The Journal of Family Practice

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old woman comes to your office for help with her recurrent migraines, which she’s had since her early 20s. She is otherwise healthy and active. She is frustrated over the frequency of her migraines and the debilitation they cause. She has tried prophylactic medications in the past, but stopped taking them because of the adverse effects. What do you recommend for treatment?

Daily preventive medication can be helpful for chronic migraine sufferers whose headaches have a significant impact on their lives and who have a goal of reducing headache frequency or severity, disability, and/or avoiding acute headache medication escalation.² An estimated 38% of patients with migraines are appropriate candidates for prophylactic therapy, but only 3% to 13% are taking preventive medications.³

Evidence-based guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society state that antiepileptic drugs (divalproex sodium, sodium valproate, topiramate) and many beta-blockers (metoprolol, propranolol, timolol) are effective and should be recommended for migraine prevention (level A recommendation; based on ≥2 class I trials).² Medications such as antidepressants (amitriptyline, venlafaxine) and other beta-blockers (atenolol, nadolol) are probably effective and can be considered (level B recommendation; based on one class I trial or 2 class II trials).² However, adverse effects, such as somnolence, are listed as frequent with amitriptyline and occasional to frequent with topiramate.⁴

Researchers have investigated melatonin before. But a 2010 double-blind, crossover, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 46 patients with 2 to 7 migraine attacks per month found no significant difference in reduction of headache frequency with extended-release melatonin 2 mg taken one hour before bed compared to placebo over an 8-week period.⁵

[polldaddy:9724288]

STUDY SUMMARY

Melatonin tops amitriptyline in >50% improvement in headache frequency

This RCT conducted in Brazil compared the effectiveness of melatonin to amitriptyline and placebo for migraine prevention in 196 adults (ages 18-65 years) with chronic migraines.¹ Eligible patients had a history of at least 3 migraine attacks or 4 migraine headache days per month. Patients were randomized to take identically-appearing melatonin 3 mg, amitriptyline 25 mg, or placebo nightly. The investigators appear to have concealed allocation adequately, and used double-blinding.

The primary outcome was the number of headache days per month, comparing baseline with the 4 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included reduction in migraine intensity, duration, number of analgesics used, and percentage of patients with more than 50% reduction in migraine headache days.

An estimated 38% of patients with migraines are appropriate candidates for prophylactic therapy, but only 3% to 13% are taking preventive medications.

Compared to placebo, headache days per month were reduced in both the melatonin group (6.2 days vs 4.6 days, respectively; mean difference [MD], -1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.4 to -0.9) and the amitriptyline group (6.2 days vs 5 days, respectively; MD, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.7) at 12 weeks, based on intention-to-treat analysis. Mean headache intensity (0-10 pain scale) was also lower at 12 weeks in the melatonin group (4.8 vs 3.6; MD, -1.2; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.8) and in the amitriptyline group (4.8 vs 3.5; MD, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.9), when compared to placebo.

Headache duration (hours/month) at 12 weeks was reduced in both groups (amitriptyline MD, -4.4 hours; 95% CI, -5.1 to -3.9; melatonin MD, -4.8 hours; 95% CI, -5.7 to -3.9), as was the number of analgesics used (amitriptyline MD, -1; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.5; melatonin MD, -1; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.6) when compared to placebo. There was no significant difference between the melatonin and amitriptyline groups for these outcomes.

Patients taking melatonin were more likely to have a >50% improvement in headache frequency compared to amitriptyline (54% vs 39%; number needed to treat [NNT]=7; P<.05); melatonin worked much better than placebo (54% vs 20%; NNT=3; P<.01).

Adverse events were reported more often in the amitriptyline group than in the melatonin group (46 vs 16; P<.03) with daytime sleepiness being the most frequent complaint (41% of patients in the amitriptyline group vs 18% of the melatonin group; number needed to harm [NNH]=5). There was no significant difference in adverse events between melatonin and placebo (16 vs 17; P=not significant). Melatonin resulted in weight loss (mean, -0.14 kg), whereas those taking amitriptyline gained weight (+0.97 kg; P<.01).

WHAT’S NEW

An effective migraine prevention alternative with minimal adverse effects

Melatonin is an accessible and affordable option for preventing migraine headaches in chronic sufferers. The 3-mg dosing reduces headache frequency—both in terms of the number of migraine headache days per month and in terms of the percentage of patients with a >50% reduction in headache events—as well as headache intensity, with minimal adverse effects.

CAVEATS

Product consistency, missing study data

This trial used 3-mg dosing, so it is not clear if other doses are also effective. In addition, because melatonin is available over-the-counter, the quality/actual doses may be less well regulated, and thus, there may be a lack of consistency between brands. Unlike clinical practice, neither the amitriptyline nor the melatonin dose was titrated according to patient response or adverse effects. As a result, we are not sure of the actual lowest effective dose, or if greater effect (with continued minimal adverse effects) could be achieved with higher doses.

Lastly, 69% to 75% of patients in the treatment groups completed the 16-week trial, but the authors of the study reported using 3 different analytic techniques to estimate missing data. The primary outcome included 178 of 196 randomized patients (90.8%). For the primary endpoint, the authors treated all missing data as non-headache days. It is unclear how these missing data would affect the outcome, although an analysis like this would tend towards a null effect.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Challenges are negligible

There are really no challenges to implementing this practice changer; melatonin is readily available over-the-counter and it is affordable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old woman comes to your office for help with her recurrent migraines, which she’s had since her early 20s. She is otherwise healthy and active. She is frustrated over the frequency of her migraines and the debilitation they cause. She has tried prophylactic medications in the past, but stopped taking them because of the adverse effects. What do you recommend for treatment?

