Aarisha Shrestha, DO

Importance

The prevention and treatment of traveler’s diarrhea (TD) is a common reason that patients consult their physician prior to foreign travel. TD can result in lost time and opportunity, as well as overseas medical encounters and hospitalization. This guideline by the International Society of Travel Medicine provides clinically relevant, useful, and practical guidance to providers regarding the use of antibiotic and nonantibiotic therapies for the prevention and treatment of TD.

Prophylaxis

The panel recommends that antimicrobial prophylaxis should not be used routinely in travelers, but it should be considered for travelers who are at high risk of health-related complications of TD (both strong recommendations, low/very low level of evidence [LOE]). High-risk individuals include those with a history of clinically significant long-term morbidity following an enteric infection or serious chronic illnesses that predisposes them for TD-related complications. Bismuth subsalicylate (BSS) may be considered for any traveler to prevent TD (3, strong recommendation, high LOE). Studies show that a lower dose of 1.05 g/day is preventive, although it is unclear whether it is as effective as higher doses of 2.1 g/day or 4.2 g/day. When prophylaxis is indicated, travelers should be prescribed rifaximin (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) based on susceptibility of most enteric pathogens and the drug’s extremely favorable safety profile. Fluoroquinolones (FQ) are no longer recommended for prophylaxis (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE) because of neurologic and musculoskeletal side effects that may outweigh benefits, as well as emerging resistance of enteric pathogens (70%-80% in Campylobacter spp. from Nepal and Thailand and 65% in Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli [ETEC] and Enteroaggregative E. coli [EAEC] in India).

Treatment

The following treatment recommendations are based on the classification of TD using functional effects of severity; therefore, the panel made new definitions for TD severity. This is a change from previous definitions that utilized a traditional frequency-based algorithm in order to tailor therapy for the individual. Individuals can be prescribed antibiotics and antimotility agents to take with them during travel, along with advice regarding how to judge when to use each agent.

Mild: diarrhea that is tolerable, is not distressing, and does not interfere with planned activities.

Encourage supportive measures such as rehydration and nonantibiotic, antimotility drugs, such as loperamide or BSS (both strong recommendations, moderate LOE).

Moderate: diarrhea that is distressing or interferes with planned activities.

Antibiotics may be used (weak recommendation, moderate LOE) as early and effective treatment may mitigate the well-described chronic health consequences including irritable bowel syndrome. Three options exist. FQs may be used outside of Southeast and South Asia (strong recommendation, moderate LOE), but their potential for adverse effects and musculoskeletal consequences must be considered. Azithromycin may be used (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies show no significant differences in efficacy between it and FQs, limited resistance to common TD pathogens (although concerns exist in Nepal), and good side effect profile. Another choice is rifaximin (weak recommendation, moderate LOE), although one should exercise caution for empirical therapy in regions in which being at high risk of invasive pathogens is anticipated.

Loperamide may be used as adjunctive therapy for moderate to severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) to add symptomatic relief with curative treatment or as monotherapy in moderate TD (strong recommendation, high LOE). This is specifically true in children aged 2-11 years, in whom loperamide is beneficial without causing severe side effects.

Severe: diarrhea that is incapacitating or completely prevents planned activities; all dysentery (passage of grossly bloody stools).

Antibiotics should be used (strong recommendation, high LOE). Azithromycin is the preferred choice and is first-line for dysentery or febrile diarrhea (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) because of the likelihood of FQ-resistant bacteria being the cause of dysentery. FQs and rifaximin are also choices that can be used to treat severe, nondysenteric TD (both weak recommendations, moderate LOE).

Furthermore, single-dose antibiotics may be used to treat moderate or severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies have shown equivalent efficacy for treatment of watery noninvasive diarrhea among FQs (3 days, single dose), azithromycin (3 days, single dose), and rifaximin (3 days, three times daily).

Persistent: diarrhea lasting longer than 2 weeks.

Functional bowel disease (FBD) may occur after bouts of TD and may meet Rome III or IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome. Thus, in a traveler without pretravel GI disease, in whom the evaluation for microbial etiologies and underlying GI disease is negative, postinfectious FBD must be considered.

Follow-up and diagnostic testing

The panel recommends microbiological testing in returning travelers with severe or persistent symptoms, bloody/mucousy diarrhea, or in those who fail empiric therapy (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE). Molecular testing, aimed at a broad range of clinically relevant pathogens, is preferred when rapid results are clinically important or nonmolecular tests have failed to establish a diagnosis. Furthermore, molecular testing may, in some cases, detect colonization rather than infection.
 

The bottom line

The expert panel made 20 graded recommendations to help guide the provider with nonantibiotic and antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment of TD. The main take-home points include:

• Prophylaxis should be considered only in high-risk groups; rifaximin is the first choice, and BSS is a second option.
• All travelers should be provided with loperamide and an antibiotic for self-treatment if needed.
• Mild diarrhea should be treated with increased fluid intake and loperamide or BSS.
• Moderate to severe diarrhea should be treated with single-dose antimicrobial therapy of FQ or azithromycin or with rifaximin dosing three times a day.
• Instead of antibiotics, loperamide may be considered as monotherapy for moderate diarrhea; loperamide can be used with antibiotics for both moderate and severe TD.

Dr. Shrestha is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) - Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington - Jefferson Health.

Reference:

J Travel Med. 2017 Apr 1;24(suppl_1):S57-74.

Importance

The prevention and treatment of traveler’s diarrhea (TD) is a common reason that patients consult their physician prior to foreign travel. TD can result in lost time and opportunity, as well as overseas medical encounters and hospitalization. This guideline by the International Society of Travel Medicine provides clinically relevant, useful, and practical guidance to providers regarding the use of antibiotic and nonantibiotic therapies for the prevention and treatment of TD.

Prophylaxis

The panel recommends that antimicrobial prophylaxis should not be used routinely in travelers, but it should be considered for travelers who are at high risk of health-related complications of TD (both strong recommendations, low/very low level of evidence [LOE]). High-risk individuals include those with a history of clinically significant long-term morbidity following an enteric infection or serious chronic illnesses that predisposes them for TD-related complications. Bismuth subsalicylate (BSS) may be considered for any traveler to prevent TD (3, strong recommendation, high LOE). Studies show that a lower dose of 1.05 g/day is preventive, although it is unclear whether it is as effective as higher doses of 2.1 g/day or 4.2 g/day. When prophylaxis is indicated, travelers should be prescribed rifaximin (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) based on susceptibility of most enteric pathogens and the drug’s extremely favorable safety profile. Fluoroquinolones (FQ) are no longer recommended for prophylaxis (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE) because of neurologic and musculoskeletal side effects that may outweigh benefits, as well as emerging resistance of enteric pathogens (70%-80% in Campylobacter spp. from Nepal and Thailand and 65% in Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli [ETEC] and Enteroaggregative E. coli [EAEC] in India).

Treatment

The following treatment recommendations are based on the classification of TD using functional effects of severity; therefore, the panel made new definitions for TD severity. This is a change from previous definitions that utilized a traditional frequency-based algorithm in order to tailor therapy for the individual. Individuals can be prescribed antibiotics and antimotility agents to take with them during travel, along with advice regarding how to judge when to use each agent.

