometimes also hold misconceptions, based on outdated dogma, that he needs to dispel.

“I try to convince them that this is a myth that is not based on evidence, not based on science,” he said. “I think it depends on the way you say it. If you say it in a calm, firm, not wishy-washy way, the patients believe you.”

Dr. Paauw reported no relevant financial disclosures. He serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, and he contributes “Myth of the Month” and “Pearl of the Month” columns to this publication.

CHICAGO – Many physicians still hold beliefs despite the existence of clear evidence that they are incorrect, said a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

These long-held pieces of dogma – or “medical myths” – were engraved during training or early in the careers of many physicians, and are difficult to overcome, noted Douglas Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“I think that myths persist because medical professionals get taught one way in training, given a ‘truth’ or ‘This is the way we do it,’ and then do not ever rethink, ‘Is it true?’ ” he said in an interview. “Studies pop up to question conventional wisdom, but unless the studies get highly publicized, they aren’t noticed.”

During his presentation, Dr. Paauw discussed three of what he considers to be some of the some of the medical myths that are in greatest need of being dispelled.
 

Shellfish allergy and radiocontrast

A myth persists that people with a shellfish allergy could have an allergic reaction when a contrast agent is used for a scan, he said.

This belief arose, because fish and shellfish contain iodine, and allergic reactions to seafood are fairly common, and contrast agents contain iodine, too, Dr. Paauw said.

The belief is widespread, with 65% of radiologists and 88.9% of interventional cardiologists saying they ask about seafood or shellfish allergies before administering contrast. And a third of radiologists and 50% of cardiologists said they would withhold contrast media or recommend a premedication for patients with such an allergy.

But the belief makes no sense, Dr. Pauuw said. Iodine is present in many other foods, including milk and bread, and allergies to shellfish are because of parvalbumin protein and tropomyosins, not iodine.
 

Colonoscopy dogma

It’s been long believed that people need to be on a clear, liquid diet for 1 or 2 days and need to drink a bowel-prep liquid before a colonoscopy, noted Dr. Paauw.

But the evidence shows this isn’t necessary, he said.

A 2020 study found that a low-residual diet, allowing foods such as meat, eggs, dairy, and bread, were comparable to the clear liquid diet in terms of bowel prep and detection of polyps during the exam. The patients on the low-residual diet had less nausea, less vomiting, and less hunger, and expressed more willingness to have a repeat colonoscopy.

“Let them eat,” Dr. Paauw said in his presentation.
 

Metronidazole and alcohol

There is a belief that patients shouldn’t drink alcohol if they are taking metronidazole, because of concerns about nausea, vomiting, flushing and other symptoms – also known as a disulfiramlike reaction, Dr. Paauw explained.

Case reports have been published, but the cases were presented as though a metronidazole-ethanol reaction was an established fact, and the authors didn’t provide evidence to justify this, Dr. Paauw said.

But it’s been shown in rat models that metronidazole can increase levels of acetaldehyde, the trigger of symptoms, in the colon, but not in the blood. And in a small placebo-controlled, randomized trial, six people were given metronidazole and ethanol and, after regular blood testing, no difference was seen in acetaldehyde blood levels, vital signs, or symptoms.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that avoiding alcohol while taking metronidazole is unnecessary, said Dr. Paauw.
 

Sinus headaches

Contrary to common belief, headaches thought to be “sinus headaches” are usually migraine headaches, Dr. Paauw said.

In one study, 2,991 patients with six headaches in the previous 6 months were self-diagnosed or were physician-diagnosed with sinus headaches. But 88% of these headaches met the International Headache Society criteria for migraine headache.

Dr. Paauw said he hopes that clinicians reconsider the evidence regularly when deciding how to treat their patients, and not rely on bits of dogma.

“They stay with us,” he said, “and sometimes there are other ways to do it.”

Shien Tze, MD, an internist in Fargo, N,D,, said that patients sometimes also hold misconceptions, based on outdated dogma, that he needs to dispel.

“I try to convince them that this is a myth that is not based on evidence, not based on science,” he said. “I think it depends on the way you say it. If you say it in a calm, firm, not wishy-washy way, the patients believe you.”

Dr. Paauw reported no relevant financial disclosures. He serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, and he contributes “Myth of the Month” and “Pearl of the Month” columns to this publication.