Daily preventive medication can be helpful for chronic migraine sufferers whose headaches have a significant impact on their lives and who have a goal of reducing headache frequency or severity, disability, and/or avoiding acute headache medication escalation.² An estimated 38% of patients with migraines are appropriate candidates for prophylactic therapy, but only 3% to 13% are taking preventive medications.³

Evidence-based guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society state that antiepileptic drugs (divalproex sodium, sodium valproate, topiramate) and many beta-blockers (metoprolol, propranolol, timolol) are effective and should be recommended for migraine prevention (level A recommendation; based on ≥2 class I trials).² Medications such as antidepressants (amitriptyline, venlafaxine) and other beta-blockers (atenolol, nadolol) are probably effective and can be considered (level B recommendation; based on one class I trial or 2 class II trials).² However, adverse effects, such as somnolence, are listed as frequent with amitriptyline and occasional to frequent with topiramate.⁴

Researchers have investigated melatonin before. But a 2010 double-blind, crossover, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 46 patients with 2 to 7 migraine attacks per month found no significant difference in reduction of headache frequency with extended-release melatonin 2 mg taken one hour before bed compared to placebo over an 8-week period.⁵

[polldaddy:9724288]

STUDY SUMMARY

Melatonin tops amitriptyline in >50% improvement in headache frequency

This RCT conducted in Brazil compared the effectiveness of melatonin to amitriptyline and placebo for migraine prevention in 196 adults (ages 18-65 years) with chronic migraines.¹ Eligible patients had a history of at least 3 migraine attacks or 4 migraine headache days per month. Patients were randomized to take identically-appearing melatonin 3 mg, amitriptyline 25 mg, or placebo nightly. The investigators appear to have concealed allocation adequately, and used double-blinding.

The primary outcome was the number of headache days per month, comparing baseline with the 4 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included reduction in migraine intensity, duration, number of analgesics used, and percentage of patients with more than 50% reduction in migraine headache days.

An estimated 38% of patients with migraines are appropriate candidates for prophylactic therapy, but only 3% to 13% are taking preventive medications.

Compared to placebo, headache days per month were reduced in both the melatonin group (6.2 days vs 4.6 days, respectively; mean difference [MD], -1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.4 to -0.9) and the amitriptyline group (6.2 days vs 5 days, respectively; MD, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.7) at 12 weeks, based on intention-to-treat analysis. Mean headache intensity (0-10 pain scale) was also lower at 12 weeks in the melatonin group (4.8 vs 3.6; MD, -1.2; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.8) and in the amitriptyline group (4.8 vs 3.5; MD, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.9), when compared to placebo.

Headache duration (hours/month) at 12 weeks was reduced in both groups (amitriptyline MD, -4.4 hours; 95% CI, -5.1 to -3.9; melatonin MD, -4.8 hours; 95% CI, -5.7 to -3.9), as was the number of analgesics used (amitriptyline MD, -1; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.5; melatonin MD, -1; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.6) when compared to placebo. There was no significant difference between the melatonin and amitriptyline groups for these outcomes.

Patients taking melatonin were more likely to have a >50% improvement in headache frequency compared to amitriptyline (54% vs 39%; number needed to treat [NNT]=7; P<.05); melatonin worked much better than placebo (54% vs 20%; NNT=3; P<.01).

Adverse events were reported more often in the amitriptyline group than in the melatonin group (46 vs 16; P<.03) with daytime sleepiness being the most frequent complaint (41% of patients in the amitriptyline group vs 18% of the melatonin group; number needed to harm [NNH]=5). There was no significant difference in adverse events between melatonin and placebo (16 vs 17; P=not significant). Melatonin resulted in weight loss (mean, -0.14 kg), whereas those taking amitriptyline gained weight (+0.97 kg; P<.01).

WHAT’S NEW

An effective migraine prevention alternative with minimal adverse effects

Melatonin is an accessible and affordable option for preventing migraine headaches in chronic sufferers. The 3-mg dosing reduces headache frequency—both in terms of the number of migraine headache days per month and in terms of the percentage of patients with a >50% reduction in headache events—as well as headache intensity, with minimal adverse effects.

CAVEATS

Product consistency, missing study data

This trial used 3-mg dosing, so it is not clear if other doses are also effective. In addition, because melatonin is available over-the-counter, the quality/actual doses may be less well regulated, and thus, there may be a lack of consistency between brands. Unlike clinical practice, neither the amitriptyline nor the melatonin dose was titrated according to patient response or adverse effects. As a result, we are not sure of the actual lowest effective dose, or if greater effect (with continued minimal adverse effects) could be achieved with higher doses.

Lastly, 69% to 75% of patients in the treatment groups completed the 16-week trial, but the authors of the study reported using 3 different analytic techniques to estimate missing data. The primary outcome included 178 of 196 randomized patients (90.8%). For the primary endpoint, the authors treated all missing data as non-headache days. It is unclear how these missing data would affect the outcome, although an analysis like this would tend towards a null effect.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Challenges are negligible

There are really no challenges to implementing this practice changer; melatonin is readily available over-the-counter and it is affordable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old woman comes to your office for help with her recurrent migraines, which she’s had since her early 20s. She is otherwise healthy and active. She is frustrated over the frequency of her migraines and the debilitation they cause. She has tried prophylactic medications in the past, but stopped taking them because of the adverse effects. What do you recommend for treatment?