Mild: diarrhea that is tolerable, is not distressing, and does not interfere with planned activities.

Encourage supportive measures such as rehydration and nonantibiotic, antimotility drugs, such as loperamide or BSS (both strong recommendations, moderate LOE).

Moderate: diarrhea that is distressing or interferes with planned activities.

Antibiotics may be used (weak recommendation, moderate LOE) as early and effective treatment may mitigate the well-described chronic health consequences including irritable bowel syndrome. Three options exist. FQs may be used outside of Southeast and South Asia (strong recommendation, moderate LOE), but their potential for adverse effects and musculoskeletal consequences must be considered. Azithromycin may be used (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies show no significant differences in efficacy between it and FQs, limited resistance to common TD pathogens (although concerns exist in Nepal), and good side effect profile. Another choice is rifaximin (weak recommendation, moderate LOE), although one should exercise caution for empirical therapy in regions in which being at high risk of invasive pathogens is anticipated.

Loperamide may be used as adjunctive therapy for moderate to severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) to add symptomatic relief with curative treatment or as monotherapy in moderate TD (strong recommendation, high LOE). This is specifically true in children aged 2-11 years, in whom loperamide is beneficial without causing severe side effects.

Severe: diarrhea that is incapacitating or completely prevents planned activities; all dysentery (passage of grossly bloody stools).

Antibiotics should be used (strong recommendation, high LOE). Azithromycin is the preferred choice and is first-line for dysentery or febrile diarrhea (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) because of the likelihood of FQ-resistant bacteria being the cause of dysentery. FQs and rifaximin are also choices that can be used to treat severe, nondysenteric TD (both weak recommendations, moderate LOE).

Furthermore, single-dose antibiotics may be used to treat moderate or severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies have shown equivalent efficacy for treatment of watery noninvasive diarrhea among FQs (3 days, single dose), azithromycin (3 days, single dose), and rifaximin (3 days, three times daily).

Persistent: diarrhea lasting longer than 2 weeks.

Functional bowel disease (FBD) may occur after bouts of TD and may meet Rome III or IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome. Thus, in a traveler without pretravel GI disease, in whom the evaluation for microbial etiologies and underlying GI disease is negative, postinfectious FBD must be considered.

Follow-up and diagnostic testing

The panel recommends microbiological testing in returning travelers with severe or persistent symptoms, bloody/mucousy diarrhea, or in those who fail empiric therapy (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE). Molecular testing, aimed at a broad range of clinically relevant pathogens, is preferred when rapid results are clinically important or nonmolecular tests have failed to establish a diagnosis. Furthermore, molecular testing may, in some cases, detect colonization rather than infection.
 

The bottom line

The expert panel made 20 graded recommendations to help guide the provider with nonantibiotic and antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment of TD. The main take-home points include:

• Prophylaxis should be considered only in high-risk groups; rifaximin is the first choice, and BSS is a second option.
• All travelers should be provided with loperamide and an antibiotic for self-treatment if needed.
• Mild diarrhea should be treated with increased fluid intake and loperamide or BSS.
• Moderate to severe diarrhea should be treated with single-dose antimicrobial therapy of FQ or azithromycin or with rifaximin dosing three times a day.
• Instead of antibiotics, loperamide may be considered as monotherapy for moderate diarrhea; loperamide can be used with antibiotics for both moderate and severe TD.

Dr. Shrestha is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) - Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington - Jefferson Health.

Reference:

J Travel Med. 2017 Apr 1;24(suppl_1):S57-74.

Importance

The prevention and treatment of traveler’s diarrhea (TD) is a common reason that patients consult their physician prior to foreign travel. TD can result in lost time and opportunity, as well as overseas medical encounters and hospitalization. This guideline by the International Society of Travel Medicine provides clinically relevant, useful, and practical guidance to providers regarding the use of antibiotic and nonantibiotic therapies for the prevention and treatment of TD.

Prophylaxis

The panel recommends that antimicrobial prophylaxis should not be used routinely in travelers, but it should be considered for travelers who are at high risk of health-related complications of TD (both strong recommendations, low/very low level of evidence [LOE]). High-risk individuals include those with a history of clinically significant long-term morbidity following an enteric infection or serious chronic illnesses that predisposes them for TD-related complications. Bismuth subsalicylate (BSS) may be considered for any traveler to prevent TD (3, strong recommendation, high LOE). Studies show that a lower dose of 1.05 g/day is preventive, although it is unclear whether it is as effective as higher doses of 2.1 g/day or 4.2 g/day. When prophylaxis is indicated, travelers should be prescribed rifaximin (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) based on susceptibility of most enteric pathogens and the drug’s extremely favorable safety profile. Fluoroquinolones (FQ) are no longer recommended for prophylaxis (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE) because of neurologic and musculoskeletal side effects that may outweigh benefits, as well as emerging resistance of enteric pathogens (70%-80% in Campylobacter spp. from Nepal and Thailand and 65% in Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli [ETEC] and Enteroaggregative E. coli [EAEC] in India).

Treatment

The following treatment recommendations are based on the classification of TD using functional effects of severity; therefore, the panel made new definitions for TD severity. This is a change from previous definitions that utilized a traditional frequency-based algorithm in order to tailor therapy for the individual. Individuals can be prescribed antibiotics and antimotility agents to take with them during travel, along with advice regarding how to judge when to use each agent.

Mild: diarrhea that is tolerable, is not distressing, and does not interfere with planned activities.

Encourage supportive measures such as rehydration and nonantibiotic, antimotility drugs, such as loperamide or BSS (both strong recommendations, moderate LOE).

Moderate: diarrhea that is distressing or interferes with planned activities.

Antibiotics may be used (weak recommendation, moderate LOE) as early and effective treatment may mitigate the well-described chronic health consequences including irritable bowel syndrome. Three options exist. FQs may be used outside of Southeast and South Asia (strong recommendation, moderate LOE), but their potential for adverse effects and musculoskeletal consequences must be considered. Azithromycin may be used (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies show no significant differences in efficacy between it and FQs, limited resistance to common TD pathogens (although concerns exist in Nepal), and good side effect profile. Another choice is rifaximin (weak recommendation, moderate LOE), although one should exercise caution for empirical therapy in regions in which being at high risk of invasive pathogens is anticipated.

Loperamide may be used as adjunctive therapy for moderate to severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) to add symptomatic relief with curative treatment or as monotherapy in moderate TD (strong recommendation, high LOE). This is specifically true in children aged 2-11 years, in whom loperamide is beneficial without causing severe side effects.

Severe: diarrhea that is incapacitating or completely prevents planned activities; all dysentery (passage of grossly bloody stools).

Antibiotics should be used (strong recommendation, high LOE). Azithromycin is the preferred choice and is first-line for dysentery or febrile diarrhea (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) because of the likelihood of FQ-resistant bacteria being the cause of dysentery. FQs and rifaximin are also choices that can be used to treat severe, nondysenteric TD (both weak recommendations, moderate LOE).

Furthermore, single-dose antibiotics may be used to treat moderate or severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies have shown equivalent efficacy for treatment of watery noninvasive diarrhea among FQs (3 days, single dose), azithromycin (3 days, single dose), and rifaximin (3 days, three times daily).