CHICAGO – Many physicians still hold beliefs despite the existence of clear evidence that they are incorrect, said a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

These long-held pieces of dogma – or “medical myths” – were engraved during training or early in the careers of many physicians, and are difficult to overcome, noted Douglas Paauw, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“I think that myths persist because medical professionals get taught one way in training, given a ‘truth’ or ‘This is the way we do it,’ and then do not ever rethink, ‘Is it true?’ ” he said in an interview. “Studies pop up to question conventional wisdom, but unless the studies get highly publicized, they aren’t noticed.”

During his presentation, Dr. Paauw discussed three of what he considers to be some of the some of the medical myths that are in greatest need of being dispelled.
 

Shellfish allergy and radiocontrast

A myth persists that people with a shellfish allergy could have an allergic reaction when a contrast agent is used for a scan, he said.

This belief arose, because fish and shellfish contain iodine, and allergic reactions to seafood are fairly common, and contrast agents contain iodine, too, Dr. Paauw said.

The belief is widespread, with 65% of radiologists and 88.9% of interventional cardiologists saying they ask about seafood or shellfish allergies before administering contrast. And a third of radiologists and 50% of cardiologists said they would withhold contrast media or recommend a premedication for patients with such an allergy.

But the belief makes no sense, Dr. Pauuw said. Iodine is present in many other foods, including milk and bread, and allergies to shellfish are because of parvalbumin protein and tropomyosins, not iodine.
 

Colonoscopy dogma

It’s been long believed that people need to be on a clear, liquid diet for 1 or 2 days and need to drink a bowel-prep liquid before a colonoscopy, noted Dr. Paauw.

But the evidence shows this isn’t necessary, he said.

A 2020 study found that a low-residual diet, allowing foods such as meat, eggs, dairy, and bread, were comparable to the clear liquid diet in terms of bowel prep and detection of polyps during the exam. The patients on the low-residual diet had less nausea, less vomiting, and less hunger, and expressed more willingness to have a repeat colonoscopy.

“Let them eat,” Dr. Paauw said in his presentation.
 

Metronidazole and alcohol

There is a belief that patients shouldn’t drink alcohol if they are taking metronidazole, because of concerns about nausea, vomiting, flushing and other symptoms – also known as a disulfiramlike reaction, Dr. Paauw explained.

Case reports have been published, but the cases were presented as though a metronidazole-ethanol reaction was an established fact, and the authors didn’t provide evidence to justify this, Dr. Paauw said.

But it’s been shown in rat models that metronidazole can increase levels of acetaldehyde, the trigger of symptoms, in the colon, but not in the blood. And in a small placebo-controlled, randomized trial, six people were given metronidazole and ethanol and, after regular blood testing, no difference was seen in acetaldehyde blood levels, vital signs, or symptoms.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that avoiding alcohol while taking metronidazole is unnecessary, said Dr. Paauw.
 

Sinus headaches

Contrary to common belief, headaches thought to be “sinus headaches” are usually migraine headaches, Dr. Paauw said.

In one study, 2,991 patients with six headaches in the previous 6 months were self-diagnosed or were physician-diagnosed with sinus headaches. But 88% of these headaches met the International Headache Society criteria for migraine headache.

Dr. Paauw said he hopes that clinicians reconsider the evidence regularly when deciding how to treat their patients, and not rely on bits of dogma.

“They stay with us,” he said, “and sometimes there are other ways to do it.”

Shien Tze, MD, an internist in Fargo, N,D,, said that patients sometimes also hold misconceptions, based on outdated dogma, that he needs to dispel.

“I try to convince them that this is a myth that is not based on evidence, not based on science,” he said. “I think it depends on the way you say it. If you say it in a calm, firm, not wishy-washy way, the patients believe you.”

Dr. Paauw reported no relevant financial disclosures. He serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, and he contributes “Myth of the Month” and “Pearl of the Month” columns to this publication.

Children who have greater acute appendicitis pain may be less likely to improve if they’re treated with antibiotics alone, according to a secondary analysis of a nonrandomized clinical trial.

“While approximately 35% of families chose nonoperative management, a high pain score between 7-10 on a 10-point scale nearly doubled in-hospital treatment failure,” Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, a pediatric surgeon and the director of the Comprehensive Colorectal Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., told this news organization in an email.