Daily preventive medication can be helpful for chronic migraine sufferers whose headaches have a significant impact on their lives and who have a goal of reducing headache frequency or severity, disability, and/or avoiding acute headache medication escalation.² An estimated 38% of patients with migraines are appropriate candidates for prophylactic therapy, but only 3% to 13% are taking preventive medications.³

Evidence-based guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society state that antiepileptic drugs (divalproex sodium, sodium valproate, topiramate) and many beta-blockers (metoprolol, propranolol, timolol) are effective and should be recommended for migraine prevention (level A recommendation; based on ≥2 class I trials).² Medications such as antidepressants (amitriptyline, venlafaxine) and other beta-blockers (atenolol, nadolol) are probably effective and can be considered (level B recommendation; based on one class I trial or 2 class II trials).² However, adverse effects, such as somnolence, are listed as frequent with amitriptyline and occasional to frequent with topiramate.⁴

Researchers have investigated melatonin before. But a 2010 double-blind, crossover, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 46 patients with 2 to 7 migraine attacks per month found no significant difference in reduction of headache frequency with extended-release melatonin 2 mg taken one hour before bed compared to placebo over an 8-week period.⁵

[polldaddy:9724288]

STUDY SUMMARY

Melatonin tops amitriptyline in >50% improvement in headache frequency

This RCT conducted in Brazil compared the effectiveness of melatonin to amitriptyline and placebo for migraine prevention in 196 adults (ages 18-65 years) with chronic migraines.¹ Eligible patients had a history of at least 3 migraine attacks or 4 migraine headache days per month. Patients were randomized to take identically-appearing melatonin 3 mg, amitriptyline 25 mg, or placebo nightly. The investigators appear to have concealed allocation adequately, and used double-blinding.

The primary outcome was the number of headache days per month, comparing baseline with the 4 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included reduction in migraine intensity, duration, number of analgesics used, and percentage of patients with more than 50% reduction in migraine headache days.

An estimated 38% of patients with migraines are appropriate candidates for prophylactic therapy, but only 3% to 13% are taking preventive medications.

Compared to placebo, headache days per month were reduced in both the melatonin group (6.2 days vs 4.6 days, respectively; mean difference [MD], -1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.4 to -0.9) and the amitriptyline group (6.2 days vs 5 days, respectively; MD, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.7) at 12 weeks, based on intention-to-treat analysis. Mean headache intensity (0-10 pain scale) was also lower at 12 weeks in the melatonin group (4.8 vs 3.6; MD, -1.2; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.8) and in the amitriptyline group (4.8 vs 3.5; MD, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.9), when compared to placebo.

Headache duration (hours/month) at 12 weeks was reduced in both groups (amitriptyline MD, -4.4 hours; 95% CI, -5.1 to -3.9; melatonin MD, -4.8 hours; 95% CI, -5.7 to -3.9), as was the number of analgesics used (amitriptyline MD, -1; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.5; melatonin MD, -1; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.6) when compared to placebo. There was no significant difference between the melatonin and amitriptyline groups for these outcomes.

Patients taking melatonin were more likely to have a >50% improvement in headache frequency compared to amitriptyline (54% vs 39%; number needed to treat [NNT]=7; P<.05); melatonin worked much better than placebo (54% vs 20%; NNT=3; P<.01).

Adverse events were reported more often in the amitriptyline group than in the melatonin group (46 vs 16; P<.03) with daytime sleepiness being the most frequent complaint (41% of patients in the amitriptyline group vs 18% of the melatonin group; number needed to harm [NNH]=5). There was no significant difference in adverse events between melatonin and placebo (16 vs 17; P=not significant). Melatonin resulted in weight loss (mean, -0.14 kg), whereas those taking amitriptyline gained weight (+0.97 kg; P<.01).

WHAT’S NEW

An effective migraine prevention alternative with minimal adverse effects

Melatonin is an accessible and affordable option for preventing migraine headaches in chronic sufferers. The 3-mg dosing reduces headache frequency—both in terms of the number of migraine headache days per month and in terms of the percentage of patients with a >50% reduction in headache events—as well as headache intensity, with minimal adverse effects.

CAVEATS

Product consistency, missing study data

This trial used 3-mg dosing, so it is not clear if other doses are also effective. In addition, because melatonin is available over-the-counter, the quality/actual doses may be less well regulated, and thus, there may be a lack of consistency between brands. Unlike clinical practice, neither the amitriptyline nor the melatonin dose was titrated according to patient response or adverse effects. As a result, we are not sure of the actual lowest effective dose, or if greater effect (with continued minimal adverse effects) could be achieved with higher doses.

Lastly, 69% to 75% of patients in the treatment groups completed the 16-week trial, but the authors of the study reported using 3 different analytic techniques to estimate missing data. The primary outcome included 178 of 196 randomized patients (90.8%). For the primary endpoint, the authors treated all missing data as non-headache days. It is unclear how these missing data would affect the outcome, although an analysis like this would tend towards a null effect.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Challenges are negligible

There are really no challenges to implementing this practice changer; melatonin is readily available over-the-counter and it is affordable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

A 34-year-old woman came to our clinic because she was concerned about her thumbnail, which had turned green. Although her finger didn’t hurt, she was bothered by its appearance. Several months earlier, the woman had sought care at a different clinic because the same nail had become brittle and come loose from the nail bed, which was spongy. The physician advised her that she had onychomycosis and prescribed ciclopirox lacquer, but it didn’t help.