Persistent: diarrhea lasting longer than 2 weeks.

Functional bowel disease (FBD) may occur after bouts of TD and may meet Rome III or IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome. Thus, in a traveler without pretravel GI disease, in whom the evaluation for microbial etiologies and underlying GI disease is negative, postinfectious FBD must be considered.

Follow-up and diagnostic testing

The panel recommends microbiological testing in returning travelers with severe or persistent symptoms, bloody/mucousy diarrhea, or in those who fail empiric therapy (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE). Molecular testing, aimed at a broad range of clinically relevant pathogens, is preferred when rapid results are clinically important or nonmolecular tests have failed to establish a diagnosis. Furthermore, molecular testing may, in some cases, detect colonization rather than infection.
 

The bottom line

The expert panel made 20 graded recommendations to help guide the provider with nonantibiotic and antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment of TD. The main take-home points include:

• Prophylaxis should be considered only in high-risk groups; rifaximin is the first choice, and BSS is a second option.
• All travelers should be provided with loperamide and an antibiotic for self-treatment if needed.
• Mild diarrhea should be treated with increased fluid intake and loperamide or BSS.
• Moderate to severe diarrhea should be treated with single-dose antimicrobial therapy of FQ or azithromycin or with rifaximin dosing three times a day.
• Instead of antibiotics, loperamide may be considered as monotherapy for moderate diarrhea; loperamide can be used with antibiotics for both moderate and severe TD.

Dr. Shrestha is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) - Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington - Jefferson Health.

Reference:

J Travel Med. 2017 Apr 1;24(suppl_1):S57-74.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force commissioned a systematic evidence review of 168 fair-good quality articles to examine newer evidence on screening for and treatment of osteoporotic fracture in women and men and update its 2011 guideline. They found convincing evidence that bone measurement tests and clinical risk assessment tools are accurate for predicting osteoporotic fractures in women. For postmenopausal women older than 65 years and those younger than 65 years with increased risk of osteoporosis, USPSTF found convincing evidence that screening can detect osteoporosis and that treatment can provide at least a moderate benefit in preventing fractures (grade B). For men, they report inadequate evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to reduce the risk of fractures (I statement).

Importance

Osteoporosis leads to increased bone fragility and risk of fractures, specifically hip fractures, that are associated with limitations in ambulation, chronic pain, disability and loss of independence, and decreased quality of life: 21%-30% of those who suffer hip fractures die within 1 year. Osteoporosis is usually asymptomatic until a fracture occurs, thus preventing fractures is the main goal of an osteoporosis screening strategy. With the increasing life expectancy of the U.S. population, the potential preventable burden is likely to increase in future years.

Screening tests

The most commonly used test is central dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), which provides measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) of the hip and lumbar spine. Most treatment guidelines already use central DXA BMD to define osteoporosis and the threshold at which to start drug therapies for prevention. Other lower-cost and more accessible alternatives include peripheral DXA, which measures BMD at lower forearm and heel, and quantitative ultrasound (QUS), which also evaluates peripheral sites like the calcaneus. QUS does not measure BMD. USPSTF found that the harms associated with screening were small (mainly radiation exposure from DXA and opportunity costs).

Population and risk assessment

The review included adults older than 40 years of age, mostly postmenopausal women, without a history of previous low-trauma fractures, without conditions or medications that may cause secondary osteoporosis, and without increased risk of falls.

Patients at increased risk of osteoporotic fractures include those with parental history of hip fractures, low body weight, excessive alcohol consumption, and smokers. For postmenopausal women younger than 65 years of age with at least one risk factor, a reasonable approach to determine who should be screened with BMD is to use one of the various clinical risk assessment tools available. The most frequently studied tools in women are the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS), Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE). The Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool calculates the 10-year risk of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) using clinical risk factors. For example, one approach is to perform BMD in women younger than 65 years with a FRAX risk greater than 8.4% (the FRAX risk of a 65-year-old woman of mean height and weight without major risk factors).

In men, the prevalence of osteoporosis (4.3%) is generally lower than in women (15.4%). In the absence of other risk factors, it is not till age 80 that the prevalence of osteoporosis in white men starts to reach that of a 65-year-old white woman. While men have similar risk factors as women described above, men with hypogonadism, history of cerebrovascular accident, and history of diabetes are also at increased risk of fracture.
 

Preventative measures to reduce osteoporotic fractures

Approved drug therapies. The majority of studies were conducted in postmenopausal women. Bisphosphonates, most commonly used and studied, significantly reduced vertebral and nonvertebral fractures but not hip fractures (possibly because of underpowered studies). Raloxifene and parathyroid hormone reduced vertebral fractures but not nonvertebral fractures. Denosumab significantly reduced all three types of fractures. A 2011 review identified that estrogen reduced vertebral fractures, but no new studies were identified for the current review. Data from the Women’s Health Initiative show that women receiving estrogen with or without progesterone had an elevated risk of stroke, venous thromboembolism, and gallbladder disease; their risk for urinary incontinence was increased during the first year of follow-up. In addition, women receiving estrogen plus progestin had a higher risk of invasive breast cancer, coronary heart disease, and probable dementia. The risk of serious adverse events, upper-gastrointestinal events, or cardiovascular events associated with the most common class of medications used, bisphosphonates, is small. Evidence on the effectiveness of medications to treat osteoporosis in men is lacking (only two studies conducted).

Exercise. Engagement in 120-300 minutes of weekly moderate-intensity aerobic activity can reduce the risk of hip fractures, and performance of weekly balance and muscle-strengthening activities can help prevent falls in older adults.

Supplements. In a separate recommendation, USPSTF recommends against daily supplementation with less than 400 IU of vitamin D and less than 1,000 mg of calcium for the primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling, postmenopausal women. They found insufficient evidence on supplementation with higher doses of vitamin D and calcium in postmenopausal women, or at any dose in men and premenopausal women.
 

Recommendations from others

The National Osteoporosis Foundation and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry recommend BMD testing in all women older than 65 years, all men over 70 years, postmenopausal women younger than 65 years, and men aged 50-69 years with increased risk factors. The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends against DXA screening in women younger than 65 years and men younger than 70 years with no risk factors.
 

The bottom line

For all women older than 65 years and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at increased risk, screen for and treat osteoporosis to prevent fractures. For men, there is insufficient evidence to screen.

Dr. Shrestha is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) - Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington - Jefferson Health.

References

1. U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018 Jun 26;319(24):2521-31.

2. U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018 Jun 26;319(24):2532-51.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force commissioned a systematic evidence review of 168 fair-good quality articles to examine newer evidence on screening for and treatment of osteoporotic fracture in women and men and update its 2011 guideline. They found convincing evidence that bone measurement tests and clinical risk assessment tools are accurate for predicting osteoporotic fractures in women. For postmenopausal women older than 65 years and those younger than 65 years with increased risk of osteoporosis, USPSTF found convincing evidence that screening can detect osteoporosis and that treatment can provide at least a moderate benefit in preventing fractures (grade B). For men, they report inadequate evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to reduce the risk of fractures (I statement).

