Musculoskeletal Disorders

TOPLINE: 

Virtual yoga classes significantly reduced chronic low back pain intensity and improved back-related function in health system employees. Improvements were sustained at 24 weeks, with reduced pain medication use and better sleep quality.

METHODOLOGY:

• A single-blinded, 24-week, 2-arm, randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 3, 2022, through May 23, 2023, comparing live-streamed yoga classes with a wait-list control among adults with chronic low back pain.
• A total of 140 participants aged 18-64 years with chronic low back pain were recruited from the Cleveland Clinic Employee Health Plan.
• Inclusion criteria included a mean low back pain intensity score of at least 4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale and daily back pain interference about half or more of the days.
• The intervention consisted of 12 consecutive weekly, 60-minute, virtual, live-streamed hatha yoga group classes.

Coprimary outcomes were mean pain intensity in the previous week on the 11-point numerical rating scale and back-related function as assessed using the 23-point modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the virtual yoga group showed greater reductions in mean pain intensity at 12 weeks (mean change, –1.5 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –2.3 points; P < .001) compared to the wait-list control group.
• Back-related function improved significantly in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, –2.8 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –4.6 points; P < .001), compared with the control group.
• Virtual yoga participants reported 21.2 percentage points less use of any analgesic medication during the past week at 24 weeks, compared with the control group.
• Sleep quality improved more in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .008) and 24 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .005), compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the demonstrated noninferiority of yoga to physical therapy, structured virtual yoga programs and physical therapy are reasonable choices for patients with [chronic low back pain] depending on accessibility, cost, and patient preference. These findings support the call by the National Academy of Medicine for increased evidenced-based pain treatments that can be disseminated via technology-based platforms,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hallie Tankha, PhD, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. It was published online on November 1, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study had a low adherence rate, with only 36.6% of participants attending at least 50% of the yoga classes. There was also a higher rate of missing data in the yoga group compared to the control group. The study did not include a longer-term follow-up assessment beyond 24 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from Cleveland Clinic Healthcare Delivery and Implementation Science Center. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Eric Roseen, DC, PhD, reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from UpToDate and grants from NCCIH related to yoga and tai chi for treatment of pain. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Virtual yoga classes significantly reduced chronic low back pain intensity and improved back-related function in health system employees. Improvements were sustained at 24 weeks, with reduced pain medication use and better sleep quality.

METHODOLOGY:

• A single-blinded, 24-week, 2-arm, randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 3, 2022, through May 23, 2023, comparing live-streamed yoga classes with a wait-list control among adults with chronic low back pain.
• A total of 140 participants aged 18-64 years with chronic low back pain were recruited from the Cleveland Clinic Employee Health Plan.
• Inclusion criteria included a mean low back pain intensity score of at least 4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale and daily back pain interference about half or more of the days.
• The intervention consisted of 12 consecutive weekly, 60-minute, virtual, live-streamed hatha yoga group classes.

Coprimary outcomes were mean pain intensity in the previous week on the 11-point numerical rating scale and back-related function as assessed using the 23-point modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the virtual yoga group showed greater reductions in mean pain intensity at 12 weeks (mean change, –1.5 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –2.3 points; P < .001) compared to the wait-list control group.
• Back-related function improved significantly in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, –2.8 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –4.6 points; P < .001), compared with the control group.
• Virtual yoga participants reported 21.2 percentage points less use of any analgesic medication during the past week at 24 weeks, compared with the control group.
• Sleep quality improved more in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .008) and 24 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .005), compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the demonstrated noninferiority of yoga to physical therapy, structured virtual yoga programs and physical therapy are reasonable choices for patients with [chronic low back pain] depending on accessibility, cost, and patient preference. These findings support the call by the National Academy of Medicine for increased evidenced-based pain treatments that can be disseminated via technology-based platforms,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hallie Tankha, PhD, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. It was published online on November 1, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study had a low adherence rate, with only 36.6% of participants attending at least 50% of the yoga classes. There was also a higher rate of missing data in the yoga group compared to the control group. The study did not include a longer-term follow-up assessment beyond 24 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from Cleveland Clinic Healthcare Delivery and Implementation Science Center. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Eric Roseen, DC, PhD, reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from UpToDate and grants from NCCIH related to yoga and tai chi for treatment of pain. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Virtual yoga classes significantly reduced chronic low back pain intensity and improved back-related function in health system employees. Improvements were sustained at 24 weeks, with reduced pain medication use and better sleep quality.

METHODOLOGY:

• A single-blinded, 24-week, 2-arm, randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 3, 2022, through May 23, 2023, comparing live-streamed yoga classes with a wait-list control among adults with chronic low back pain.
• A total of 140 participants aged 18-64 years with chronic low back pain were recruited from the Cleveland Clinic Employee Health Plan.
• Inclusion criteria included a mean low back pain intensity score of at least 4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale and daily back pain interference about half or more of the days.
• The intervention consisted of 12 consecutive weekly, 60-minute, virtual, live-streamed hatha yoga group classes.

Coprimary outcomes were mean pain intensity in the previous week on the 11-point numerical rating scale and back-related function as assessed using the 23-point modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the virtual yoga group showed greater reductions in mean pain intensity at 12 weeks (mean change, –1.5 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –2.3 points; P < .001) compared to the wait-list control group.
• Back-related function improved significantly in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, –2.8 points; P < .001) and 24 weeks (mean change, –4.6 points; P < .001), compared with the control group.
• Virtual yoga participants reported 21.2 percentage points less use of any analgesic medication during the past week at 24 weeks, compared with the control group.
• Sleep quality improved more in the virtual yoga group at 12 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .008) and 24 weeks (mean change, 0.4 points; P = .005), compared with the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the demonstrated noninferiority of yoga to physical therapy, structured virtual yoga programs and physical therapy are reasonable choices for patients with [chronic low back pain] depending on accessibility, cost, and patient preference. These findings support the call by the National Academy of Medicine for increased evidenced-based pain treatments that can be disseminated via technology-based platforms,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hallie Tankha, PhD, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. It was published online on November 1, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study had a low adherence rate, with only 36.6% of participants attending at least 50% of the yoga classes. There was also a higher rate of missing data in the yoga group compared to the control group. The study did not include a longer-term follow-up assessment beyond 24 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from Cleveland Clinic Healthcare Delivery and Implementation Science Center. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Eric Roseen, DC, PhD, reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving personal fees from UpToDate and grants from NCCIH related to yoga and tai chi for treatment of pain. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of newer biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) rose sharply from 2001 to 2022, while the use of conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) plummeted, with adalimumab becoming the most commonly used b/tsDMARD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a serial cross-sectional study using Merative MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters data from 2000 to 2022 to describe recent trends in DMARD use for children with JIA in the United States.
• They identified 20,258 new episodes of DMARD use among 13,696 children with JIA (median age, 14 years; 67.5% girls) who newly initiated at least one DMARD.
• Participants were required to have ≥ 365 days of continuous healthcare and pharmacy eligibility prior to the index date, defined as the date of DMARD initiation.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of csDMARDs declined from 89.5% to 43.2% between 2001 and 2022 (P < .001 for trend), whereas the use of bDMARDs increased from 10.5% to 50.0% over the same period (P < .001).
• Methotrexate was the most commonly used DMARD throughout the study period ; however, as with other csDMARDs, its use declined from 42.1% in 2001 to 21.5% in 2022 (P < .001 ).
• Use of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab doubled from 7% in 2007 to 14% in 2008 and increased further up to 20.5% by 2022; adalimumab also became the most predominantly used b/tsDMARD after csDMARD monotherapy, accounting for 77.8% of prescriptions following csDMARDs in 2022.
• Even though the use of individual TNF inhibitors increased, their overall popularity fell in recent years as the use of newer b/tsDMARDs, such as ustekinumab and secukinumab, increased.