Over the next 3 weeks, she noticed a faint green hue developing at the tip of the nail, which expanded and intensified in color (FIGURE). The patient was a mother who worked at home, washed dishes by hand daily, and bathed her children. Her past medical history was significant for type 1 diabetes mellitus and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. She had no other symptoms.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Dx: Green nail syndrome caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa

This patient had green nail syndrome (GNS), an infection of the nail bed caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. These bacteria produce pyocyanin, a blue-green pigment that discolors the nail.¹ GNS often occurs in patients with prior nail problems, such as onychomycosis, onycholysis, trauma, chronic paronychia, or psoriasis.

Nail disease disrupts the integumentary barrier and allows a portal of entry for bacteria. Scanning electron microscopy of patients with GNS has shown that fungal infections create tunnel-like structures in the nail keratin, and P aeruginosa grows in these spaces.² Nails with prior nail disease that are chronically exposed to moisture are at greatest risk of developing GNS,^3,4 and it is typical for only one nail to be involved.⁵Pseudomonas is the most common bacterial infection of the nails, but is not well known because it is rarely reported and patients often don’t seek care.⁶

Pseudomonas is the most common bacterial infection of the nails, but is not well known because it is rarely reported and patients often don't seek care.

In our patient’s case, her prior onychomycosis helped to create a favorable environment for the growth of the bacteria. Onycholysis—characterized by separation of the nail plate from the nail bed—was also present in our patient, based on her description of a “spongy” nail bed and loose nail, allowing moisture and bacteria to infiltrate the space. Onycholysis is associated with hypothyroidism, which the patient also had.⁷ The frequent soaking of her hands during dishwashing and bathing her children helped to provide the moist environment in which Pseudomonas thrives.

As was the case in this patient, GNS is often painless, or may be accompanied by mild tenderness of the nail. Patients may seek treatment primarily for cosmetic reasons.

GNS can be diagnosed by clinical observation and characteristic pigmentation along with an appropriate patient history.⁴ Culture of the nail bed may be helpful if bacterial resistance or co-infection with fungal organisms is suspected.

Changes in nail color can be a sign of many conditions

Nail discoloration, or chromonychia, can present in a variety of colors. Nail findings may represent an isolated disease or provide an important clinical clue to other systemic diseases.⁸ The specific shade of discoloration helps to differentiate the underlying pathology.

Yellow nail syndrome. As the name implies, this syndrome typically causes yellow discoloration of the nail (although yellow-green is also possible). Yellow nail syndrome is believed to be due to microvascular permeability, which also accounts for its associated clinical triad: hypoalbuminemia, pleural effusion, and lymphedema. Yellow nail syndrome may be seen in patients with bronchiectasis, internal malignancies, immunodeficiency, and rheumatoid arthritis.⁸

Nail bed hematoma. Among the most common causes of nail discoloration, these lesions typically appear as reddish to reddish-black, depending on the age of the bleed, and will often have streaks at the distal margin of the lesion.⁹ Risk factors for hemorrhage include blood thinners and clotting disorders. Subungual hemorrhages that do not grow out with the nail, or that recur in the same place, may require biopsy.⁹

Subungual melanoma causes black-brown discoloration of the nails, and may form a longitudinal band in the nail.⁹ Longitudinal melanonychia is a common variant in African American individuals.¹⁰ Features that increase the likelihood of melanoma include a family history of melanoma, a sudden change in the appearance of the lesion, band width greater than 3 mm, pigment changes extending into the cuticle (known as Hutchinson’s sign), and nail plate disruption.

Dermoscopy, the technique of using surface microscopy to examine the skin, may be helpful in distinguishing nail lesions. (See a video on how to perform dermoscopy here: http://bit.ly/2pyJ3xN.)

Nonmelanocytic lesions tend to have homogeneously distributed pigment, while melanocytic lesions contain granules of pigment in cellular inclusions. Any suspicion of melanoma warrants a punch biopsy.¹¹

Medication-induced effects. Minocycline may cause bluish nail discoloration similar to that produced by infection with P aeruginosa, but it is rare for only a single nail to be involved. In addition, pigmentation changes are often present elsewhere on the body, including the sclerae, teeth, and pinna.

Another medication known to color the nails blue is colloidal silver, which is still sold as a dietary supplement or homeopathic remedy to treat a wide range of ailments.⁶ (Of note: In 1999, the Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule saying that colloidal silver isn’t safe or effective for treating any disease or condition.¹²)

Glomus tumor. Another cause of blue nails is glomus tumors, relatively uncommon perivascular neoplasms that are typically found in the subungual region. These tumors are generally accompanied by localized tenderness, cold sensitivity, and paroxysms of excruciating pain that are disproportional to the size of the tumor.

Briefly soaking the nail in a bleach solution helps to suppress bacterial growth.

Imaging studies may aid in the diagnosis, in addition to pathologic confirmation. Magnetic resonance imaging is the most sensitive imaging modality; if a glomus tumor is present, it most often appears as a well-circumscribed T2 hyperintense lesion.¹³

Exogenous pigmentation. Nails may become discolored due to exposure to various toxins or chemicals. Frequent culprits include eosin, methylene blue, henna, hair dye, and tobacco.⁹

Antibiotics and measures to keep the nail dry will help resolve infection

When chronic nail wetness is a contributing factor, treatment begins with measures to keep the nails dry. In addition, either topical or systemic antibiotics may be used to eradicate the infection. Topical applications with agents such as nadifloxacin have been shown to be effective in several case reports,³ but large-scale controlled trials are lacking. Fluoroquinolones are regarded as first-line systemic treatment.⁵ Briefly soaking the nail in a diluted sodium hypochlorite (bleach) solution also helps to suppress bacterial growth. Nail extraction may be required in refractory cases.