“Even if nonoperative management of pediatric appendicitis did not work – resulting in the need to remove the appendix in 34% of cases – families were happy with their decisions 1 year later,” added Dr. Rentea, who coauthored an invited commentary about the study.

Lead study author Peter C. Minneci, MD, MHSc, a pediatric surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues analyzed a subgroup of patients from a larger study in 10 tertiary children’s hospitals in the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium.

As they reported in JAMA Network Open, the larger prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 1,068 children between 2015 and 2018. The children ranged in age from 7 to 17 years, and they had imaging-confirmed appendicitis with an appendix diameter of 1.1 cm or less, no abscess, no appendicolith, and no phlegmon. White blood cell count was between 5,000 and 18,000 cells/μL, and abdominal pain began less than 48 hours before they received antibiotic therapy.

Caregivers chose either surgery or nonoperative antibiotic management. Patients who were treated first with antibiotics alone and who did not undergo appendectomy within 1 year were considered to have successfully completed nonoperative treatment.

The secondary analysis included the 370 children enrolled in the nonoperative group. Of these, 229 were boys, and the median age was 12.3 years. In this subgroup, the researchers compared outcomes after nonoperative, antibiotic management vs. surgery.

At 1 year, treatment failure had occurred in 125 patients, with 53 having undergone appendectomy during their first hospitalization, and 72 having experienced delayed treatment failure after being discharged.

• Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was linked to higher risk for in-hospital treatment failure (relative risk, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.4) but not for delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2).
• Pain lasting longer than 24 hours was linked to lower risk for delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.0) but not for in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-2.7) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2).
• Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs. 27.0; difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.01-2.0) and at 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.2-2.0).

The researchers found no increased risk for treatment failure based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, white blood cell count, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, presentation symptoms, or imaging results.

Antibiotics-only is a safe option for children

“This study suggests that pediatric patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis should be offered treatment options, including nonoperative management,” the authors write. “Treatment with antibiotics alone is a safe and equitable option for children, with no increased risk of treatment failure based on sociodemographic or objective clinical characteristics at presentation.”

But, the authors advise: “Families need to be made aware that treatment failure is not uncommon, and they should be provided with anticipatory guidance on how to proceed should symptoms recur.”

The investigators acknowledged limitations to the study, including the nonrandomized design that may have introduced bias, the loss to follow-up, and the study population being U.S. Midwest children, who may differ from children elsewhere in the country.

Shawn D. St Peter, MD, a pediatric surgeon, medical chair, and a senior vice president at Children’s Mercy Kansas City told this news organization in an email that having a nonoperative alternative to surgical appendectomy is important.

“Antibiotics are the initial treatment for appendicitis and can be the definitive treatment,” he said.

“Surprisingly, no sociodemographic or clinical characteristics were associated with an increased risk of nonoperative appendicitis treatment failure,” added Dr. St Peter, who coauthored the commentary with Dr. Rentea.

Howard C. Jen, MD, a pediatric surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, Mattel Children’s Hospital, was not surprised by the findings.

“Nonoperative management for acute noncomplicated appendicitis in children continues to be safe and effective in highly selected patients,” he said in an email. “This alternative to surgery should be offered routinely to patients with early acute appendicitis.” 

Dr. Jen, who was not involved with the current study, noted that it did not address the impact and costs to families of nonoperative management vs. surgery.

“For the most vulnerable children who had difficulties accessing medical care, what is the best treatment option? What factors are important to the families when making this decision?” he asked.

All study and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

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

Children who have greater acute appendicitis pain may be less likely to improve if they’re treated with antibiotics alone, according to a secondary analysis of a nonrandomized clinical trial.

“While approximately 35% of families chose nonoperative management, a high pain score between 7-10 on a 10-point scale nearly doubled in-hospital treatment failure,” Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, a pediatric surgeon and the director of the Comprehensive Colorectal Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., told this news organization in an email.

“Even if nonoperative management of pediatric appendicitis did not work – resulting in the need to remove the appendix in 34% of cases – families were happy with their decisions 1 year later,” added Dr. Rentea, who coauthored an invited commentary about the study.

Lead study author Peter C. Minneci, MD, MHSc, a pediatric surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues analyzed a subgroup of patients from a larger study in 10 tertiary children’s hospitals in the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium.