IN PRACTICE:

“These real-world treatment patterns give us insight into how selection of therapies for JIA has evolved with increasing availability of effective agents and help prepare for future studies on comparative DMARD safety and effectiveness,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Priyanka Yalamanchili, PharmD, MS, Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science, Institute for Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and was published online October 22, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The dependence on commercial claims data may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations, such as those with public insurance or without insurance. The study did not have access to demographic data of the participants to investigate the presence of disparities in the use of DMARDs. Moreover, the lack of clinical details about the patients with JIA, including disease severity and specialty of prescribers, may have affected the interpretation of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and several other institutes of the National Institutes of Health, as well as the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of newer biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) rose sharply from 2001 to 2022, while the use of conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) plummeted, with adalimumab becoming the most commonly used b/tsDMARD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a serial cross-sectional study using Merative MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters data from 2000 to 2022 to describe recent trends in DMARD use for children with JIA in the United States.
• They identified 20,258 new episodes of DMARD use among 13,696 children with JIA (median age, 14 years; 67.5% girls) who newly initiated at least one DMARD.
• Participants were required to have ≥ 365 days of continuous healthcare and pharmacy eligibility prior to the index date, defined as the date of DMARD initiation.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of csDMARDs declined from 89.5% to 43.2% between 2001 and 2022 (P < .001 for trend), whereas the use of bDMARDs increased from 10.5% to 50.0% over the same period (P < .001).
• Methotrexate was the most commonly used DMARD throughout the study period ; however, as with other csDMARDs, its use declined from 42.1% in 2001 to 21.5% in 2022 (P < .001 ).
• Use of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab doubled from 7% in 2007 to 14% in 2008 and increased further up to 20.5% by 2022; adalimumab also became the most predominantly used b/tsDMARD after csDMARD monotherapy, accounting for 77.8% of prescriptions following csDMARDs in 2022.
• Even though the use of individual TNF inhibitors increased, their overall popularity fell in recent years as the use of newer b/tsDMARDs, such as ustekinumab and secukinumab, increased.

IN PRACTICE:

“These real-world treatment patterns give us insight into how selection of therapies for JIA has evolved with increasing availability of effective agents and help prepare for future studies on comparative DMARD safety and effectiveness,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Priyanka Yalamanchili, PharmD, MS, Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science, Institute for Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and was published online October 22, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The dependence on commercial claims data may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations, such as those with public insurance or without insurance. The study did not have access to demographic data of the participants to investigate the presence of disparities in the use of DMARDs. Moreover, the lack of clinical details about the patients with JIA, including disease severity and specialty of prescribers, may have affected the interpretation of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and several other institutes of the National Institutes of Health, as well as the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of newer biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) rose sharply from 2001 to 2022, while the use of conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) plummeted, with adalimumab becoming the most commonly used b/tsDMARD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a serial cross-sectional study using Merative MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters data from 2000 to 2022 to describe recent trends in DMARD use for children with JIA in the United States.
• They identified 20,258 new episodes of DMARD use among 13,696 children with JIA (median age, 14 years; 67.5% girls) who newly initiated at least one DMARD.
• Participants were required to have ≥ 365 days of continuous healthcare and pharmacy eligibility prior to the index date, defined as the date of DMARD initiation.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of csDMARDs declined from 89.5% to 43.2% between 2001 and 2022 (P < .001 for trend), whereas the use of bDMARDs increased from 10.5% to 50.0% over the same period (P < .001).
• Methotrexate was the most commonly used DMARD throughout the study period ; however, as with other csDMARDs, its use declined from 42.1% in 2001 to 21.5% in 2022 (P < .001 ).
• Use of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab doubled from 7% in 2007 to 14% in 2008 and increased further up to 20.5% by 2022; adalimumab also became the most predominantly used b/tsDMARD after csDMARD monotherapy, accounting for 77.8% of prescriptions following csDMARDs in 2022.
• Even though the use of individual TNF inhibitors increased, their overall popularity fell in recent years as the use of newer b/tsDMARDs, such as ustekinumab and secukinumab, increased.

IN PRACTICE:

“These real-world treatment patterns give us insight into how selection of therapies for JIA has evolved with increasing availability of effective agents and help prepare for future studies on comparative DMARD safety and effectiveness,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Priyanka Yalamanchili, PharmD, MS, Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science, Institute for Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and was published online October 22, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The dependence on commercial claims data may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations, such as those with public insurance or without insurance. The study did not have access to demographic data of the participants to investigate the presence of disparities in the use of DMARDs. Moreover, the lack of clinical details about the patients with JIA, including disease severity and specialty of prescribers, may have affected the interpretation of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and several other institutes of the National Institutes of Health, as well as the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Scene 1: Exercise Medicine Clinic, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil I just finished one evaluation on physical fitness and health and looked at my schedule. My next patient would be a 65-year-old man. How fit will he be? Will he have evident age-related muscle loss? I gave myself a short break and my mind went to the late 1970s. 

Once upon a time, the practice of medicine was based primarily on the skill of your physical examination, previous experiences, and your ability to reason logically and make solid deductions. In 1979, the stethoscope was part of my dress code. After one elective semester as a research fellow at the Ambrose Cardiorespiratory Unit at McMaster University Medical Centre, in Hamilton, Canada, where I was honored to witness the dawn of evidence-based medicine, I graduated from Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. I still remember being introduced to some promising novelties in cardiology, such as M-mode echocardiograms and myocardial scintigraphy. Radiology was primarily centered on x-rays, and lab testing was basic and poorly automatized.

Over the following decades, medical practice changed dramatically with the incorporation of new technologies. Recent advances in diagnostic tools, genetics, artificial intelligence, and sophisticated statistical analyses, along with well-collected scientific data, have molded how clinicians should think and work.

At the same time, clinical profiles also changed. Internists and primary care physicians are regularly managing patients who are, on average, older and have or are on the way to having potentially life-threatening chronic diseases, accompanied by poor lifestyle habits, and, highly important, often some degree of disability, frailty, and loss of independence. Many of them exhibit age-related muscle loss. 

Scene 2: Exercise Medicine Clinic, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 

Conscious of the benefits of interrupting my sitting time with activity, I left my office and walked to meet my patient in the waiting room. I called his name and introduced myself. I watched how he listened and reacted to my speech, and how easy or hard it was for him to rise from the chair — readiness, velocity, and number of supports required: none, one, or two hands. I offered my own hand to him, and when we shook, I gauged the strength of his grip. 

I invited him into my office and took note of his somatotype and body composition, and whether he had any central obesity. Of course, and I should by no means miss this chance, I carefully observed how he walked in — his gait, speed, balance, posture — how he pulled up the chair, and how he managed to lower himself into his seat. Before I even sat in my own chair, I asked him if he remembered what his body weight was 5 years ago and what it was today. Before we got started in earnest, I had already managed to collect several pieces of relevant information. 

Exercise Physiology: Changing Landscape

Muscle activity depends on muscle mass and function, and peaks somewhere between ages 25 and 35 before declining. The drop is slow in the early stages but accelerates rapidly after age 60 or 65.

Two of the most relevant variables in muscle function are strength and power. As a product of force and velocity, muscle power could be a more crucial factor than strength for many daily activities that demand movement against gravity or inertia, such as placing carry-on baggage in the overhead bin of an airplane or rising from the floor or chair.

The association between muscle mass and muscle strength or power is moderate, and physiologic data have indicated that the decline of muscle power with aging is faster and larger than that of muscle strength.

The term “sarcopenia” has become definitively incorporated into the medical glossary. From the Greek (“sark” and “penia”), sarcopenia was defined as reduced muscle mass, but more recently it has encompassed muscle strength in its definition. However, a recent consensus paper from the Global Leadership Initiative in Sarcopenia, using a Delphi approach, rejected the inclusion of muscle power in the concept of sarcopenia. On the other hand, a long time ago, some authors coined and advocated the use the term “dynapenia” to more precisely reflect the reduced levels of muscle strength and power that often accompany aging.

The best available intervention to counteract age-related deterioration of muscle activity is resistance exercise. The types of resistance exercises vary widely — by number of sets and repetitions, intervals between sets, speed of execution of movement, and percentage of maximal weight/load.

We recently proposed that, after an evaluation to identify the main muscle variable requiring attention, the resistance exercise program should be individually tailored and prescribed according to the objective to counteract sarcopenia or dynapenia.

What is more important for autonomy and better daily living conditions in old and very old individuals: muscle mass, muscle strength, or muscle power? More likely the response is muscle power — in practical terms, dynapenia rather than sarcopenia. This short video presents practical tips for obtaining optimal results in fighting dynapenia. The first choice should be power training or high velocity–based training, emphasizing two to three sets of six to eight repetitions performed as fast as possible (on the concentric or shortening phase of muscle contraction) with relatively high loads.