Importance

Osteoporosis leads to increased bone fragility and risk of fractures, specifically hip fractures, that are associated with limitations in ambulation, chronic pain, disability and loss of independence, and decreased quality of life: 21%-30% of those who suffer hip fractures die within 1 year. Osteoporosis is usually asymptomatic until a fracture occurs, thus preventing fractures is the main goal of an osteoporosis screening strategy. With the increasing life expectancy of the U.S. population, the potential preventable burden is likely to increase in future years.

Screening tests

The most commonly used test is central dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), which provides measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) of the hip and lumbar spine. Most treatment guidelines already use central DXA BMD to define osteoporosis and the threshold at which to start drug therapies for prevention. Other lower-cost and more accessible alternatives include peripheral DXA, which measures BMD at lower forearm and heel, and quantitative ultrasound (QUS), which also evaluates peripheral sites like the calcaneus. QUS does not measure BMD. USPSTF found that the harms associated with screening were small (mainly radiation exposure from DXA and opportunity costs).

Population and risk assessment

The review included adults older than 40 years of age, mostly postmenopausal women, without a history of previous low-trauma fractures, without conditions or medications that may cause secondary osteoporosis, and without increased risk of falls.

Patients at increased risk of osteoporotic fractures include those with parental history of hip fractures, low body weight, excessive alcohol consumption, and smokers. For postmenopausal women younger than 65 years of age with at least one risk factor, a reasonable approach to determine who should be screened with BMD is to use one of the various clinical risk assessment tools available. The most frequently studied tools in women are the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS), Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE). The Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool calculates the 10-year risk of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) using clinical risk factors. For example, one approach is to perform BMD in women younger than 65 years with a FRAX risk greater than 8.4% (the FRAX risk of a 65-year-old woman of mean height and weight without major risk factors).

In men, the prevalence of osteoporosis (4.3%) is generally lower than in women (15.4%). In the absence of other risk factors, it is not till age 80 that the prevalence of osteoporosis in white men starts to reach that of a 65-year-old white woman. While men have similar risk factors as women described above, men with hypogonadism, history of cerebrovascular accident, and history of diabetes are also at increased risk of fracture.
 

Preventative measures to reduce osteoporotic fractures

Approved drug therapies. The majority of studies were conducted in postmenopausal women. Bisphosphonates, most commonly used and studied, significantly reduced vertebral and nonvertebral fractures but not hip fractures (possibly because of underpowered studies). Raloxifene and parathyroid hormone reduced vertebral fractures but not nonvertebral fractures. Denosumab significantly reduced all three types of fractures. A 2011 review identified that estrogen reduced vertebral fractures, but no new studies were identified for the current review. Data from the Women’s Health Initiative show that women receiving estrogen with or without progesterone had an elevated risk of stroke, venous thromboembolism, and gallbladder disease; their risk for urinary incontinence was increased during the first year of follow-up. In addition, women receiving estrogen plus progestin had a higher risk of invasive breast cancer, coronary heart disease, and probable dementia. The risk of serious adverse events, upper-gastrointestinal events, or cardiovascular events associated with the most common class of medications used, bisphosphonates, is small. Evidence on the effectiveness of medications to treat osteoporosis in men is lacking (only two studies conducted).

Exercise. Engagement in 120-300 minutes of weekly moderate-intensity aerobic activity can reduce the risk of hip fractures, and performance of weekly balance and muscle-strengthening activities can help prevent falls in older adults.

Supplements. In a separate recommendation, USPSTF recommends against daily supplementation with less than 400 IU of vitamin D and less than 1,000 mg of calcium for the primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling, postmenopausal women. They found insufficient evidence on supplementation with higher doses of vitamin D and calcium in postmenopausal women, or at any dose in men and premenopausal women.
 

Recommendations from others

The National Osteoporosis Foundation and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry recommend BMD testing in all women older than 65 years, all men over 70 years, postmenopausal women younger than 65 years, and men aged 50-69 years with increased risk factors. The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends against DXA screening in women younger than 65 years and men younger than 70 years with no risk factors.
 

The bottom line

For all women older than 65 years and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at increased risk, screen for and treat osteoporosis to prevent fractures. For men, there is insufficient evidence to screen.

Dr. Shrestha is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) - Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington - Jefferson Health.

References

1. U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018 Jun 26;319(24):2521-31.

2. U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018 Jun 26;319(24):2532-51.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force commissioned a systematic evidence review of 168 fair-good quality articles to examine newer evidence on screening for and treatment of osteoporotic fracture in women and men and update its 2011 guideline. They found convincing evidence that bone measurement tests and clinical risk assessment tools are accurate for predicting osteoporotic fractures in women. For postmenopausal women older than 65 years and those younger than 65 years with increased risk of osteoporosis, USPSTF found convincing evidence that screening can detect osteoporosis and that treatment can provide at least a moderate benefit in preventing fractures (grade B). For men, they report inadequate evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to reduce the risk of fractures (I statement).

Importance

Osteoporosis leads to increased bone fragility and risk of fractures, specifically hip fractures, that are associated with limitations in ambulation, chronic pain, disability and loss of independence, and decreased quality of life: 21%-30% of those who suffer hip fractures die within 1 year. Osteoporosis is usually asymptomatic until a fracture occurs, thus preventing fractures is the main goal of an osteoporosis screening strategy. With the increasing life expectancy of the U.S. population, the potential preventable burden is likely to increase in future years.

Screening tests

The most commonly used test is central dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), which provides measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) of the hip and lumbar spine. Most treatment guidelines already use central DXA BMD to define osteoporosis and the threshold at which to start drug therapies for prevention. Other lower-cost and more accessible alternatives include peripheral DXA, which measures BMD at lower forearm and heel, and quantitative ultrasound (QUS), which also evaluates peripheral sites like the calcaneus. QUS does not measure BMD. USPSTF found that the harms associated with screening were small (mainly radiation exposure from DXA and opportunity costs).

Population and risk assessment

The review included adults older than 40 years of age, mostly postmenopausal women, without a history of previous low-trauma fractures, without conditions or medications that may cause secondary osteoporosis, and without increased risk of falls.

Patients at increased risk of osteoporotic fractures include those with parental history of hip fractures, low body weight, excessive alcohol consumption, and smokers. For postmenopausal women younger than 65 years of age with at least one risk factor, a reasonable approach to determine who should be screened with BMD is to use one of the various clinical risk assessment tools available. The most frequently studied tools in women are the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI), Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS), Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE). The Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool calculates the 10-year risk of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) using clinical risk factors. For example, one approach is to perform BMD in women younger than 65 years with a FRAX risk greater than 8.4% (the FRAX risk of a 65-year-old woman of mean height and weight without major risk factors).

In men, the prevalence of osteoporosis (4.3%) is generally lower than in women (15.4%). In the absence of other risk factors, it is not till age 80 that the prevalence of osteoporosis in white men starts to reach that of a 65-year-old white woman. While men have similar risk factors as women described above, men with hypogonadism, history of cerebrovascular accident, and history of diabetes are also at increased risk of fracture.
 