As they reported in JAMA Network Open, the larger prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 1,068 children between 2015 and 2018. The children ranged in age from 7 to 17 years, and they had imaging-confirmed appendicitis with an appendix diameter of 1.1 cm or less, no abscess, no appendicolith, and no phlegmon. White blood cell count was between 5,000 and 18,000 cells/μL, and abdominal pain began less than 48 hours before they received antibiotic therapy.

Caregivers chose either surgery or nonoperative antibiotic management. Patients who were treated first with antibiotics alone and who did not undergo appendectomy within 1 year were considered to have successfully completed nonoperative treatment.

The secondary analysis included the 370 children enrolled in the nonoperative group. Of these, 229 were boys, and the median age was 12.3 years. In this subgroup, the researchers compared outcomes after nonoperative, antibiotic management vs. surgery.

At 1 year, treatment failure had occurred in 125 patients, with 53 having undergone appendectomy during their first hospitalization, and 72 having experienced delayed treatment failure after being discharged.

• Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was linked to higher risk for in-hospital treatment failure (relative risk, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.4) but not for delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2).
• Pain lasting longer than 24 hours was linked to lower risk for delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.0) but not for in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-2.7) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2).
• Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs. 27.0; difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.01-2.0) and at 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.2-2.0).

The researchers found no increased risk for treatment failure based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, white blood cell count, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, presentation symptoms, or imaging results.

Antibiotics-only is a safe option for children

“This study suggests that pediatric patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis should be offered treatment options, including nonoperative management,” the authors write. “Treatment with antibiotics alone is a safe and equitable option for children, with no increased risk of treatment failure based on sociodemographic or objective clinical characteristics at presentation.”

But, the authors advise: “Families need to be made aware that treatment failure is not uncommon, and they should be provided with anticipatory guidance on how to proceed should symptoms recur.”

The investigators acknowledged limitations to the study, including the nonrandomized design that may have introduced bias, the loss to follow-up, and the study population being U.S. Midwest children, who may differ from children elsewhere in the country.

Shawn D. St Peter, MD, a pediatric surgeon, medical chair, and a senior vice president at Children’s Mercy Kansas City told this news organization in an email that having a nonoperative alternative to surgical appendectomy is important.

“Antibiotics are the initial treatment for appendicitis and can be the definitive treatment,” he said.

“Surprisingly, no sociodemographic or clinical characteristics were associated with an increased risk of nonoperative appendicitis treatment failure,” added Dr. St Peter, who coauthored the commentary with Dr. Rentea.

Howard C. Jen, MD, a pediatric surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, Mattel Children’s Hospital, was not surprised by the findings.

“Nonoperative management for acute noncomplicated appendicitis in children continues to be safe and effective in highly selected patients,” he said in an email. “This alternative to surgery should be offered routinely to patients with early acute appendicitis.” 

Dr. Jen, who was not involved with the current study, noted that it did not address the impact and costs to families of nonoperative management vs. surgery.

“For the most vulnerable children who had difficulties accessing medical care, what is the best treatment option? What factors are important to the families when making this decision?” he asked.

All study and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

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

Children who have greater acute appendicitis pain may be less likely to improve if they’re treated with antibiotics alone, according to a secondary analysis of a nonrandomized clinical trial.

“While approximately 35% of families chose nonoperative management, a high pain score between 7-10 on a 10-point scale nearly doubled in-hospital treatment failure,” Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, a pediatric surgeon and the director of the Comprehensive Colorectal Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., told this news organization in an email.

“Even if nonoperative management of pediatric appendicitis did not work – resulting in the need to remove the appendix in 34% of cases – families were happy with their decisions 1 year later,” added Dr. Rentea, who coauthored an invited commentary about the study.

Lead study author Peter C. Minneci, MD, MHSc, a pediatric surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues analyzed a subgroup of patients from a larger study in 10 tertiary children’s hospitals in the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium.

As they reported in JAMA Network Open, the larger prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 1,068 children between 2015 and 2018. The children ranged in age from 7 to 17 years, and they had imaging-confirmed appendicitis with an appendix diameter of 1.1 cm or less, no abscess, no appendicolith, and no phlegmon. White blood cell count was between 5,000 and 18,000 cells/μL, and abdominal pain began less than 48 hours before they received antibiotic therapy.

Caregivers chose either surgery or nonoperative antibiotic management. Patients who were treated first with antibiotics alone and who did not undergo appendectomy within 1 year were considered to have successfully completed nonoperative treatment.