Internists and primary care physicians are most likely satisfied with the information they obtain by simple observation, and already can superficially grade the magnitude of a patient’s age-related muscle loss and its consequences to daily living.

However, those who want more objective information on nonaerobic physical fitness can add one to three simple tests to their consultation: the sitting-rising test (SRT); the 10-second one-legged test (10sOLS test); and the Flexitest. Poor performance on each of these — and particularly all three — is strongly associated with an increased risk for premature death in middle-aged and older individuals. These tests require no extra equipment and can be performed rapidly, and interpreting the results takes only a few moments using published reference values.

Age-related muscle loss profoundly affects our ability to sit and rise from the floor, so if time is limited, the SRT is the best assessment, as it measures all nonaerobic components of physical fitness. For a quick interpretation, consider that SRT scores vary from 0 to 10, do not substantially differ by sex, and that a composite score equal to or greater than 8 will reflect a minimum age-adjusted percentile of 61, most likely indicating relevant age-related muscle loss is not yet occurring. 
 

Dr. Araújo is Professor and Dean of Research and Education, Exercise Medicine Clinic (CLINIMEX), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He reported conflicts of interest with INBRAMED.


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

Scene 1: Exercise Medicine Clinic, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil I just finished one evaluation on physical fitness and health and looked at my schedule. My next patient would be a 65-year-old man. How fit will he be? Will he have evident age-related muscle loss? I gave myself a short break and my mind went to the late 1970s. 

Once upon a time, the practice of medicine was based primarily on the skill of your physical examination, previous experiences, and your ability to reason logically and make solid deductions. In 1979, the stethoscope was part of my dress code. After one elective semester as a research fellow at the Ambrose Cardiorespiratory Unit at McMaster University Medical Centre, in Hamilton, Canada, where I was honored to witness the dawn of evidence-based medicine, I graduated from Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. I still remember being introduced to some promising novelties in cardiology, such as M-mode echocardiograms and myocardial scintigraphy. Radiology was primarily centered on x-rays, and lab testing was basic and poorly automatized.

Over the following decades, medical practice changed dramatically with the incorporation of new technologies. Recent advances in diagnostic tools, genetics, artificial intelligence, and sophisticated statistical analyses, along with well-collected scientific data, have molded how clinicians should think and work.

At the same time, clinical profiles also changed. Internists and primary care physicians are regularly managing patients who are, on average, older and have or are on the way to having potentially life-threatening chronic diseases, accompanied by poor lifestyle habits, and, highly important, often some degree of disability, frailty, and loss of independence. Many of them exhibit age-related muscle loss. 

Scene 2: Exercise Medicine Clinic, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 

Conscious of the benefits of interrupting my sitting time with activity, I left my office and walked to meet my patient in the waiting room. I called his name and introduced myself. I watched how he listened and reacted to my speech, and how easy or hard it was for him to rise from the chair — readiness, velocity, and number of supports required: none, one, or two hands. I offered my own hand to him, and when we shook, I gauged the strength of his grip. 

I invited him into my office and took note of his somatotype and body composition, and whether he had any central obesity. Of course, and I should by no means miss this chance, I carefully observed how he walked in — his gait, speed, balance, posture — how he pulled up the chair, and how he managed to lower himself into his seat. Before I even sat in my own chair, I asked him if he remembered what his body weight was 5 years ago and what it was today. Before we got started in earnest, I had already managed to collect several pieces of relevant information. 

Exercise Physiology: Changing Landscape

Muscle activity depends on muscle mass and function, and peaks somewhere between ages 25 and 35 before declining. The drop is slow in the early stages but accelerates rapidly after age 60 or 65.

Two of the most relevant variables in muscle function are strength and power. As a product of force and velocity, muscle power could be a more crucial factor than strength for many daily activities that demand movement against gravity or inertia, such as placing carry-on baggage in the overhead bin of an airplane or rising from the floor or chair.

The association between muscle mass and muscle strength or power is moderate, and physiologic data have indicated that the decline of muscle power with aging is faster and larger than that of muscle strength.

The term “sarcopenia” has become definitively incorporated into the medical glossary. From the Greek (“sark” and “penia”), sarcopenia was defined as reduced muscle mass, but more recently it has encompassed muscle strength in its definition. However, a recent consensus paper from the Global Leadership Initiative in Sarcopenia, using a Delphi approach, rejected the inclusion of muscle power in the concept of sarcopenia. On the other hand, a long time ago, some authors coined and advocated the use the term “dynapenia” to more precisely reflect the reduced levels of muscle strength and power that often accompany aging.

The best available intervention to counteract age-related deterioration of muscle activity is resistance exercise. The types of resistance exercises vary widely — by number of sets and repetitions, intervals between sets, speed of execution of movement, and percentage of maximal weight/load.

We recently proposed that, after an evaluation to identify the main muscle variable requiring attention, the resistance exercise program should be individually tailored and prescribed according to the objective to counteract sarcopenia or dynapenia.

What is more important for autonomy and better daily living conditions in old and very old individuals: muscle mass, muscle strength, or muscle power? More likely the response is muscle power — in practical terms, dynapenia rather than sarcopenia. This short video presents practical tips for obtaining optimal results in fighting dynapenia. The first choice should be power training or high velocity–based training, emphasizing two to three sets of six to eight repetitions performed as fast as possible (on the concentric or shortening phase of muscle contraction) with relatively high loads.

Internists and primary care physicians are most likely satisfied with the information they obtain by simple observation, and already can superficially grade the magnitude of a patient’s age-related muscle loss and its consequences to daily living.

However, those who want more objective information on nonaerobic physical fitness can add one to three simple tests to their consultation: the sitting-rising test (SRT); the 10-second one-legged test (10sOLS test); and the Flexitest. Poor performance on each of these — and particularly all three — is strongly associated with an increased risk for premature death in middle-aged and older individuals. These tests require no extra equipment and can be performed rapidly, and interpreting the results takes only a few moments using published reference values.

Age-related muscle loss profoundly affects our ability to sit and rise from the floor, so if time is limited, the SRT is the best assessment, as it measures all nonaerobic components of physical fitness. For a quick interpretation, consider that SRT scores vary from 0 to 10, do not substantially differ by sex, and that a composite score equal to or greater than 8 will reflect a minimum age-adjusted percentile of 61, most likely indicating relevant age-related muscle loss is not yet occurring. 
 

Dr. Araújo is Professor and Dean of Research and Education, Exercise Medicine Clinic (CLINIMEX), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He reported conflicts of interest with INBRAMED.


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

Scene 1: Exercise Medicine Clinic, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil I just finished one evaluation on physical fitness and health and looked at my schedule. My next patient would be a 65-year-old man. How fit will he be? Will he have evident age-related muscle loss? I gave myself a short break and my mind went to the late 1970s. 

Once upon a time, the practice of medicine was based primarily on the skill of your physical examination, previous experiences, and your ability to reason logically and make solid deductions. In 1979, the stethoscope was part of my dress code. After one elective semester as a research fellow at the Ambrose Cardiorespiratory Unit at McMaster University Medical Centre, in Hamilton, Canada, where I was honored to witness the dawn of evidence-based medicine, I graduated from Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. I still remember being introduced to some promising novelties in cardiology, such as M-mode echocardiograms and myocardial scintigraphy. Radiology was primarily centered on x-rays, and lab testing was basic and poorly automatized.

Over the following decades, medical practice changed dramatically with the incorporation of new technologies. Recent advances in diagnostic tools, genetics, artificial intelligence, and sophisticated statistical analyses, along with well-collected scientific data, have molded how clinicians should think and work.

At the same time, clinical profiles also changed. Internists and primary care physicians are regularly managing patients who are, on average, older and have or are on the way to having potentially life-threatening chronic diseases, accompanied by poor lifestyle habits, and, highly important, often some degree of disability, frailty, and loss of independence. Many of them exhibit age-related muscle loss. 

Scene 2: Exercise Medicine Clinic, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 

Conscious of the benefits of interrupting my sitting time with activity, I left my office and walked to meet my patient in the waiting room. I called his name and introduced myself. I watched how he listened and reacted to my speech, and how easy or hard it was for him to rise from the chair — readiness, velocity, and number of supports required: none, one, or two hands. I offered my own hand to him, and when we shook, I gauged the strength of his grip. 