Preventative measures to reduce osteoporotic fractures

Approved drug therapies. The majority of studies were conducted in postmenopausal women. Bisphosphonates, most commonly used and studied, significantly reduced vertebral and nonvertebral fractures but not hip fractures (possibly because of underpowered studies). Raloxifene and parathyroid hormone reduced vertebral fractures but not nonvertebral fractures. Denosumab significantly reduced all three types of fractures. A 2011 review identified that estrogen reduced vertebral fractures, but no new studies were identified for the current review. Data from the Women’s Health Initiative show that women receiving estrogen with or without progesterone had an elevated risk of stroke, venous thromboembolism, and gallbladder disease; their risk for urinary incontinence was increased during the first year of follow-up. In addition, women receiving estrogen plus progestin had a higher risk of invasive breast cancer, coronary heart disease, and probable dementia. The risk of serious adverse events, upper-gastrointestinal events, or cardiovascular events associated with the most common class of medications used, bisphosphonates, is small. Evidence on the effectiveness of medications to treat osteoporosis in men is lacking (only two studies conducted).

Exercise. Engagement in 120-300 minutes of weekly moderate-intensity aerobic activity can reduce the risk of hip fractures, and performance of weekly balance and muscle-strengthening activities can help prevent falls in older adults.

Supplements. In a separate recommendation, USPSTF recommends against daily supplementation with less than 400 IU of vitamin D and less than 1,000 mg of calcium for the primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling, postmenopausal women. They found insufficient evidence on supplementation with higher doses of vitamin D and calcium in postmenopausal women, or at any dose in men and premenopausal women.
 

Recommendations from others

The National Osteoporosis Foundation and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry recommend BMD testing in all women older than 65 years, all men over 70 years, postmenopausal women younger than 65 years, and men aged 50-69 years with increased risk factors. The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends against DXA screening in women younger than 65 years and men younger than 70 years with no risk factors.
 

The bottom line

For all women older than 65 years and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at increased risk, screen for and treat osteoporosis to prevent fractures. For men, there is insufficient evidence to screen.

Dr. Shrestha is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) - Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington - Jefferson Health.

References

1. U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018 Jun 26;319(24):2521-31.

2. U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018 Jun 26;319(24):2532-51.
 

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic evidence review of 62 randomized clinical trials with a total of 35,058 patients to gather evidence on the effectiveness and harms of primary care–relevant interventions to prevent falls in community-dwelling adults 65 years or older.¹This 2018 statement recommends exercise interventions (B recommendation), advises selective offering of multifactorial interventions based on individual circumstances (C recommendation), and discourages the use of vitamin D supplementation (D recommendation).² It thereby has updated its 2012 statement, in which exercise or physical therapy and vitamin D supplementation were recommended to prevent falls.

Importance

Scope of review

Out of the 62 randomized clinical trials, 65% of intervention studies targeted patients at high risk of falls; they were most commonly identified by history of prior falls, but mobility, gait, and balance impairment were often also considered. Specific medical diagnoses that could affect fall-related outcomes (osteoporosis, visual impairment, neurocognitive disorders) were excluded. This review did not look at the outcome of studies in populations who were vitamin D deficient because, in this population, vitamin D supplementation would be considered treatment rather than prevention. Of note, women constituted the majority in most studies.

Exercise interventions

USPSTF found five good-quality and 16 fair-quality studies, which altogether included a total of 7,297 patients, that reported on various exercise interventions to prevent falls; altogether, these studies included a total of 7,297 patients. Of the studies, 57% recruited populations at high risk for falls with a mean age ranging from 68 to 88 years. Exercise interventions included supervised individual classes, group classes, and physical therapy. The most common exercise component was gait, balance, and functional training; other common components included, in order of frequency, were resistance training, flexibility training, and endurance training. Most common frequency and duration were three sessions per week for 12 months. Exercise interventions reduced the number of persons experiencing a fall (relative risk 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.97), reduced the number of injurious falls (incidence rate ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90), and revealed a statistically insignificant reduction in the number of falls. Reported adverse events were minor and most commonly included pain or bruising related to exercise.

Multifactorial interventions

USPSTF found seven good-quality and 19 fair-quality studies that reported on multifactorial interventions; altogether, these studies included a total of 15,506 patients. Of the studies, 73% recruited populations at high risk for falls, and the mean age ranged from 71.9 to 85 years. Multifactorial interventions had two components:

• Initial assessment to screen for modifiable risk factors for falls (multidisciplinary comprehensive geriatric assessment or specific assessment that evaluated various factors, such as balance, gait, vision, cardiovascular health, medication, environment, cognition, and psychological health).
• Subsequent customized interventions (group or individual exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, nutrition, environmental modification, physical or occupational therapy, social or community services, and referral to specialists).

While studies found that multifactorial interventions reduced the number of falls (IRR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91), they did not reduce the number of people who experienced a fall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01) or an injurious fall (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03). Four studies reported minor harm, mostly bruising, from exercise. Therefore, USPSTF has recommended that clinicians take into consideration patient’s medical history (including prior falls and comorbidities) to selectively offer multifactorial interventions.

Vitamin D supplementation

USPSTF found four good-quality and three fair-quality studies that reported on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of falls; altogether, these studies included a total of 7,531 patients. Of the studies, 43% recruited populations at high risk for falls. The mean age ranged from 71 to 76.8 years, and mean serum 25-OH vitamin D levels ranged from 26.4 to 31.8 ng/mL. Vitamin D formulations and dosages varied among trials from 700 IU/day to 150,000 IU/3 months to 500,000 IU/year. Pooled analyses did not show a significant reduction in falls (IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79-1.20) or the number of persons experiencing a fall (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). Only two trials reported on injurious falls; one reported an increase and the other reported no statistically significant difference. One study using high doses of Vitamin D supplementation (500,000 IU per year) showed statistically significant increase in all three endpoints.

Recommendation of others for fall prevention

The National Institution of Aging has emphasized exercise for strength and balance, monitoring for environmental hazards, and hearing and vision care, as well as medication management. The American Geriatric Society (AGS) has recommended asking about prior falls annually and assessing gait and balance on those who have experienced a fall. The AGS also has recommended strength and gait training, environmental modification, medication management, and vitamin D supplementation of at least 800 IU/day for those vitamin D deficient or at increased risk of falls. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommends STEADI (Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths & Injuries), a coordinated approach to implement the AGS’s clinical practice guidelines. The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends exercise or physical therapy and vitamin D supplementation.

The bottom line

Regarding reduction of falls, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that exercise interventions confer a moderate net benefit, multifactorial interventions have a small net benefit, and vitamin D supplementation offers no net benefit in preventing falls.

References

1. Guirquis-Blake JM et al. JAMA. 2018 Apr 24;319(16):1705-16.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force et al. JAMA. 2018 Apr 24;319(16):1696-1704.
 

Dr. Shrestha is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic evidence review of 62 randomized clinical trials with a total of 35,058 patients to gather evidence on the effectiveness and harms of primary care–relevant interventions to prevent falls in community-dwelling adults 65 years or older.¹This 2018 statement recommends exercise interventions (B recommendation), advises selective offering of multifactorial interventions based on individual circumstances (C recommendation), and discourages the use of vitamin D supplementation (D recommendation).² It thereby has updated its 2012 statement, in which exercise or physical therapy and vitamin D supplementation were recommended to prevent falls.