The secondary analysis included the 370 children enrolled in the nonoperative group. Of these, 229 were boys, and the median age was 12.3 years. In this subgroup, the researchers compared outcomes after nonoperative, antibiotic management vs. surgery.

At 1 year, treatment failure had occurred in 125 patients, with 53 having undergone appendectomy during their first hospitalization, and 72 having experienced delayed treatment failure after being discharged.

• Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was linked to higher risk for in-hospital treatment failure (relative risk, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.4) but not for delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2).
• Pain lasting longer than 24 hours was linked to lower risk for delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.0) but not for in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-2.7) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2).
• Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs. 27.0; difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.01-2.0) and at 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.2-2.0).

The researchers found no increased risk for treatment failure based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, white blood cell count, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, presentation symptoms, or imaging results.

Antibiotics-only is a safe option for children

“This study suggests that pediatric patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis should be offered treatment options, including nonoperative management,” the authors write. “Treatment with antibiotics alone is a safe and equitable option for children, with no increased risk of treatment failure based on sociodemographic or objective clinical characteristics at presentation.”

But, the authors advise: “Families need to be made aware that treatment failure is not uncommon, and they should be provided with anticipatory guidance on how to proceed should symptoms recur.”

The investigators acknowledged limitations to the study, including the nonrandomized design that may have introduced bias, the loss to follow-up, and the study population being U.S. Midwest children, who may differ from children elsewhere in the country.

Shawn D. St Peter, MD, a pediatric surgeon, medical chair, and a senior vice president at Children’s Mercy Kansas City told this news organization in an email that having a nonoperative alternative to surgical appendectomy is important.

“Antibiotics are the initial treatment for appendicitis and can be the definitive treatment,” he said.

“Surprisingly, no sociodemographic or clinical characteristics were associated with an increased risk of nonoperative appendicitis treatment failure,” added Dr. St Peter, who coauthored the commentary with Dr. Rentea.

Howard C. Jen, MD, a pediatric surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, Mattel Children’s Hospital, was not surprised by the findings.

“Nonoperative management for acute noncomplicated appendicitis in children continues to be safe and effective in highly selected patients,” he said in an email. “This alternative to surgery should be offered routinely to patients with early acute appendicitis.” 

Dr. Jen, who was not involved with the current study, noted that it did not address the impact and costs to families of nonoperative management vs. surgery.

“For the most vulnerable children who had difficulties accessing medical care, what is the best treatment option? What factors are important to the families when making this decision?” he asked.

All study and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

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

Functional abdominal pain in childhood and adolescence is extremely stressful for patients and a therapeutic challenge for the physicians treating them. A meta-analysis of 33 randomized-controlled studies published in JAMA Pediatrics shows that cognitive-behavioral therapy or hypnotherapy promises the greatest therapy success.

“If children or adolescents complain about chronic abdominal pain and a detailed diagnostic does not reveal any somatic cause, this is referred to as functional abdominal pain,” Burkhard Rodeck, MD, general secretary of the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in Berlin, told this news organization.
 

Signal perception disorder

It is still not completely clear what causes functional abdominal pain. But it is assumed to be a disruption in the communication between the gastrointestinal tract and the brain. “These patients are experiencing a signal perception disorder: normal body signals, such as a slight stomach rumble, are assigned to the pain category for them much more quickly than for other people,” said Dr. Rodeck. “The meta-analysis provides confirmation of this – functional abdominal pain is actually a biopsychosocial matter.”

In the standard therapy of functional abdominal pain, however, it is also possible to choose a medicinal approach. “Studies show that herbal preparations such as peppermint oil capsules have some efficacy, since they attenuate the strength of the signals being sent from the gastrointestinal tract to the brain, with the result that they are not perceived so quickly as pain. Probiotics can also potentially help,” added Dr. Rodeck.

“If this is unsuccessful, the child must be offered a psychologic/psychotherapeutic measure, usually cognitive-behavioral therapy.”
 

Comparison of psychosocial therapies

The meta-analysis was carried out by a research team at the University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom. It included 2,657 children and adolescents between the ages of 7 and 17 years, of which two-thirds were girls.

Various psychosocial therapy approaches for functional abdominal pain, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, educational assistance, hypnotherapy (directed at the digestive system), guided meditation with relaxation, yoga, or (visceral) osteopathy were investigated and compared in the studies – sometimes against each other and sometimes against no intervention.