I invited him into my office and took note of his somatotype and body composition, and whether he had any central obesity. Of course, and I should by no means miss this chance, I carefully observed how he walked in — his gait, speed, balance, posture — how he pulled up the chair, and how he managed to lower himself into his seat. Before I even sat in my own chair, I asked him if he remembered what his body weight was 5 years ago and what it was today. Before we got started in earnest, I had already managed to collect several pieces of relevant information. 

Exercise Physiology: Changing Landscape

Muscle activity depends on muscle mass and function, and peaks somewhere between ages 25 and 35 before declining. The drop is slow in the early stages but accelerates rapidly after age 60 or 65.

Two of the most relevant variables in muscle function are strength and power. As a product of force and velocity, muscle power could be a more crucial factor than strength for many daily activities that demand movement against gravity or inertia, such as placing carry-on baggage in the overhead bin of an airplane or rising from the floor or chair.

The association between muscle mass and muscle strength or power is moderate, and physiologic data have indicated that the decline of muscle power with aging is faster and larger than that of muscle strength.

The term “sarcopenia” has become definitively incorporated into the medical glossary. From the Greek (“sark” and “penia”), sarcopenia was defined as reduced muscle mass, but more recently it has encompassed muscle strength in its definition. However, a recent consensus paper from the Global Leadership Initiative in Sarcopenia, using a Delphi approach, rejected the inclusion of muscle power in the concept of sarcopenia. On the other hand, a long time ago, some authors coined and advocated the use the term “dynapenia” to more precisely reflect the reduced levels of muscle strength and power that often accompany aging.

The best available intervention to counteract age-related deterioration of muscle activity is resistance exercise. The types of resistance exercises vary widely — by number of sets and repetitions, intervals between sets, speed of execution of movement, and percentage of maximal weight/load.

We recently proposed that, after an evaluation to identify the main muscle variable requiring attention, the resistance exercise program should be individually tailored and prescribed according to the objective to counteract sarcopenia or dynapenia.

What is more important for autonomy and better daily living conditions in old and very old individuals: muscle mass, muscle strength, or muscle power? More likely the response is muscle power — in practical terms, dynapenia rather than sarcopenia. This short video presents practical tips for obtaining optimal results in fighting dynapenia. The first choice should be power training or high velocity–based training, emphasizing two to three sets of six to eight repetitions performed as fast as possible (on the concentric or shortening phase of muscle contraction) with relatively high loads.

Internists and primary care physicians are most likely satisfied with the information they obtain by simple observation, and already can superficially grade the magnitude of a patient’s age-related muscle loss and its consequences to daily living.

However, those who want more objective information on nonaerobic physical fitness can add one to three simple tests to their consultation: the sitting-rising test (SRT); the 10-second one-legged test (10sOLS test); and the Flexitest. Poor performance on each of these — and particularly all three — is strongly associated with an increased risk for premature death in middle-aged and older individuals. These tests require no extra equipment and can be performed rapidly, and interpreting the results takes only a few moments using published reference values.

Age-related muscle loss profoundly affects our ability to sit and rise from the floor, so if time is limited, the SRT is the best assessment, as it measures all nonaerobic components of physical fitness. For a quick interpretation, consider that SRT scores vary from 0 to 10, do not substantially differ by sex, and that a composite score equal to or greater than 8 will reflect a minimum age-adjusted percentile of 61, most likely indicating relevant age-related muscle loss is not yet occurring. 
 

Dr. Araújo is Professor and Dean of Research and Education, Exercise Medicine Clinic (CLINIMEX), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He reported conflicts of interest with INBRAMED.


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

As primary care doctors, we diagnosis and treat many patients with osteoarthritis. In fact, according to World Health Organization statistics, approximately 528 million people around the world suffer from some form of this type of arthritis. With the aging of the population and the obesity epidemic, the rate of osteoarthritis has increased 113% since 1990 and is predicted to continue to rise.

While the knee is the most commonly affected joint, osteoarthritis also frequently affects the hands and hips. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons issued guidelines concerning the management of osteoarthritis of the hip. The clinical guidelines are aimed at orthopedists, but it is important for primary care doctors be aware of them as well since we are the physicians who usually diagnose the disease, manage it in its early stages, and follow the patients with and after the orthopedist has undertaken any procedures.

Castle Connolly

While the complete set of guidelines is 80 pages long, strong recommendations have been made that everyone should be aware of. The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has been reconfirmed as a modality to improve pain and function. A recommendation against using intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the hip was made as the evidence shows it did not improve pain or function better than placebo. Conversely, intra-articular corticosteroids were shown to improve pain and function in the short-term and many primary care doctors provide this treatment in their practice.

These guidelines do a great job covering the totality of management of osteoarthritis of the hip, from conservation management to surgical and post-surgical treatments. Patients often come to us with their questions so not only is it important to know the evidence for what we do in our practices, we need to know what our orthopedic colleagues are doing. We will be the ones asked to do the pre-operative evaluations on these patients, so we need to understand the procedure and its risks. We will also manage these patients post-operatively and need to be aware of what the evidence shows.

Opioid use is also covered in the guidelines: they recommend against the use of opioids to control pain in these patients. In the age of the opioid epidemic, it is a good reminder to be cautious with these meds. It is also a good time to stress smoking cessation with patients.

The guidelines discuss adverse outcomes in patients with diabetes and/or obesity. As primary care physicians, we need to be aware of those risks and be sure our patients are medically optimized before signing that pre-operative form.

A new feature of these guidelines is a discussion on social detriments to health. This is important for many diseases that we treat and we often don’t realize the impact they can have on a patient’s health and recovery. Even if we know a patient would benefit from physical therapy, it doesn’t help them if the patient has no way to get to the appointment. Some patients have copays for every physical therapy session and just can’t afford it. Knowing what the patient needs medically is not enough. We need to understand how they can access that care. Some patients have no one to help them after hip surgery and may avoid doing it for that reason. As primary care doctors, we should be helping our patients access the care they need.

We need to be able to say that a procedure needs to be delayed in the face of poorly controlled disease, such as diabetes. As the rates of osteoarthritis continue to rise, we need to understand that it is not an inevitable age-based occurrence in a patient’s life but rather an inflammatory disease that causes great pain and dysfunction. Utilizing these guidelines and working with our orthopedic colleagues can help patients decrease pain, improve functioning, and enjoy life again.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid, paid by GlaxoSmithKline as a consultant for the Shingrix vaccine, and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

As primary care doctors, we diagnosis and treat many patients with osteoarthritis. In fact, according to World Health Organization statistics, approximately 528 million people around the world suffer from some form of this type of arthritis. With the aging of the population and the obesity epidemic, the rate of osteoarthritis has increased 113% since 1990 and is predicted to continue to rise.

While the knee is the most commonly affected joint, osteoarthritis also frequently affects the hands and hips. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons issued guidelines concerning the management of osteoarthritis of the hip. The clinical guidelines are aimed at orthopedists, but it is important for primary care doctors be aware of them as well since we are the physicians who usually diagnose the disease, manage it in its early stages, and follow the patients with and after the orthopedist has undertaken any procedures.

Castle Connolly

While the complete set of guidelines is 80 pages long, strong recommendations have been made that everyone should be aware of. The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has been reconfirmed as a modality to improve pain and function. A recommendation against using intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the hip was made as the evidence shows it did not improve pain or function better than placebo. Conversely, intra-articular corticosteroids were shown to improve pain and function in the short-term and many primary care doctors provide this treatment in their practice.

These guidelines do a great job covering the totality of management of osteoarthritis of the hip, from conservation management to surgical and post-surgical treatments. Patients often come to us with their questions so not only is it important to know the evidence for what we do in our practices, we need to know what our orthopedic colleagues are doing. We will be the ones asked to do the pre-operative evaluations on these patients, so we need to understand the procedure and its risks. We will also manage these patients post-operatively and need to be aware of what the evidence shows.

Opioid use is also covered in the guidelines: they recommend against the use of opioids to control pain in these patients. In the age of the opioid epidemic, it is a good reminder to be cautious with these meds. It is also a good time to stress smoking cessation with patients.