For our patient, we prescribed ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice a day for 10 days, plus bleach soaks (one part bleach to 4 parts water) twice a day. We recommended that our patient wear gloves for household tasks that involved immersing her hands in water, and drying her finger with a hair dryer after bathing.

CORRESPONDENCE
David Gish, MD, University of Virginia Health System, 1215 Lee St. Charlottesville, VA 22908; [email protected].

A 34-year-old woman came to our clinic because she was concerned about her thumbnail, which had turned green. Although her finger didn’t hurt, she was bothered by its appearance. Several months earlier, the woman had sought care at a different clinic because the same nail had become brittle and come loose from the nail bed, which was spongy. The physician advised her that she had onychomycosis and prescribed ciclopirox lacquer, but it didn’t help.

Over the next 3 weeks, she noticed a faint green hue developing at the tip of the nail, which expanded and intensified in color (FIGURE). The patient was a mother who worked at home, washed dishes by hand daily, and bathed her children. Her past medical history was significant for type 1 diabetes mellitus and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. She had no other symptoms.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Dx: Green nail syndrome caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa

This patient had green nail syndrome (GNS), an infection of the nail bed caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. These bacteria produce pyocyanin, a blue-green pigment that discolors the nail.¹ GNS often occurs in patients with prior nail problems, such as onychomycosis, onycholysis, trauma, chronic paronychia, or psoriasis.

Nail disease disrupts the integumentary barrier and allows a portal of entry for bacteria. Scanning electron microscopy of patients with GNS has shown that fungal infections create tunnel-like structures in the nail keratin, and P aeruginosa grows in these spaces.² Nails with prior nail disease that are chronically exposed to moisture are at greatest risk of developing GNS,^3,4 and it is typical for only one nail to be involved.⁵Pseudomonas is the most common bacterial infection of the nails, but is not well known because it is rarely reported and patients often don’t seek care.⁶

Pseudomonas is the most common bacterial infection of the nails, but is not well known because it is rarely reported and patients often don't seek care.

In our patient’s case, her prior onychomycosis helped to create a favorable environment for the growth of the bacteria. Onycholysis—characterized by separation of the nail plate from the nail bed—was also present in our patient, based on her description of a “spongy” nail bed and loose nail, allowing moisture and bacteria to infiltrate the space. Onycholysis is associated with hypothyroidism, which the patient also had.⁷ The frequent soaking of her hands during dishwashing and bathing her children helped to provide the moist environment in which Pseudomonas thrives.

As was the case in this patient, GNS is often painless, or may be accompanied by mild tenderness of the nail. Patients may seek treatment primarily for cosmetic reasons.

GNS can be diagnosed by clinical observation and characteristic pigmentation along with an appropriate patient history.⁴ Culture of the nail bed may be helpful if bacterial resistance or co-infection with fungal organisms is suspected.

Changes in nail color can be a sign of many conditions

Nail discoloration, or chromonychia, can present in a variety of colors. Nail findings may represent an isolated disease or provide an important clinical clue to other systemic diseases.⁸ The specific shade of discoloration helps to differentiate the underlying pathology.

Yellow nail syndrome. As the name implies, this syndrome typically causes yellow discoloration of the nail (although yellow-green is also possible). Yellow nail syndrome is believed to be due to microvascular permeability, which also accounts for its associated clinical triad: hypoalbuminemia, pleural effusion, and lymphedema. Yellow nail syndrome may be seen in patients with bronchiectasis, internal malignancies, immunodeficiency, and rheumatoid arthritis.⁸

Nail bed hematoma. Among the most common causes of nail discoloration, these lesions typically appear as reddish to reddish-black, depending on the age of the bleed, and will often have streaks at the distal margin of the lesion.⁹ Risk factors for hemorrhage include blood thinners and clotting disorders. Subungual hemorrhages that do not grow out with the nail, or that recur in the same place, may require biopsy.⁹

Subungual melanoma causes black-brown discoloration of the nails, and may form a longitudinal band in the nail.⁹ Longitudinal melanonychia is a common variant in African American individuals.¹⁰ Features that increase the likelihood of melanoma include a family history of melanoma, a sudden change in the appearance of the lesion, band width greater than 3 mm, pigment changes extending into the cuticle (known as Hutchinson’s sign), and nail plate disruption.

Dermoscopy, the technique of using surface microscopy to examine the skin, may be helpful in distinguishing nail lesions. (See a video on how to perform dermoscopy here: http://bit.ly/2pyJ3xN.)

Nonmelanocytic lesions tend to have homogeneously distributed pigment, while melanocytic lesions contain granules of pigment in cellular inclusions. Any suspicion of melanoma warrants a punch biopsy.¹¹

Medication-induced effects. Minocycline may cause bluish nail discoloration similar to that produced by infection with P aeruginosa, but it is rare for only a single nail to be involved. In addition, pigmentation changes are often present elsewhere on the body, including the sclerae, teeth, and pinna.