Lead author Morris Gordon, MBChB, PhD, professor of evidence synthesis and systematic review at the University of Central Lancashire, and his colleagues reported that cognitive-behavioral therapy was 2.37-times more likely to result in therapy success than no intervention. To treat functional abdominal pain successfully in one child or adolescent, five children needed to be treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy.
 

Rarer, milder pain

The children and adolescents treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy also experienced less frequent and less severe abdominal pain than the children and adolescents who did not receive any intervention. The rate of side effect–related therapy discontinuations did not differ between the groups.

Hypnotherapy could also be associated with an improved outcome, compared with no intervention, added Dr. Gordon and his colleagues. Hypnotherapy was 2.86-times more likely to result in therapy success, and the number needed to treat was five.

The other therapeutic approaches investigated did not perform any better in the studies than no intervention. However, the authors noted that evidence of the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy is moderate or weak, especially owing to the high bias risk.

“The therapy for functional abdominal pain cannot be compared with the therapy for scarlet fever, for example, where penicillin is administered in the knowledge that recovery is guaranteed. There is evidence that cognitive-behavioral therapy and possibly also hypnotherapy may help, but this is not true for every patient,” said Dr. Rodeck.
 

Start with the pediatrician

Dr. Gordon and his co-authors suggested considering cognitive-behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy for the treatment of functional abdominal pain in children and adolescents. But they added that further randomized controlled studies are necessary to improve the quality of evidence and therefore the reliability of these results.

Children and adolescents with functional abdominal pain do not need to be sent directly to the psychologist for treatment, said Dr. Rodeck. The pediatric or adolescent medicine specialist can also administer the initial behavioral therapy measures. “Some patients manage with the behavioral therapy approaches we offer as pediatric and adolescent medicine specialists; others require professional support with psychologic expertise,” said Dr. Rodeck. Should outpatient treatment be unsuccessful, inpatient therapy in special psychosomatic clinics or wards remains an option.
 

Education offers relief

For many patients, being informed about the connections and mechanisms that play a role in functional abdominal pain can offer a lot of relief, said Dr. Rodeck. Offering coping strategies that can be used in the event of acute symptoms is also a part of this education.

“If patients have functional abdominal pain for which no organic cause can be found, this can lead to frustration, sadness, and despair. The problem can become even worse if they feel that they are not being taken seriously by the physician,” said Dr. Rodeck. These negative experiences can further exacerbate the pain perception disorder. The aim of behavioral therapy measures is therefore to interrupt and downregulate this vicious cycle.

“Constant investigations are not always helpful for patients with functional abdominal pain. Time must be taken with these patients to talk and explore the options. They have definite abdominal pain, they are not imagining it. They must be taken seriously,” he emphasized.

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

Functional abdominal pain in childhood and adolescence is extremely stressful for patients and a therapeutic challenge for the physicians treating them. A meta-analysis of 33 randomized-controlled studies published in JAMA Pediatrics shows that cognitive-behavioral therapy or hypnotherapy promises the greatest therapy success.

“If children or adolescents complain about chronic abdominal pain and a detailed diagnostic does not reveal any somatic cause, this is referred to as functional abdominal pain,” Burkhard Rodeck, MD, general secretary of the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in Berlin, told this news organization.
 

Signal perception disorder

It is still not completely clear what causes functional abdominal pain. But it is assumed to be a disruption in the communication between the gastrointestinal tract and the brain. “These patients are experiencing a signal perception disorder: normal body signals, such as a slight stomach rumble, are assigned to the pain category for them much more quickly than for other people,” said Dr. Rodeck. “The meta-analysis provides confirmation of this – functional abdominal pain is actually a biopsychosocial matter.”

In the standard therapy of functional abdominal pain, however, it is also possible to choose a medicinal approach. “Studies show that herbal preparations such as peppermint oil capsules have some efficacy, since they attenuate the strength of the signals being sent from the gastrointestinal tract to the brain, with the result that they are not perceived so quickly as pain. Probiotics can also potentially help,” added Dr. Rodeck.

“If this is unsuccessful, the child must be offered a psychologic/psychotherapeutic measure, usually cognitive-behavioral therapy.”
 

Comparison of psychosocial therapies

The meta-analysis was carried out by a research team at the University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom. It included 2,657 children and adolescents between the ages of 7 and 17 years, of which two-thirds were girls.