The guidelines discuss adverse outcomes in patients with diabetes and/or obesity. As primary care physicians, we need to be aware of those risks and be sure our patients are medically optimized before signing that pre-operative form.

A new feature of these guidelines is a discussion on social detriments to health. This is important for many diseases that we treat and we often don’t realize the impact they can have on a patient’s health and recovery. Even if we know a patient would benefit from physical therapy, it doesn’t help them if the patient has no way to get to the appointment. Some patients have copays for every physical therapy session and just can’t afford it. Knowing what the patient needs medically is not enough. We need to understand how they can access that care. Some patients have no one to help them after hip surgery and may avoid doing it for that reason. As primary care doctors, we should be helping our patients access the care they need.

We need to be able to say that a procedure needs to be delayed in the face of poorly controlled disease, such as diabetes. As the rates of osteoarthritis continue to rise, we need to understand that it is not an inevitable age-based occurrence in a patient’s life but rather an inflammatory disease that causes great pain and dysfunction. Utilizing these guidelines and working with our orthopedic colleagues can help patients decrease pain, improve functioning, and enjoy life again.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid, paid by GlaxoSmithKline as a consultant for the Shingrix vaccine, and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

As primary care doctors, we diagnosis and treat many patients with osteoarthritis. In fact, according to World Health Organization statistics, approximately 528 million people around the world suffer from some form of this type of arthritis. With the aging of the population and the obesity epidemic, the rate of osteoarthritis has increased 113% since 1990 and is predicted to continue to rise.

While the knee is the most commonly affected joint, osteoarthritis also frequently affects the hands and hips. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons issued guidelines concerning the management of osteoarthritis of the hip. The clinical guidelines are aimed at orthopedists, but it is important for primary care doctors be aware of them as well since we are the physicians who usually diagnose the disease, manage it in its early stages, and follow the patients with and after the orthopedist has undertaken any procedures.

Castle Connolly

While the complete set of guidelines is 80 pages long, strong recommendations have been made that everyone should be aware of. The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has been reconfirmed as a modality to improve pain and function. A recommendation against using intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the hip was made as the evidence shows it did not improve pain or function better than placebo. Conversely, intra-articular corticosteroids were shown to improve pain and function in the short-term and many primary care doctors provide this treatment in their practice.

These guidelines do a great job covering the totality of management of osteoarthritis of the hip, from conservation management to surgical and post-surgical treatments. Patients often come to us with their questions so not only is it important to know the evidence for what we do in our practices, we need to know what our orthopedic colleagues are doing. We will be the ones asked to do the pre-operative evaluations on these patients, so we need to understand the procedure and its risks. We will also manage these patients post-operatively and need to be aware of what the evidence shows.

Opioid use is also covered in the guidelines: they recommend against the use of opioids to control pain in these patients. In the age of the opioid epidemic, it is a good reminder to be cautious with these meds. It is also a good time to stress smoking cessation with patients.

The guidelines discuss adverse outcomes in patients with diabetes and/or obesity. As primary care physicians, we need to be aware of those risks and be sure our patients are medically optimized before signing that pre-operative form.

A new feature of these guidelines is a discussion on social detriments to health. This is important for many diseases that we treat and we often don’t realize the impact they can have on a patient’s health and recovery. Even if we know a patient would benefit from physical therapy, it doesn’t help them if the patient has no way to get to the appointment. Some patients have copays for every physical therapy session and just can’t afford it. Knowing what the patient needs medically is not enough. We need to understand how they can access that care. Some patients have no one to help them after hip surgery and may avoid doing it for that reason. As primary care doctors, we should be helping our patients access the care they need.

We need to be able to say that a procedure needs to be delayed in the face of poorly controlled disease, such as diabetes. As the rates of osteoarthritis continue to rise, we need to understand that it is not an inevitable age-based occurrence in a patient’s life but rather an inflammatory disease that causes great pain and dysfunction. Utilizing these guidelines and working with our orthopedic colleagues can help patients decrease pain, improve functioning, and enjoy life again.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid, paid by GlaxoSmithKline as a consultant for the Shingrix vaccine, and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who treat patients are potentially exposed to two opposing psychological processes: A positive feeling related to the experience of helping someone in need and, on the other hand, the adverse experience of seeing someone’s suffering and being frustrated about their inability to help. The ability to share the feelings of others is often referred to as empathy, while the ability to care for and show interest in others is the key aspect of compassion. Empathy makes it possible to share the positive and negative feelings of others in the same way: We can therefore feel happy when we indirectly share others’ joy and sad when we indirectly share others’ suffering.

Empathy in healthcare professionals is associated with patient satisfaction, diagnostic accuracy, adherence to treatment recommendations, clinical outcomes, clinical expertise, and physician retention. However, evidence indicates a tendency for empathy to decline during physicians’ training and specialization.
 

Estimating Empathy

Empathy studies are primarily based on observational data that include physician self-assessment or patient-perceived empathy. External evaluation of empathy by the recipient or observer is not the dominant approach, and a systematic review of the topic showed that, in 331 of the 470 studies examined (70.4%), individuals self-reported their level of empathy. The self-assessment system, particularly for doctors, is more likely to measure the doctor’s attitudes about empathy than empathy itself. The lack of correlation between physician and patient empathy assessments made it clear that patients cannot be disregarded when assessing physician empathy.

Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) is the primary assessment tool available to patients to measure physician empathy. It is a reliable and consistent system, particularly in primary care scenarios.

The CARE measure captures even small nuances of patient interactions with the physician and has been confirmed as a valuable tool in assessing the relational components of empathy.
 

Doctor-Patient Relationship

Communication with the physician is generally considered an important element of chronic pain care because it affects patient engagement and decision-making. A collaborative approach involving the patient and clinician in clinical decisions was associated with adherence to pain treatment and improved outcomes among patients with chronic lower back pain. The study conducted in a primary care setting of 1352 participants showed findings regarding physician empathy that did not necessarily involve a therapeutic alliance with the patient based on collaborative communication or expectation of a therapeutic effect of pharmacotherapy. Physician empathy remained the strongest factor associated with patient satisfaction, even after considering various potential confounders, including communication with the physician. In addition, ongoing empathy, especially when reported by patients with a long-term relationship with the physician, supported the hypothesis of a possible lasting effect on patient satisfaction.

Treating Chronic Pain

Empathy is an aspect of the doctor-patient relationship that may be particularly important in patients with chronic pain. A cohort study of 1470 patients with chronic low back pain analyzed whether and how it correlated with chronic pain outcomes. Patients reported their physician’s empathy at the time of enrollment using the CARE measure, which included 10 items on physician’s empathy characteristics during meetings. Physicians whose scores were 30 or higher (ie, rated as good, very good, or excellent in most items) were classified as very empathetic physicians (VEPs), while those whose scores were 29 or lower (ie, rated as poor or passable in most items) were classified as slightly empathetic physicians (SEPs).

Pain intensity was measured with a numerical rating scale (0-10) for the typical pain level within 7 days before each encounter. The long-term stability of CARE scores was assessed in patients who maintained the same physician for more than 24 months. The study showed the following results:

• The CARE score was inversely associated with pain intensity (P < .001).
• Pain intensity was lower in patients in the VEP group than those in the SEP group (6.3 vs 6.7; P < .001).
• The likelihood of having a more empathetic physician generally increased with the decrease in the cut point of the CARE score for greater or less empathy of the physician.
• The extent of the physician’s empathy effects exceeded that reported for nonpharmacological treatments, current opioid use, and lumbar spine surgery.
• The effects of the interaction of empathy with time tended to favor the VEP group with regard to pain but were not statistically significant.

Empathy is an essential aspect of the patient-physician relationship (particularly in delivering care), and these findings demonstrate its relevance in pain therapy. Empathy has high therapeutic value, compared with many pain treatments that are often recommended in clinical practice.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who treat patients are potentially exposed to two opposing psychological processes: A positive feeling related to the experience of helping someone in need and, on the other hand, the adverse experience of seeing someone’s suffering and being frustrated about their inability to help. The ability to share the feelings of others is often referred to as empathy, while the ability to care for and show interest in others is the key aspect of compassion. Empathy makes it possible to share the positive and negative feelings of others in the same way: We can therefore feel happy when we indirectly share others’ joy and sad when we indirectly share others’ suffering.