Another medication known to color the nails blue is colloidal silver, which is still sold as a dietary supplement or homeopathic remedy to treat a wide range of ailments.⁶ (Of note: In 1999, the Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule saying that colloidal silver isn’t safe or effective for treating any disease or condition.¹²)

Glomus tumor. Another cause of blue nails is glomus tumors, relatively uncommon perivascular neoplasms that are typically found in the subungual region. These tumors are generally accompanied by localized tenderness, cold sensitivity, and paroxysms of excruciating pain that are disproportional to the size of the tumor.

Briefly soaking the nail in a bleach solution helps to suppress bacterial growth.

Imaging studies may aid in the diagnosis, in addition to pathologic confirmation. Magnetic resonance imaging is the most sensitive imaging modality; if a glomus tumor is present, it most often appears as a well-circumscribed T2 hyperintense lesion.¹³

Exogenous pigmentation. Nails may become discolored due to exposure to various toxins or chemicals. Frequent culprits include eosin, methylene blue, henna, hair dye, and tobacco.⁹

Antibiotics and measures to keep the nail dry will help resolve infection

When chronic nail wetness is a contributing factor, treatment begins with measures to keep the nails dry. In addition, either topical or systemic antibiotics may be used to eradicate the infection. Topical applications with agents such as nadifloxacin have been shown to be effective in several case reports,³ but large-scale controlled trials are lacking. Fluoroquinolones are regarded as first-line systemic treatment.⁵ Briefly soaking the nail in a diluted sodium hypochlorite (bleach) solution also helps to suppress bacterial growth. Nail extraction may be required in refractory cases.

For our patient, we prescribed ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice a day for 10 days, plus bleach soaks (one part bleach to 4 parts water) twice a day. We recommended that our patient wear gloves for household tasks that involved immersing her hands in water, and drying her finger with a hair dryer after bathing.

CORRESPONDENCE
David Gish, MD, University of Virginia Health System, 1215 Lee St. Charlottesville, VA 22908; [email protected].

A 34-year-old woman came to our clinic because she was concerned about her thumbnail, which had turned green. Although her finger didn’t hurt, she was bothered by its appearance. Several months earlier, the woman had sought care at a different clinic because the same nail had become brittle and come loose from the nail bed, which was spongy. The physician advised her that she had onychomycosis and prescribed ciclopirox lacquer, but it didn’t help.

Over the next 3 weeks, she noticed a faint green hue developing at the tip of the nail, which expanded and intensified in color (FIGURE). The patient was a mother who worked at home, washed dishes by hand daily, and bathed her children. Her past medical history was significant for type 1 diabetes mellitus and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. She had no other symptoms.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Dx: Green nail syndrome caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa

This patient had green nail syndrome (GNS), an infection of the nail bed caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. These bacteria produce pyocyanin, a blue-green pigment that discolors the nail.¹ GNS often occurs in patients with prior nail problems, such as onychomycosis, onycholysis, trauma, chronic paronychia, or psoriasis.

Nail disease disrupts the integumentary barrier and allows a portal of entry for bacteria. Scanning electron microscopy of patients with GNS has shown that fungal infections create tunnel-like structures in the nail keratin, and P aeruginosa grows in these spaces.² Nails with prior nail disease that are chronically exposed to moisture are at greatest risk of developing GNS,^3,4 and it is typical for only one nail to be involved.⁵Pseudomonas is the most common bacterial infection of the nails, but is not well known because it is rarely reported and patients often don’t seek care.⁶

Pseudomonas is the most common bacterial infection of the nails, but is not well known because it is rarely reported and patients often don't seek care.

In our patient’s case, her prior onychomycosis helped to create a favorable environment for the growth of the bacteria. Onycholysis—characterized by separation of the nail plate from the nail bed—was also present in our patient, based on her description of a “spongy” nail bed and loose nail, allowing moisture and bacteria to infiltrate the space. Onycholysis is associated with hypothyroidism, which the patient also had.⁷ The frequent soaking of her hands during dishwashing and bathing her children helped to provide the moist environment in which Pseudomonas thrives.

As was the case in this patient, GNS is often painless, or may be accompanied by mild tenderness of the nail. Patients may seek treatment primarily for cosmetic reasons.

GNS can be diagnosed by clinical observation and characteristic pigmentation along with an appropriate patient history.⁴ Culture of the nail bed may be helpful if bacterial resistance or co-infection with fungal organisms is suspected.

Changes in nail color can be a sign of many conditions

Nail discoloration, or chromonychia, can present in a variety of colors. Nail findings may represent an isolated disease or provide an important clinical clue to other systemic diseases.⁸ The specific shade of discoloration helps to differentiate the underlying pathology.

Yellow nail syndrome. As the name implies, this syndrome typically causes yellow discoloration of the nail (although yellow-green is also possible). Yellow nail syndrome is believed to be due to microvascular permeability, which also accounts for its associated clinical triad: hypoalbuminemia, pleural effusion, and lymphedema. Yellow nail syndrome may be seen in patients with bronchiectasis, internal malignancies, immunodeficiency, and rheumatoid arthritis.⁸

Nail bed hematoma. Among the most common causes of nail discoloration, these lesions typically appear as reddish to reddish-black, depending on the age of the bleed, and will often have streaks at the distal margin of the lesion.⁹ Risk factors for hemorrhage include blood thinners and clotting disorders. Subungual hemorrhages that do not grow out with the nail, or that recur in the same place, may require biopsy.⁹

Subungual melanoma causes black-brown discoloration of the nails, and may form a longitudinal band in the nail.⁹ Longitudinal melanonychia is a common variant in African American individuals.¹⁰ Features that increase the likelihood of melanoma include a family history of melanoma, a sudden change in the appearance of the lesion, band width greater than 3 mm, pigment changes extending into the cuticle (known as Hutchinson’s sign), and nail plate disruption.