Importance

Scope of review

Out of the 62 randomized clinical trials, 65% of intervention studies targeted patients at high risk of falls; they were most commonly identified by history of prior falls, but mobility, gait, and balance impairment were often also considered. Specific medical diagnoses that could affect fall-related outcomes (osteoporosis, visual impairment, neurocognitive disorders) were excluded. This review did not look at the outcome of studies in populations who were vitamin D deficient because, in this population, vitamin D supplementation would be considered treatment rather than prevention. Of note, women constituted the majority in most studies.

Exercise interventions

USPSTF found five good-quality and 16 fair-quality studies, which altogether included a total of 7,297 patients, that reported on various exercise interventions to prevent falls; altogether, these studies included a total of 7,297 patients. Of the studies, 57% recruited populations at high risk for falls with a mean age ranging from 68 to 88 years. Exercise interventions included supervised individual classes, group classes, and physical therapy. The most common exercise component was gait, balance, and functional training; other common components included, in order of frequency, were resistance training, flexibility training, and endurance training. Most common frequency and duration were three sessions per week for 12 months. Exercise interventions reduced the number of persons experiencing a fall (relative risk 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.97), reduced the number of injurious falls (incidence rate ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90), and revealed a statistically insignificant reduction in the number of falls. Reported adverse events were minor and most commonly included pain or bruising related to exercise.

Multifactorial interventions

USPSTF found seven good-quality and 19 fair-quality studies that reported on multifactorial interventions; altogether, these studies included a total of 15,506 patients. Of the studies, 73% recruited populations at high risk for falls, and the mean age ranged from 71.9 to 85 years. Multifactorial interventions had two components:

• Initial assessment to screen for modifiable risk factors for falls (multidisciplinary comprehensive geriatric assessment or specific assessment that evaluated various factors, such as balance, gait, vision, cardiovascular health, medication, environment, cognition, and psychological health).
• Subsequent customized interventions (group or individual exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, nutrition, environmental modification, physical or occupational therapy, social or community services, and referral to specialists).

While studies found that multifactorial interventions reduced the number of falls (IRR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91), they did not reduce the number of people who experienced a fall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01) or an injurious fall (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03). Four studies reported minor harm, mostly bruising, from exercise. Therefore, USPSTF has recommended that clinicians take into consideration patient’s medical history (including prior falls and comorbidities) to selectively offer multifactorial interventions.

Vitamin D supplementation

USPSTF found four good-quality and three fair-quality studies that reported on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of falls; altogether, these studies included a total of 7,531 patients. Of the studies, 43% recruited populations at high risk for falls. The mean age ranged from 71 to 76.8 years, and mean serum 25-OH vitamin D levels ranged from 26.4 to 31.8 ng/mL. Vitamin D formulations and dosages varied among trials from 700 IU/day to 150,000 IU/3 months to 500,000 IU/year. Pooled analyses did not show a significant reduction in falls (IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79-1.20) or the number of persons experiencing a fall (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). Only two trials reported on injurious falls; one reported an increase and the other reported no statistically significant difference. One study using high doses of Vitamin D supplementation (500,000 IU per year) showed statistically significant increase in all three endpoints.

Recommendation of others for fall prevention

The National Institution of Aging has emphasized exercise for strength and balance, monitoring for environmental hazards, and hearing and vision care, as well as medication management. The American Geriatric Society (AGS) has recommended asking about prior falls annually and assessing gait and balance on those who have experienced a fall. The AGS also has recommended strength and gait training, environmental modification, medication management, and vitamin D supplementation of at least 800 IU/day for those vitamin D deficient or at increased risk of falls. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommends STEADI (Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths & Injuries), a coordinated approach to implement the AGS’s clinical practice guidelines. The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends exercise or physical therapy and vitamin D supplementation.

The bottom line

Regarding reduction of falls, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that exercise interventions confer a moderate net benefit, multifactorial interventions have a small net benefit, and vitamin D supplementation offers no net benefit in preventing falls.

References

1. Guirquis-Blake JM et al. JAMA. 2018 Apr 24;319(16):1705-16.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force et al. JAMA. 2018 Apr 24;319(16):1696-1704.
 

Dr. Shrestha is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic evidence review of 62 randomized clinical trials with a total of 35,058 patients to gather evidence on the effectiveness and harms of primary care–relevant interventions to prevent falls in community-dwelling adults 65 years or older.¹This 2018 statement recommends exercise interventions (B recommendation), advises selective offering of multifactorial interventions based on individual circumstances (C recommendation), and discourages the use of vitamin D supplementation (D recommendation).² It thereby has updated its 2012 statement, in which exercise or physical therapy and vitamin D supplementation were recommended to prevent falls.

Importance

Scope of review

Out of the 62 randomized clinical trials, 65% of intervention studies targeted patients at high risk of falls; they were most commonly identified by history of prior falls, but mobility, gait, and balance impairment were often also considered. Specific medical diagnoses that could affect fall-related outcomes (osteoporosis, visual impairment, neurocognitive disorders) were excluded. This review did not look at the outcome of studies in populations who were vitamin D deficient because, in this population, vitamin D supplementation would be considered treatment rather than prevention. Of note, women constituted the majority in most studies.

Exercise interventions

USPSTF found five good-quality and 16 fair-quality studies, which altogether included a total of 7,297 patients, that reported on various exercise interventions to prevent falls; altogether, these studies included a total of 7,297 patients. Of the studies, 57% recruited populations at high risk for falls with a mean age ranging from 68 to 88 years. Exercise interventions included supervised individual classes, group classes, and physical therapy. The most common exercise component was gait, balance, and functional training; other common components included, in order of frequency, were resistance training, flexibility training, and endurance training. Most common frequency and duration were three sessions per week for 12 months. Exercise interventions reduced the number of persons experiencing a fall (relative risk 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.97), reduced the number of injurious falls (incidence rate ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90), and revealed a statistically insignificant reduction in the number of falls. Reported adverse events were minor and most commonly included pain or bruising related to exercise.

Multifactorial interventions

USPSTF found seven good-quality and 19 fair-quality studies that reported on multifactorial interventions; altogether, these studies included a total of 15,506 patients. Of the studies, 73% recruited populations at high risk for falls, and the mean age ranged from 71.9 to 85 years. Multifactorial interventions had two components:

• Initial assessment to screen for modifiable risk factors for falls (multidisciplinary comprehensive geriatric assessment or specific assessment that evaluated various factors, such as balance, gait, vision, cardiovascular health, medication, environment, cognition, and psychological health).
• Subsequent customized interventions (group or individual exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, nutrition, environmental modification, physical or occupational therapy, social or community services, and referral to specialists).

While studies found that multifactorial interventions reduced the number of falls (IRR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91), they did not reduce the number of people who experienced a fall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01) or an injurious fall (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03). Four studies reported minor harm, mostly bruising, from exercise. Therefore, USPSTF has recommended that clinicians take into consideration patient’s medical history (including prior falls and comorbidities) to selectively offer multifactorial interventions.