Empathy in healthcare professionals is associated with patient satisfaction, diagnostic accuracy, adherence to treatment recommendations, clinical outcomes, clinical expertise, and physician retention. However, evidence indicates a tendency for empathy to decline during physicians’ training and specialization.
 

Estimating Empathy

Empathy studies are primarily based on observational data that include physician self-assessment or patient-perceived empathy. External evaluation of empathy by the recipient or observer is not the dominant approach, and a systematic review of the topic showed that, in 331 of the 470 studies examined (70.4%), individuals self-reported their level of empathy. The self-assessment system, particularly for doctors, is more likely to measure the doctor’s attitudes about empathy than empathy itself. The lack of correlation between physician and patient empathy assessments made it clear that patients cannot be disregarded when assessing physician empathy.

Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) is the primary assessment tool available to patients to measure physician empathy. It is a reliable and consistent system, particularly in primary care scenarios.

The CARE measure captures even small nuances of patient interactions with the physician and has been confirmed as a valuable tool in assessing the relational components of empathy.
 

Doctor-Patient Relationship

Communication with the physician is generally considered an important element of chronic pain care because it affects patient engagement and decision-making. A collaborative approach involving the patient and clinician in clinical decisions was associated with adherence to pain treatment and improved outcomes among patients with chronic lower back pain. The study conducted in a primary care setting of 1352 participants showed findings regarding physician empathy that did not necessarily involve a therapeutic alliance with the patient based on collaborative communication or expectation of a therapeutic effect of pharmacotherapy. Physician empathy remained the strongest factor associated with patient satisfaction, even after considering various potential confounders, including communication with the physician. In addition, ongoing empathy, especially when reported by patients with a long-term relationship with the physician, supported the hypothesis of a possible lasting effect on patient satisfaction.

Treating Chronic Pain

Empathy is an aspect of the doctor-patient relationship that may be particularly important in patients with chronic pain. A cohort study of 1470 patients with chronic low back pain analyzed whether and how it correlated with chronic pain outcomes. Patients reported their physician’s empathy at the time of enrollment using the CARE measure, which included 10 items on physician’s empathy characteristics during meetings. Physicians whose scores were 30 or higher (ie, rated as good, very good, or excellent in most items) were classified as very empathetic physicians (VEPs), while those whose scores were 29 or lower (ie, rated as poor or passable in most items) were classified as slightly empathetic physicians (SEPs).

Pain intensity was measured with a numerical rating scale (0-10) for the typical pain level within 7 days before each encounter. The long-term stability of CARE scores was assessed in patients who maintained the same physician for more than 24 months. The study showed the following results:

• The CARE score was inversely associated with pain intensity (P < .001).
• Pain intensity was lower in patients in the VEP group than those in the SEP group (6.3 vs 6.7; P < .001).
• The likelihood of having a more empathetic physician generally increased with the decrease in the cut point of the CARE score for greater or less empathy of the physician.
• The extent of the physician’s empathy effects exceeded that reported for nonpharmacological treatments, current opioid use, and lumbar spine surgery.
• The effects of the interaction of empathy with time tended to favor the VEP group with regard to pain but were not statistically significant.

Empathy is an essential aspect of the patient-physician relationship (particularly in delivering care), and these findings demonstrate its relevance in pain therapy. Empathy has high therapeutic value, compared with many pain treatments that are often recommended in clinical practice.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who treat patients are potentially exposed to two opposing psychological processes: A positive feeling related to the experience of helping someone in need and, on the other hand, the adverse experience of seeing someone’s suffering and being frustrated about their inability to help. The ability to share the feelings of others is often referred to as empathy, while the ability to care for and show interest in others is the key aspect of compassion. Empathy makes it possible to share the positive and negative feelings of others in the same way: We can therefore feel happy when we indirectly share others’ joy and sad when we indirectly share others’ suffering.

Empathy in healthcare professionals is associated with patient satisfaction, diagnostic accuracy, adherence to treatment recommendations, clinical outcomes, clinical expertise, and physician retention. However, evidence indicates a tendency for empathy to decline during physicians’ training and specialization.
 

Estimating Empathy

Empathy studies are primarily based on observational data that include physician self-assessment or patient-perceived empathy. External evaluation of empathy by the recipient or observer is not the dominant approach, and a systematic review of the topic showed that, in 331 of the 470 studies examined (70.4%), individuals self-reported their level of empathy. The self-assessment system, particularly for doctors, is more likely to measure the doctor’s attitudes about empathy than empathy itself. The lack of correlation between physician and patient empathy assessments made it clear that patients cannot be disregarded when assessing physician empathy.

Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) is the primary assessment tool available to patients to measure physician empathy. It is a reliable and consistent system, particularly in primary care scenarios.

The CARE measure captures even small nuances of patient interactions with the physician and has been confirmed as a valuable tool in assessing the relational components of empathy.
 

Doctor-Patient Relationship

Communication with the physician is generally considered an important element of chronic pain care because it affects patient engagement and decision-making. A collaborative approach involving the patient and clinician in clinical decisions was associated with adherence to pain treatment and improved outcomes among patients with chronic lower back pain. The study conducted in a primary care setting of 1352 participants showed findings regarding physician empathy that did not necessarily involve a therapeutic alliance with the patient based on collaborative communication or expectation of a therapeutic effect of pharmacotherapy. Physician empathy remained the strongest factor associated with patient satisfaction, even after considering various potential confounders, including communication with the physician. In addition, ongoing empathy, especially when reported by patients with a long-term relationship with the physician, supported the hypothesis of a possible lasting effect on patient satisfaction.

Treating Chronic Pain

Empathy is an aspect of the doctor-patient relationship that may be particularly important in patients with chronic pain. A cohort study of 1470 patients with chronic low back pain analyzed whether and how it correlated with chronic pain outcomes. Patients reported their physician’s empathy at the time of enrollment using the CARE measure, which included 10 items on physician’s empathy characteristics during meetings. Physicians whose scores were 30 or higher (ie, rated as good, very good, or excellent in most items) were classified as very empathetic physicians (VEPs), while those whose scores were 29 or lower (ie, rated as poor or passable in most items) were classified as slightly empathetic physicians (SEPs).

Pain intensity was measured with a numerical rating scale (0-10) for the typical pain level within 7 days before each encounter. The long-term stability of CARE scores was assessed in patients who maintained the same physician for more than 24 months. The study showed the following results:

• The CARE score was inversely associated with pain intensity (P < .001).
• Pain intensity was lower in patients in the VEP group than those in the SEP group (6.3 vs 6.7; P < .001).
• The likelihood of having a more empathetic physician generally increased with the decrease in the cut point of the CARE score for greater or less empathy of the physician.
• The extent of the physician’s empathy effects exceeded that reported for nonpharmacological treatments, current opioid use, and lumbar spine surgery.
• The effects of the interaction of empathy with time tended to favor the VEP group with regard to pain but were not statistically significant.

Empathy is an essential aspect of the patient-physician relationship (particularly in delivering care), and these findings demonstrate its relevance in pain therapy. Empathy has high therapeutic value, compared with many pain treatments that are often recommended in clinical practice.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. 

Paul, we’re going to talk about our primary hyperparathyroidism podcast with Dr. Lindsay Kuo. It’s a topic that I feel much more clear on now.

Now, Paul, in primary care, you see a lot of calcium that is just slightly high. Can we just blame that on thiazide diuretics?

Paul N. Williams, MD: It’s a place to start. As you’re starting to think about the possible etiologies, primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy are the two that roll right off the tongue, but it is worth going back to the patient’s medication list and making sure you’re not missing something.

Thiazides famously cause hypercalcemia, but in some of the reading I did for this episode, they may just uncover it a little bit early. Patients who are on thiazides who become hypercalcemic seem to go on to develop primary hyperthyroidism anyway. So I don’t think you can solely blame the thiazide.

Another medication that can be causative is lithium. So a good place to look first after you’ve repeated the labs and confirmed hypercalcemia is the patient’s medication list. 

Dr. Watto: We’ve talked before about the basic workup for hypercalcemia, and determining whether it’s PTH dependent or PTH independent. On the podcast, we talk more about the full workup, but I wanted to talk about the classic symptoms. Our expert made the point that we don’t see them as much anymore, although we do see kidney stones. People used to present very late in the disease because they weren’t having labs done routinely.