Various psychosocial therapy approaches for functional abdominal pain, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, educational assistance, hypnotherapy (directed at the digestive system), guided meditation with relaxation, yoga, or (visceral) osteopathy were investigated and compared in the studies – sometimes against each other and sometimes against no intervention.

Lead author Morris Gordon, MBChB, PhD, professor of evidence synthesis and systematic review at the University of Central Lancashire, and his colleagues reported that cognitive-behavioral therapy was 2.37-times more likely to result in therapy success than no intervention. To treat functional abdominal pain successfully in one child or adolescent, five children needed to be treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy.
 

Rarer, milder pain

The children and adolescents treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy also experienced less frequent and less severe abdominal pain than the children and adolescents who did not receive any intervention. The rate of side effect–related therapy discontinuations did not differ between the groups.

Hypnotherapy could also be associated with an improved outcome, compared with no intervention, added Dr. Gordon and his colleagues. Hypnotherapy was 2.86-times more likely to result in therapy success, and the number needed to treat was five.

The other therapeutic approaches investigated did not perform any better in the studies than no intervention. However, the authors noted that evidence of the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy is moderate or weak, especially owing to the high bias risk.

“The therapy for functional abdominal pain cannot be compared with the therapy for scarlet fever, for example, where penicillin is administered in the knowledge that recovery is guaranteed. There is evidence that cognitive-behavioral therapy and possibly also hypnotherapy may help, but this is not true for every patient,” said Dr. Rodeck.
 

Start with the pediatrician

Dr. Gordon and his co-authors suggested considering cognitive-behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy for the treatment of functional abdominal pain in children and adolescents. But they added that further randomized controlled studies are necessary to improve the quality of evidence and therefore the reliability of these results.

Children and adolescents with functional abdominal pain do not need to be sent directly to the psychologist for treatment, said Dr. Rodeck. The pediatric or adolescent medicine specialist can also administer the initial behavioral therapy measures. “Some patients manage with the behavioral therapy approaches we offer as pediatric and adolescent medicine specialists; others require professional support with psychologic expertise,” said Dr. Rodeck. Should outpatient treatment be unsuccessful, inpatient therapy in special psychosomatic clinics or wards remains an option.
 

Education offers relief

For many patients, being informed about the connections and mechanisms that play a role in functional abdominal pain can offer a lot of relief, said Dr. Rodeck. Offering coping strategies that can be used in the event of acute symptoms is also a part of this education.

“If patients have functional abdominal pain for which no organic cause can be found, this can lead to frustration, sadness, and despair. The problem can become even worse if they feel that they are not being taken seriously by the physician,” said Dr. Rodeck. These negative experiences can further exacerbate the pain perception disorder. The aim of behavioral therapy measures is therefore to interrupt and downregulate this vicious cycle.

“Constant investigations are not always helpful for patients with functional abdominal pain. Time must be taken with these patients to talk and explore the options. They have definite abdominal pain, they are not imagining it. They must be taken seriously,” he emphasized.

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

Functional abdominal pain in childhood and adolescence is extremely stressful for patients and a therapeutic challenge for the physicians treating them. A meta-analysis of 33 randomized-controlled studies published in JAMA Pediatrics shows that cognitive-behavioral therapy or hypnotherapy promises the greatest therapy success.

“If children or adolescents complain about chronic abdominal pain and a detailed diagnostic does not reveal any somatic cause, this is referred to as functional abdominal pain,” Burkhard Rodeck, MD, general secretary of the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine in Berlin, told this news organization.
 

Signal perception disorder

It is still not completely clear what causes functional abdominal pain. But it is assumed to be a disruption in the communication between the gastrointestinal tract and the brain. “These patients are experiencing a signal perception disorder: normal body signals, such as a slight stomach rumble, are assigned to the pain category for them much more quickly than for other people,” said Dr. Rodeck. “The meta-analysis provides confirmation of this – functional abdominal pain is actually a biopsychosocial matter.”

In the standard therapy of functional abdominal pain, however, it is also possible to choose a medicinal approach. “Studies show that herbal preparations such as peppermint oil capsules have some efficacy, since they attenuate the strength of the signals being sent from the gastrointestinal tract to the brain, with the result that they are not perceived so quickly as pain. Probiotics can also potentially help,” added Dr. Rodeck.