Dermoscopy, the technique of using surface microscopy to examine the skin, may be helpful in distinguishing nail lesions. (See a video on how to perform dermoscopy here: http://bit.ly/2pyJ3xN.)

Nonmelanocytic lesions tend to have homogeneously distributed pigment, while melanocytic lesions contain granules of pigment in cellular inclusions. Any suspicion of melanoma warrants a punch biopsy.¹¹

Medication-induced effects. Minocycline may cause bluish nail discoloration similar to that produced by infection with P aeruginosa, but it is rare for only a single nail to be involved. In addition, pigmentation changes are often present elsewhere on the body, including the sclerae, teeth, and pinna.

Another medication known to color the nails blue is colloidal silver, which is still sold as a dietary supplement or homeopathic remedy to treat a wide range of ailments.⁶ (Of note: In 1999, the Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule saying that colloidal silver isn’t safe or effective for treating any disease or condition.¹²)

Glomus tumor. Another cause of blue nails is glomus tumors, relatively uncommon perivascular neoplasms that are typically found in the subungual region. These tumors are generally accompanied by localized tenderness, cold sensitivity, and paroxysms of excruciating pain that are disproportional to the size of the tumor.

Briefly soaking the nail in a bleach solution helps to suppress bacterial growth.

Imaging studies may aid in the diagnosis, in addition to pathologic confirmation. Magnetic resonance imaging is the most sensitive imaging modality; if a glomus tumor is present, it most often appears as a well-circumscribed T2 hyperintense lesion.¹³

Exogenous pigmentation. Nails may become discolored due to exposure to various toxins or chemicals. Frequent culprits include eosin, methylene blue, henna, hair dye, and tobacco.⁹

Antibiotics and measures to keep the nail dry will help resolve infection

When chronic nail wetness is a contributing factor, treatment begins with measures to keep the nails dry. In addition, either topical or systemic antibiotics may be used to eradicate the infection. Topical applications with agents such as nadifloxacin have been shown to be effective in several case reports,³ but large-scale controlled trials are lacking. Fluoroquinolones are regarded as first-line systemic treatment.⁵ Briefly soaking the nail in a diluted sodium hypochlorite (bleach) solution also helps to suppress bacterial growth. Nail extraction may be required in refractory cases.

For our patient, we prescribed ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice a day for 10 days, plus bleach soaks (one part bleach to 4 parts water) twice a day. We recommended that our patient wear gloves for household tasks that involved immersing her hands in water, and drying her finger with a hair dryer after bathing.

CORRESPONDENCE
David Gish, MD, University of Virginia Health System, 1215 Lee St. Charlottesville, VA 22908; [email protected].

A 59-year-old woman presented to our emergency department with a rash, severe acute pain in her left hip and lower back, and dyspnea on exertion. She denied having a headache and her mental status was at baseline. The woman reported exposure to rats and snakes one week prior to presentation, and mentioned getting bitten by a rat multiple times on the back of both of her hands while feeding it to her son’s pet snake. The patient had a history of a left hip replacement, with a revision and bone graft 5 years earlier.

The patient had a fever of 103° F during the physical examination. She had erythematous papules and central hemorrhagic eschars at the sites of the bites (FIGURE 1). She also had nonblanching petechiae on both of her lower legs (FIGURE 2) and on the dorsal and palmar aspects of her hands.

The patient’s lab work showed mild normocytic anemia with a hemoglobin level of 11.4 g/dL (normal, 12-16 g/dL) and a platelet count of 129,000/mcL (normal, 130,000-400,000/mcL). Her white blood cell count, chemistries, brain natriuretic peptide test, and chest x-ray were normal.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Rat bite fever

Based on the patient’s symptoms, history, and lab work, we concluded that this was a case of rat bite fever. RBF is a zoonotic systemic illness caused by infection from either the gram-negative bacillus Streptobacillus moniliformis, commonly found in the United States, or the gram-negative rod Spirillum minus, commonly seen in Asia. Anyone with exposure to rats is at risk for RBF, especially pet shop employees, lab workers, and people living in areas with rat infestations.¹

The rash associated with RBF can be petechial, purpuric, or maculopapular, but the presence of hemorrhagic nodules and ulcers at the site of the bite is especially indicative of the illness. The rash often involves the hands and feet, including the palms and soles.

To make the diagnosis of RBF, a careful history and a high index of suspicion are important. Fever and rigor are often the first symptoms to appear, beginning 3 to 10 days after the bite. Three to 4 days after the onset of fever, up to 75% of patients will develop a rash.² Joint and muscle aches are also common, as is a migrating pattern of arthritis.^2,3

Rule out other infections related to animal exposure

The differential diagnosis for RBF includes other animal-related infections, such as those from snake bites, leptospirosis, rabies, and pasteurellosis.

Symptoms associated with snake bite injuries appear rapidly after the bite and vary with the type of snake toxin. Hemotoxic symptoms may include intense pain, edema, petechiae, and ecchymosis from coagulopathy. Neurotoxic symptoms may include ptosis, weakness, and paresthesias. All snake bites should be treated with supportive care, and antivenin is indicated when symptoms or history indicate a bite from a venomous snake. Venomous snakes are rarely intentionally kept as pets.²

Leptospirosis is a zoonotic bacterial infection that may be spread through the urine of rats, dogs, or other mammals. Symptoms may be mild and limited to conjunctivitis, vomiting, and fever; life-threatening symptoms include hemorrhage and kidney failure. A petechial rash is not typical.⁴ Beta-lactam antibiotics are the treatment of choice.