The classic symptoms include osteoporosis and bone tumors. People can get nephrocalcinosis and kidney stones. I hadn’t really thought of it this way because we’re used to diagnosing it early now. Do you feel the same? 

Dr. Williams: As labs have started routinely reporting calcium levels, this is more and more often how it’s picked up. The other aspect is that as we are screening for and finding osteoporosis, part of the workup almost always involves getting a parathyroid hormone and a calcium level. We’re seeing these lab abnormalities before we’re seeing symptoms, which is good.

But it also makes things more diagnostically thorny.

Dr. Watto: Dr. Lindsay Kuo made the point that when she sees patients before and after surgery, she’s aware of these nonclassic symptoms — the stones, bones, groans, and the psychiatric overtones that can be anything from fatigue or irritability to dysphoria.

Some people have a generalized weakness that’s very nonspecific. Dr. Kuo said that sometimes these symptoms will disappear after surgery. The patients may just have gotten used to them, or they thought these symptoms were caused by something else, but after surgery they went away.

There are these nonclassic symptoms that are harder to pin down. I was surprised by that.

Dr. Williams: She mentioned polydipsia and polyuria, which have been reported in other studies. It seems like it can be anything. You have to take a good history, but none of those things in and of themselves is an indication for operating unless the patient has the classic renal or bone manifestations. 

Dr. Watto: The other thing we talked about is a normal calcium level in a patient with primary hyperparathyroidism, or the finding of a PTH level in the normal range but with a high calcium level that is inappropriate. Can you talk a little bit about those two situations? 

Dr. Williams: They’re hard to say but kind of easy to manage because you treat them the same way as someone who has elevated calcium and PTH levels. 

The normocalcemic patient is something we might stumble across with osteoporosis screening. Initially the calcium level is elevated, so you repeat it and it’s normal but with an elevated PTH level. You’re like, shoot. Now what?

It turns out that most endocrine surgeons say that the indications for surgery for the classic form of primary hyperparathyroidism apply to these patients as well, and it probably helps with the bone outcomes, which is one of the things they follow most closely. If you have hypercalcemia, you should have a suppressed PTH level, the so-called normohormonal hyperparathyroidism, which is not normal at all. So even if the PTH is in the normal range, it’s still relatively elevated compared with what it should be. That situation is treated in the same way as the classic elevated PTH and elevated calcium levels.

Dr. Watto: If the calcium is abnormal and the PTH is not quite what you’d expect it to be, you can always ask your friendly neighborhood endocrinologist to help you figure out whether the patient really has one of these conditions. You have to make sure that they don’t have a simple secondary cause like a low vitamin D level. In that case, you fix the vitamin D and then recheck the numbers to see if they’ve normalized. But I have found a bunch of these edge cases in which it has been helpful to confer with an endocrinologist, especially before you send someone to a surgeon to take out their parathyroid gland. 

This was a really fantastic conversation. If you want to hear the full podcast episode, click here.
 

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders, and has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. 

Paul, we’re going to talk about our primary hyperparathyroidism podcast with Dr. Lindsay Kuo. It’s a topic that I feel much more clear on now.

Now, Paul, in primary care, you see a lot of calcium that is just slightly high. Can we just blame that on thiazide diuretics?

Paul N. Williams, MD: It’s a place to start. As you’re starting to think about the possible etiologies, primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy are the two that roll right off the tongue, but it is worth going back to the patient’s medication list and making sure you’re not missing something.

Thiazides famously cause hypercalcemia, but in some of the reading I did for this episode, they may just uncover it a little bit early. Patients who are on thiazides who become hypercalcemic seem to go on to develop primary hyperthyroidism anyway. So I don’t think you can solely blame the thiazide.

Another medication that can be causative is lithium. So a good place to look first after you’ve repeated the labs and confirmed hypercalcemia is the patient’s medication list. 

Dr. Watto: We’ve talked before about the basic workup for hypercalcemia, and determining whether it’s PTH dependent or PTH independent. On the podcast, we talk more about the full workup, but I wanted to talk about the classic symptoms. Our expert made the point that we don’t see them as much anymore, although we do see kidney stones. People used to present very late in the disease because they weren’t having labs done routinely.

The classic symptoms include osteoporosis and bone tumors. People can get nephrocalcinosis and kidney stones. I hadn’t really thought of it this way because we’re used to diagnosing it early now. Do you feel the same? 

Dr. Williams: As labs have started routinely reporting calcium levels, this is more and more often how it’s picked up. The other aspect is that as we are screening for and finding osteoporosis, part of the workup almost always involves getting a parathyroid hormone and a calcium level. We’re seeing these lab abnormalities before we’re seeing symptoms, which is good.

But it also makes things more diagnostically thorny.

Dr. Watto: Dr. Lindsay Kuo made the point that when she sees patients before and after surgery, she’s aware of these nonclassic symptoms — the stones, bones, groans, and the psychiatric overtones that can be anything from fatigue or irritability to dysphoria.

Some people have a generalized weakness that’s very nonspecific. Dr. Kuo said that sometimes these symptoms will disappear after surgery. The patients may just have gotten used to them, or they thought these symptoms were caused by something else, but after surgery they went away.

There are these nonclassic symptoms that are harder to pin down. I was surprised by that.

Dr. Williams: She mentioned polydipsia and polyuria, which have been reported in other studies. It seems like it can be anything. You have to take a good history, but none of those things in and of themselves is an indication for operating unless the patient has the classic renal or bone manifestations. 

Dr. Watto: The other thing we talked about is a normal calcium level in a patient with primary hyperparathyroidism, or the finding of a PTH level in the normal range but with a high calcium level that is inappropriate. Can you talk a little bit about those two situations? 

Dr. Williams: They’re hard to say but kind of easy to manage because you treat them the same way as someone who has elevated calcium and PTH levels. 

The normocalcemic patient is something we might stumble across with osteoporosis screening. Initially the calcium level is elevated, so you repeat it and it’s normal but with an elevated PTH level. You’re like, shoot. Now what?

It turns out that most endocrine surgeons say that the indications for surgery for the classic form of primary hyperparathyroidism apply to these patients as well, and it probably helps with the bone outcomes, which is one of the things they follow most closely. If you have hypercalcemia, you should have a suppressed PTH level, the so-called normohormonal hyperparathyroidism, which is not normal at all. So even if the PTH is in the normal range, it’s still relatively elevated compared with what it should be. That situation is treated in the same way as the classic elevated PTH and elevated calcium levels.

Dr. Watto: If the calcium is abnormal and the PTH is not quite what you’d expect it to be, you can always ask your friendly neighborhood endocrinologist to help you figure out whether the patient really has one of these conditions. You have to make sure that they don’t have a simple secondary cause like a low vitamin D level. In that case, you fix the vitamin D and then recheck the numbers to see if they’ve normalized. But I have found a bunch of these edge cases in which it has been helpful to confer with an endocrinologist, especially before you send someone to a surgeon to take out their parathyroid gland. 

This was a really fantastic conversation. If you want to hear the full podcast episode, click here.
 

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders, and has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. 

Paul, we’re going to talk about our primary hyperparathyroidism podcast with Dr. Lindsay Kuo. It’s a topic that I feel much more clear on now.

Now, Paul, in primary care, you see a lot of calcium that is just slightly high. Can we just blame that on thiazide diuretics?

Paul N. Williams, MD: It’s a place to start. As you’re starting to think about the possible etiologies, primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy are the two that roll right off the tongue, but it is worth going back to the patient’s medication list and making sure you’re not missing something.

Thiazides famously cause hypercalcemia, but in some of the reading I did for this episode, they may just uncover it a little bit early. Patients who are on thiazides who become hypercalcemic seem to go on to develop primary hyperthyroidism anyway. So I don’t think you can solely blame the thiazide.

Another medication that can be causative is lithium. So a good place to look first after you’ve repeated the labs and confirmed hypercalcemia is the patient’s medication list. 

Dr. Watto: We’ve talked before about the basic workup for hypercalcemia, and determining whether it’s PTH dependent or PTH independent. On the podcast, we talk more about the full workup, but I wanted to talk about the classic symptoms. Our expert made the point that we don’t see them as much anymore, although we do see kidney stones. People used to present very late in the disease because they weren’t having labs done routinely.