Vitamin D supplementation

USPSTF found four good-quality and three fair-quality studies that reported on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of falls; altogether, these studies included a total of 7,531 patients. Of the studies, 43% recruited populations at high risk for falls. The mean age ranged from 71 to 76.8 years, and mean serum 25-OH vitamin D levels ranged from 26.4 to 31.8 ng/mL. Vitamin D formulations and dosages varied among trials from 700 IU/day to 150,000 IU/3 months to 500,000 IU/year. Pooled analyses did not show a significant reduction in falls (IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79-1.20) or the number of persons experiencing a fall (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). Only two trials reported on injurious falls; one reported an increase and the other reported no statistically significant difference. One study using high doses of Vitamin D supplementation (500,000 IU per year) showed statistically significant increase in all three endpoints.

Recommendation of others for fall prevention

The National Institution of Aging has emphasized exercise for strength and balance, monitoring for environmental hazards, and hearing and vision care, as well as medication management. The American Geriatric Society (AGS) has recommended asking about prior falls annually and assessing gait and balance on those who have experienced a fall. The AGS also has recommended strength and gait training, environmental modification, medication management, and vitamin D supplementation of at least 800 IU/day for those vitamin D deficient or at increased risk of falls. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommends STEADI (Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths & Injuries), a coordinated approach to implement the AGS’s clinical practice guidelines. The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends exercise or physical therapy and vitamin D supplementation.

The bottom line

Regarding reduction of falls, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that exercise interventions confer a moderate net benefit, multifactorial interventions have a small net benefit, and vitamin D supplementation offers no net benefit in preventing falls.

References

1. Guirquis-Blake JM et al. JAMA. 2018 Apr 24;319(16):1705-16.

2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force et al. JAMA. 2018 Apr 24;319(16):1696-1704.
 

Dr. Shrestha is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued recommendations on screening for idiopathic scoliosis in asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 10-18 years.¹ This recommendation concluded that the current evidence on the benefits and harms of screening is insufficient (I statement) and updated its 2004 recommendation against routine screening, in which it had concluded that the harms of screening exceeded the potential benefits (D recommendation).

Importance

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

Screening methods

The USPSTF concluded that currently available screening tests can accurately detect adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Screening methods include visual inspection using the forward bend test, use of scoliometer measurement of the angle of trunk rotation during forward bend test with a rotation of 5 degrees–7 degrees recommended to be referred for radiography, and Moiré topography that enumerates asymmetric contour lines on the back (values greater than 2 are referred to radiography).

The USPSTF reviewed seven fair-quality observational studies (n = 447,243) and concluded that screening with a combination of forward bend test, scoliometer measurement and that Moiré topography had the highest sensitivity (93.8%) and specificity (99.2%), a low false-negative rate (6.2%), the lowest false-positive rate (0.8%), and the highest positive predictive value (81%). Sensitivity was lower when screening programs used only one or two screening tests, and single screening tests were associated with highest false-positive rates.

In general, the potential harms associated with false-positive results include psychological harm, chest radiation exposure, and other unnecessary treatment, but the USPSTF did not find evidence on the direct harms of screening.
 

Effectiveness of intervention or treatment

Bracing: The USPSTF found five studies (n = 651) that evaluated the effectiveness of treatment with three different types of braces. The average ages of participants ranged from 12 to 13 years, and their curvature severity varied from Cobb angle of 20 degrees to 30 degrees. The largest study (n = 242) was a good-quality, international, controlled clinical trial known as the Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial; it demonstrated significant benefit and quality-of-life outcomes associated with bracing for 18 hours/day. In this study, the rate of treatment success in the as-treated analysis was 72% in the intervention group and 48% in the control group. The rate of treatment success in the intention-to-treat analysis was 75% in the intervention group and 42% in the control group. The number needed to treat was three to prevent one case of curvature progression past 50%.

Exercise: The USPSTF found just two trials (n = 184) that evaluated the effectiveness of tailored physiotherapeutic, scoliosis-specific exercise treatments. The participants were older than 10 years and had Cobb angles ranging from 10 degrees to 25 degrees. At the 12-month follow-up, the studies showed significant improvement, including those in quality-of-life measures. In one of the trials, the intervention group had a Cobb angle reduction of 4.9 degrees while the control group had an increase of 2.8 degrees.

Harms: Only one good-quality study (n = 242) reported harms of bracing, which include skin problems, body pain, physical limitations, anxiety, and depression. The USPSTF did not find any studies that assessed the harms of treatment with exercise or surgery.

Association between spinal curvature severity and adult health outcomes

The USPSTF did not find any studies that directly addressed whether changes in the severity of spinal curvature in adolescence resulted in changes in adult health outcomes. The USPSTF did review two fair-quality retrospective, observational, long-term, follow-up analyses (n = 339) of adults diagnosed with idiopathic scoliosis in adolescence and treated with either bracing or surgery. Quality of life measurements, pulmonary consequences, and pregnancy outcomes were not significantly different between the two treatment groups or between those treated and those simply observed. However, those treated with bracing did report more negative treatment experience and body distortion.

Recommendation of others

The Scoliosis Research Society, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America, and American Academy of Pediatrics issued a joint position statement in September 2015 recommending that screening examinations for scoliosis should be performed for females at ages 10 and 12 years and for males at either 13 or 14 years.²

Their rationale, articulated in the statement and in an editorial in JAMA accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, is primarily based on findings in the Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial that showed a 56% decrease in the rate of progression of moderate curves to greater than 50 degrees. The evidence that intervention works – along with concerns about costs, family burden, loss of school time, risks of surgical complications, and the 22% need for long-term revision surgery – makes avoidance of progression of curves in scoliosis a high-value issue. In addition, they reasoned, the screening trials from which the false-positive values were derived were primarily school-based screening and not done in physician offices.
 

The Bottom Line

Dr. Aarisha Shrestha is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319(2):165–72.

2. HreskoMT et al. SRS/POSNA/AAOS/AAP position statement: Screening for the early detection for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. 2015. Accessed December 8, 2017.
 

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued recommendations on screening for idiopathic scoliosis in asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 10-18 years.¹ This recommendation concluded that the current evidence on the benefits and harms of screening is insufficient (I statement) and updated its 2004 recommendation against routine screening, in which it had concluded that the harms of screening exceeded the potential benefits (D recommendation).

Importance

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

Screening methods

The USPSTF concluded that currently available screening tests can accurately detect adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Screening methods include visual inspection using the forward bend test, use of scoliometer measurement of the angle of trunk rotation during forward bend test with a rotation of 5 degrees–7 degrees recommended to be referred for radiography, and Moiré topography that enumerates asymmetric contour lines on the back (values greater than 2 are referred to radiography).

The USPSTF reviewed seven fair-quality observational studies (n = 447,243) and concluded that screening with a combination of forward bend test, scoliometer measurement and that Moiré topography had the highest sensitivity (93.8%) and specificity (99.2%), a low false-negative rate (6.2%), the lowest false-positive rate (0.8%), and the highest positive predictive value (81%). Sensitivity was lower when screening programs used only one or two screening tests, and single screening tests were associated with highest false-positive rates.

In general, the potential harms associated with false-positive results include psychological harm, chest radiation exposure, and other unnecessary treatment, but the USPSTF did not find evidence on the direct harms of screening.
 