“If this is unsuccessful, the child must be offered a psychologic/psychotherapeutic measure, usually cognitive-behavioral therapy.”
 

Comparison of psychosocial therapies

The meta-analysis was carried out by a research team at the University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom. It included 2,657 children and adolescents between the ages of 7 and 17 years, of which two-thirds were girls.

Various psychosocial therapy approaches for functional abdominal pain, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, educational assistance, hypnotherapy (directed at the digestive system), guided meditation with relaxation, yoga, or (visceral) osteopathy were investigated and compared in the studies – sometimes against each other and sometimes against no intervention.

Lead author Morris Gordon, MBChB, PhD, professor of evidence synthesis and systematic review at the University of Central Lancashire, and his colleagues reported that cognitive-behavioral therapy was 2.37-times more likely to result in therapy success than no intervention. To treat functional abdominal pain successfully in one child or adolescent, five children needed to be treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy.
 

Rarer, milder pain

The children and adolescents treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy also experienced less frequent and less severe abdominal pain than the children and adolescents who did not receive any intervention. The rate of side effect–related therapy discontinuations did not differ between the groups.

Hypnotherapy could also be associated with an improved outcome, compared with no intervention, added Dr. Gordon and his colleagues. Hypnotherapy was 2.86-times more likely to result in therapy success, and the number needed to treat was five.

The other therapeutic approaches investigated did not perform any better in the studies than no intervention. However, the authors noted that evidence of the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy is moderate or weak, especially owing to the high bias risk.

“The therapy for functional abdominal pain cannot be compared with the therapy for scarlet fever, for example, where penicillin is administered in the knowledge that recovery is guaranteed. There is evidence that cognitive-behavioral therapy and possibly also hypnotherapy may help, but this is not true for every patient,” said Dr. Rodeck.
 

Start with the pediatrician

Dr. Gordon and his co-authors suggested considering cognitive-behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy for the treatment of functional abdominal pain in children and adolescents. But they added that further randomized controlled studies are necessary to improve the quality of evidence and therefore the reliability of these results.

Children and adolescents with functional abdominal pain do not need to be sent directly to the psychologist for treatment, said Dr. Rodeck. The pediatric or adolescent medicine specialist can also administer the initial behavioral therapy measures. “Some patients manage with the behavioral therapy approaches we offer as pediatric and adolescent medicine specialists; others require professional support with psychologic expertise,” said Dr. Rodeck. Should outpatient treatment be unsuccessful, inpatient therapy in special psychosomatic clinics or wards remains an option.
 

Education offers relief

For many patients, being informed about the connections and mechanisms that play a role in functional abdominal pain can offer a lot of relief, said Dr. Rodeck. Offering coping strategies that can be used in the event of acute symptoms is also a part of this education.

“If patients have functional abdominal pain for which no organic cause can be found, this can lead to frustration, sadness, and despair. The problem can become even worse if they feel that they are not being taken seriously by the physician,” said Dr. Rodeck. These negative experiences can further exacerbate the pain perception disorder. The aim of behavioral therapy measures is therefore to interrupt and downregulate this vicious cycle.

“Constant investigations are not always helpful for patients with functional abdominal pain. Time must be taken with these patients to talk and explore the options. They have definite abdominal pain, they are not imagining it. They must be taken seriously,” he emphasized.

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

Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.

But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,

and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.

The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”

The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.

“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”

Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”

Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.

“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.

Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.

Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.

An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.

An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.

Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”

In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.

Treating knee pain

Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.

Three types of injections also can help:

• Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
• Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
• Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).

The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.  

“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”

He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.

Shoulder pain

The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.

As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.

First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?

Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.

Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.

As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.

MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.

Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.

Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.

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

Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.

But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,

and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.

The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”

The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.

“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”

Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”

Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.

“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.

Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.

Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.

An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.

An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.

Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”

In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.

Treating knee pain

Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.

Three types of injections also can help:

• Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
• Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
• Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).

The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.  

“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”

He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.

Shoulder pain

The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.

As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.

First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?

Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.

Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.

As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.

MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.

Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.

Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.

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

Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.

But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,

and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.

The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”

The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.

“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”

Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”

Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.

“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.

Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.

Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.

An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.

An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.

Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”

In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.

Treating knee pain

Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.

Three types of injections also can help:

• Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
• Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
• Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).

The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.  

“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”

He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.

Shoulder pain

The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.

As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.

First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?

Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.

Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.

As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.

MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.

Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.

Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.

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