The classic symptoms include osteoporosis and bone tumors. People can get nephrocalcinosis and kidney stones. I hadn’t really thought of it this way because we’re used to diagnosing it early now. Do you feel the same? 

Dr. Williams: As labs have started routinely reporting calcium levels, this is more and more often how it’s picked up. The other aspect is that as we are screening for and finding osteoporosis, part of the workup almost always involves getting a parathyroid hormone and a calcium level. We’re seeing these lab abnormalities before we’re seeing symptoms, which is good.

But it also makes things more diagnostically thorny.

Dr. Watto: Dr. Lindsay Kuo made the point that when she sees patients before and after surgery, she’s aware of these nonclassic symptoms — the stones, bones, groans, and the psychiatric overtones that can be anything from fatigue or irritability to dysphoria.

Some people have a generalized weakness that’s very nonspecific. Dr. Kuo said that sometimes these symptoms will disappear after surgery. The patients may just have gotten used to them, or they thought these symptoms were caused by something else, but after surgery they went away.

There are these nonclassic symptoms that are harder to pin down. I was surprised by that.

Dr. Williams: She mentioned polydipsia and polyuria, which have been reported in other studies. It seems like it can be anything. You have to take a good history, but none of those things in and of themselves is an indication for operating unless the patient has the classic renal or bone manifestations. 

Dr. Watto: The other thing we talked about is a normal calcium level in a patient with primary hyperparathyroidism, or the finding of a PTH level in the normal range but with a high calcium level that is inappropriate. Can you talk a little bit about those two situations? 

Dr. Williams: They’re hard to say but kind of easy to manage because you treat them the same way as someone who has elevated calcium and PTH levels. 

The normocalcemic patient is something we might stumble across with osteoporosis screening. Initially the calcium level is elevated, so you repeat it and it’s normal but with an elevated PTH level. You’re like, shoot. Now what?

It turns out that most endocrine surgeons say that the indications for surgery for the classic form of primary hyperparathyroidism apply to these patients as well, and it probably helps with the bone outcomes, which is one of the things they follow most closely. If you have hypercalcemia, you should have a suppressed PTH level, the so-called normohormonal hyperparathyroidism, which is not normal at all. So even if the PTH is in the normal range, it’s still relatively elevated compared with what it should be. That situation is treated in the same way as the classic elevated PTH and elevated calcium levels.

Dr. Watto: If the calcium is abnormal and the PTH is not quite what you’d expect it to be, you can always ask your friendly neighborhood endocrinologist to help you figure out whether the patient really has one of these conditions. You have to make sure that they don’t have a simple secondary cause like a low vitamin D level. In that case, you fix the vitamin D and then recheck the numbers to see if they’ve normalized. But I have found a bunch of these edge cases in which it has been helpful to confer with an endocrinologist, especially before you send someone to a surgeon to take out their parathyroid gland. 

This was a really fantastic conversation. If you want to hear the full podcast episode, click here.
 

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders, and has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

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

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

MRI-derived abdominal adipose tissue is linked to chronic musculoskeletal pain in multiple sites. The association is stronger in women, suggesting sex differences in fat distribution and hormones.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort study, to investigate the associations between MRI-measured abdominal adipose tissue and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
• A total of 32,409 participants (50.8% women; mean age, 55.0 ± 7.4 years) were included in the analysis, with abdominal MRI scans performed at two imaging visits.
• Pain in the neck/shoulder, back, hip, knee, or “all over the body” was assessed, and participants were categorized based on the number of chronic pain sites.
• Mixed-effects ordinal, multinomial, and logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations between visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and their ratio with chronic pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, there was a dose-response association between VAT, SAT, and their ratio with the number of chronic pain sites in both women and men.
• Higher levels of abdominal adipose tissue were associated with greater odds of reporting chronic pain in both sexes, with effect estimates being relatively larger in women.
• The researchers found that the VAT/SAT ratio was associated with the number of chronic pain sites and chronic pain in both sexes, reflecting differences in fat distribution and hormones.
• The study suggested that excessive abdominal adipose tissue may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“Abdominal adipose tissue was associated with chronic musculoskeletal pain, suggesting that excessive and ectopic fat depositions may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Zemene Demelash Kifle, University of Tasmania Menzies Institute for Medical Research in Hobart, Australia. It was published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included the use of a pain questionnaire that did not assess pain severity, which limited the ability to examine the relationship between fat measures and pain severity. Additionally, MRI was conducted on only two occasions, which may have not captured patterns and fluctuations in chronic pain sites. The relatively small size of the imaging sample, compared with the original baseline sample limited the generalizability of the findings. The predominant White ethnicity of participants also limited the generalizability to diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Mr. Kifle disclosed receiving grants from the Australian NHMRC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

MRI-derived abdominal adipose tissue is linked to chronic musculoskeletal pain in multiple sites. The association is stronger in women, suggesting sex differences in fat distribution and hormones.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort study, to investigate the associations between MRI-measured abdominal adipose tissue and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
• A total of 32,409 participants (50.8% women; mean age, 55.0 ± 7.4 years) were included in the analysis, with abdominal MRI scans performed at two imaging visits.
• Pain in the neck/shoulder, back, hip, knee, or “all over the body” was assessed, and participants were categorized based on the number of chronic pain sites.
• Mixed-effects ordinal, multinomial, and logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations between visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and their ratio with chronic pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, there was a dose-response association between VAT, SAT, and their ratio with the number of chronic pain sites in both women and men.
• Higher levels of abdominal adipose tissue were associated with greater odds of reporting chronic pain in both sexes, with effect estimates being relatively larger in women.
• The researchers found that the VAT/SAT ratio was associated with the number of chronic pain sites and chronic pain in both sexes, reflecting differences in fat distribution and hormones.
• The study suggested that excessive abdominal adipose tissue may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“Abdominal adipose tissue was associated with chronic musculoskeletal pain, suggesting that excessive and ectopic fat depositions may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Zemene Demelash Kifle, University of Tasmania Menzies Institute for Medical Research in Hobart, Australia. It was published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included the use of a pain questionnaire that did not assess pain severity, which limited the ability to examine the relationship between fat measures and pain severity. Additionally, MRI was conducted on only two occasions, which may have not captured patterns and fluctuations in chronic pain sites. The relatively small size of the imaging sample, compared with the original baseline sample limited the generalizability of the findings. The predominant White ethnicity of participants also limited the generalizability to diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Mr. Kifle disclosed receiving grants from the Australian NHMRC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

MRI-derived abdominal adipose tissue is linked to chronic musculoskeletal pain in multiple sites. The association is stronger in women, suggesting sex differences in fat distribution and hormones.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort study, to investigate the associations between MRI-measured abdominal adipose tissue and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
• A total of 32,409 participants (50.8% women; mean age, 55.0 ± 7.4 years) were included in the analysis, with abdominal MRI scans performed at two imaging visits.
• Pain in the neck/shoulder, back, hip, knee, or “all over the body” was assessed, and participants were categorized based on the number of chronic pain sites.
• Mixed-effects ordinal, multinomial, and logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations between visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and their ratio with chronic pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, there was a dose-response association between VAT, SAT, and their ratio with the number of chronic pain sites in both women and men.
• Higher levels of abdominal adipose tissue were associated with greater odds of reporting chronic pain in both sexes, with effect estimates being relatively larger in women.
• The researchers found that the VAT/SAT ratio was associated with the number of chronic pain sites and chronic pain in both sexes, reflecting differences in fat distribution and hormones.
• The study suggested that excessive abdominal adipose tissue may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“Abdominal adipose tissue was associated with chronic musculoskeletal pain, suggesting that excessive and ectopic fat depositions may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Zemene Demelash Kifle, University of Tasmania Menzies Institute for Medical Research in Hobart, Australia. It was published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included the use of a pain questionnaire that did not assess pain severity, which limited the ability to examine the relationship between fat measures and pain severity. Additionally, MRI was conducted on only two occasions, which may have not captured patterns and fluctuations in chronic pain sites. The relatively small size of the imaging sample, compared with the original baseline sample limited the generalizability of the findings. The predominant White ethnicity of participants also limited the generalizability to diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Mr. Kifle disclosed receiving grants from the Australian NHMRC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.