Effectiveness of intervention or treatment

Bracing: The USPSTF found five studies (n = 651) that evaluated the effectiveness of treatment with three different types of braces. The average ages of participants ranged from 12 to 13 years, and their curvature severity varied from Cobb angle of 20 degrees to 30 degrees. The largest study (n = 242) was a good-quality, international, controlled clinical trial known as the Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial; it demonstrated significant benefit and quality-of-life outcomes associated with bracing for 18 hours/day. In this study, the rate of treatment success in the as-treated analysis was 72% in the intervention group and 48% in the control group. The rate of treatment success in the intention-to-treat analysis was 75% in the intervention group and 42% in the control group. The number needed to treat was three to prevent one case of curvature progression past 50%.

Exercise: The USPSTF found just two trials (n = 184) that evaluated the effectiveness of tailored physiotherapeutic, scoliosis-specific exercise treatments. The participants were older than 10 years and had Cobb angles ranging from 10 degrees to 25 degrees. At the 12-month follow-up, the studies showed significant improvement, including those in quality-of-life measures. In one of the trials, the intervention group had a Cobb angle reduction of 4.9 degrees while the control group had an increase of 2.8 degrees.

Harms: Only one good-quality study (n = 242) reported harms of bracing, which include skin problems, body pain, physical limitations, anxiety, and depression. The USPSTF did not find any studies that assessed the harms of treatment with exercise or surgery.

Association between spinal curvature severity and adult health outcomes

The USPSTF did not find any studies that directly addressed whether changes in the severity of spinal curvature in adolescence resulted in changes in adult health outcomes. The USPSTF did review two fair-quality retrospective, observational, long-term, follow-up analyses (n = 339) of adults diagnosed with idiopathic scoliosis in adolescence and treated with either bracing or surgery. Quality of life measurements, pulmonary consequences, and pregnancy outcomes were not significantly different between the two treatment groups or between those treated and those simply observed. However, those treated with bracing did report more negative treatment experience and body distortion.

Recommendation of others

The Scoliosis Research Society, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America, and American Academy of Pediatrics issued a joint position statement in September 2015 recommending that screening examinations for scoliosis should be performed for females at ages 10 and 12 years and for males at either 13 or 14 years.²

Their rationale, articulated in the statement and in an editorial in JAMA accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, is primarily based on findings in the Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial that showed a 56% decrease in the rate of progression of moderate curves to greater than 50 degrees. The evidence that intervention works – along with concerns about costs, family burden, loss of school time, risks of surgical complications, and the 22% need for long-term revision surgery – makes avoidance of progression of curves in scoliosis a high-value issue. In addition, they reasoned, the screening trials from which the false-positive values were derived were primarily school-based screening and not done in physician offices.
 

The Bottom Line

Dr. Aarisha Shrestha is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319(2):165–72.

2. HreskoMT et al. SRS/POSNA/AAOS/AAP position statement: Screening for the early detection for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. 2015. Accessed December 8, 2017.
 

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued recommendations on screening for idiopathic scoliosis in asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 10-18 years.¹ This recommendation concluded that the current evidence on the benefits and harms of screening is insufficient (I statement) and updated its 2004 recommendation against routine screening, in which it had concluded that the harms of screening exceeded the potential benefits (D recommendation).

Importance

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

Screening methods

The USPSTF concluded that currently available screening tests can accurately detect adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Screening methods include visual inspection using the forward bend test, use of scoliometer measurement of the angle of trunk rotation during forward bend test with a rotation of 5 degrees–7 degrees recommended to be referred for radiography, and Moiré topography that enumerates asymmetric contour lines on the back (values greater than 2 are referred to radiography).

The USPSTF reviewed seven fair-quality observational studies (n = 447,243) and concluded that screening with a combination of forward bend test, scoliometer measurement and that Moiré topography had the highest sensitivity (93.8%) and specificity (99.2%), a low false-negative rate (6.2%), the lowest false-positive rate (0.8%), and the highest positive predictive value (81%). Sensitivity was lower when screening programs used only one or two screening tests, and single screening tests were associated with highest false-positive rates.

In general, the potential harms associated with false-positive results include psychological harm, chest radiation exposure, and other unnecessary treatment, but the USPSTF did not find evidence on the direct harms of screening.
 

Effectiveness of intervention or treatment

Bracing: The USPSTF found five studies (n = 651) that evaluated the effectiveness of treatment with three different types of braces. The average ages of participants ranged from 12 to 13 years, and their curvature severity varied from Cobb angle of 20 degrees to 30 degrees. The largest study (n = 242) was a good-quality, international, controlled clinical trial known as the Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial; it demonstrated significant benefit and quality-of-life outcomes associated with bracing for 18 hours/day. In this study, the rate of treatment success in the as-treated analysis was 72% in the intervention group and 48% in the control group. The rate of treatment success in the intention-to-treat analysis was 75% in the intervention group and 42% in the control group. The number needed to treat was three to prevent one case of curvature progression past 50%.

Exercise: The USPSTF found just two trials (n = 184) that evaluated the effectiveness of tailored physiotherapeutic, scoliosis-specific exercise treatments. The participants were older than 10 years and had Cobb angles ranging from 10 degrees to 25 degrees. At the 12-month follow-up, the studies showed significant improvement, including those in quality-of-life measures. In one of the trials, the intervention group had a Cobb angle reduction of 4.9 degrees while the control group had an increase of 2.8 degrees.

Harms: Only one good-quality study (n = 242) reported harms of bracing, which include skin problems, body pain, physical limitations, anxiety, and depression. The USPSTF did not find any studies that assessed the harms of treatment with exercise or surgery.

Association between spinal curvature severity and adult health outcomes

The USPSTF did not find any studies that directly addressed whether changes in the severity of spinal curvature in adolescence resulted in changes in adult health outcomes. The USPSTF did review two fair-quality retrospective, observational, long-term, follow-up analyses (n = 339) of adults diagnosed with idiopathic scoliosis in adolescence and treated with either bracing or surgery. Quality of life measurements, pulmonary consequences, and pregnancy outcomes were not significantly different between the two treatment groups or between those treated and those simply observed. However, those treated with bracing did report more negative treatment experience and body distortion.

Recommendation of others

The Scoliosis Research Society, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America, and American Academy of Pediatrics issued a joint position statement in September 2015 recommending that screening examinations for scoliosis should be performed for females at ages 10 and 12 years and for males at either 13 or 14 years.²

Their rationale, articulated in the statement and in an editorial in JAMA accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, is primarily based on findings in the Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial that showed a 56% decrease in the rate of progression of moderate curves to greater than 50 degrees. The evidence that intervention works – along with concerns about costs, family burden, loss of school time, risks of surgical complications, and the 22% need for long-term revision surgery – makes avoidance of progression of curves in scoliosis a high-value issue. In addition, they reasoned, the screening trials from which the false-positive values were derived were primarily school-based screening and not done in physician offices.
 

The Bottom Line

Dr. Aarisha Shrestha is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319(2):165–72.

2. HreskoMT et al. SRS/POSNA/AAOS/AAP position statement: Screening for the early detection for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. 2015. Accessed December 8, 2017.