Rabies is a viral infection that occurs after exposure to infected animals (most commonly raccoons, bats, skunks, and foxes). Symptoms include fever and mental status changes that can lead to death; rash is not a typical symptom. Exposed patients should receive post-exposure prophylaxis with immune globulin or a rabies vaccine.⁵

Pasteurellosis may also cause hemorrhagic nodules at the site of the bite or scratch, but bites are typically caused by larger animals such as dogs and livestock. Other symptoms include fever, sepsis, and osteomyelitis. Treatment includes amoxicillin-clavulanate or a fluoroquinolone-clindamycin combination.⁶

In cases of high suspicion, special culture tubes may be needed

Blood cultures and cerebrospinal fluid cultures are often falsely negative. Special culture tubes without polyanethol sulfonate preservative, which inhibits the growth of S moniliformis, may be required in cases of high suspicion. S moniliformis polymerase chain reaction may be available in some specialized labs.^7,8

Treatment options include 7 to 10 days of antibiotic therapy with oral penicillin 500 mg 4 times daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg twice daily, or oral doxycycline 100 mg every 12 hours.⁹

RBF may be fatal if not treated.³ Complications may include bacteremia, septicemia, meningitis, and endocarditis.

Our patient received empiric intravenous ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 hours and her fever and joint pain resolved within 48 hours. On Day 3 she was discharged home to complete a 10-day course of oral amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg. Her primary care physician reported that the rash resolved and the patient made a full recovery.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kate Rowland, MD, MS, Rush-Copley Family Medicine Residency, 2020 Ogden Ave. Suite 325, Aurora, IL 60504; [email protected].

A 59-year-old woman presented to our emergency department with a rash, severe acute pain in her left hip and lower back, and dyspnea on exertion. She denied having a headache and her mental status was at baseline. The woman reported exposure to rats and snakes one week prior to presentation, and mentioned getting bitten by a rat multiple times on the back of both of her hands while feeding it to her son’s pet snake. The patient had a history of a left hip replacement, with a revision and bone graft 5 years earlier.

The patient had a fever of 103° F during the physical examination. She had erythematous papules and central hemorrhagic eschars at the sites of the bites (FIGURE 1). She also had nonblanching petechiae on both of her lower legs (FIGURE 2) and on the dorsal and palmar aspects of her hands.

The patient’s lab work showed mild normocytic anemia with a hemoglobin level of 11.4 g/dL (normal, 12-16 g/dL) and a platelet count of 129,000/mcL (normal, 130,000-400,000/mcL). Her white blood cell count, chemistries, brain natriuretic peptide test, and chest x-ray were normal.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Rat bite fever

Based on the patient’s symptoms, history, and lab work, we concluded that this was a case of rat bite fever. RBF is a zoonotic systemic illness caused by infection from either the gram-negative bacillus Streptobacillus moniliformis, commonly found in the United States, or the gram-negative rod Spirillum minus, commonly seen in Asia. Anyone with exposure to rats is at risk for RBF, especially pet shop employees, lab workers, and people living in areas with rat infestations.¹

The rash associated with RBF can be petechial, purpuric, or maculopapular, but the presence of hemorrhagic nodules and ulcers at the site of the bite is especially indicative of the illness. The rash often involves the hands and feet, including the palms and soles.

To make the diagnosis of RBF, a careful history and a high index of suspicion are important. Fever and rigor are often the first symptoms to appear, beginning 3 to 10 days after the bite. Three to 4 days after the onset of fever, up to 75% of patients will develop a rash.² Joint and muscle aches are also common, as is a migrating pattern of arthritis.^2,3

Rule out other infections related to animal exposure

The differential diagnosis for RBF includes other animal-related infections, such as those from snake bites, leptospirosis, rabies, and pasteurellosis.

Symptoms associated with snake bite injuries appear rapidly after the bite and vary with the type of snake toxin. Hemotoxic symptoms may include intense pain, edema, petechiae, and ecchymosis from coagulopathy. Neurotoxic symptoms may include ptosis, weakness, and paresthesias. All snake bites should be treated with supportive care, and antivenin is indicated when symptoms or history indicate a bite from a venomous snake. Venomous snakes are rarely intentionally kept as pets.²

Leptospirosis is a zoonotic bacterial infection that may be spread through the urine of rats, dogs, or other mammals. Symptoms may be mild and limited to conjunctivitis, vomiting, and fever; life-threatening symptoms include hemorrhage and kidney failure. A petechial rash is not typical.⁴ Beta-lactam antibiotics are the treatment of choice.

Rabies is a viral infection that occurs after exposure to infected animals (most commonly raccoons, bats, skunks, and foxes). Symptoms include fever and mental status changes that can lead to death; rash is not a typical symptom. Exposed patients should receive post-exposure prophylaxis with immune globulin or a rabies vaccine.⁵

Pasteurellosis may also cause hemorrhagic nodules at the site of the bite or scratch, but bites are typically caused by larger animals such as dogs and livestock. Other symptoms include fever, sepsis, and osteomyelitis. Treatment includes amoxicillin-clavulanate or a fluoroquinolone-clindamycin combination.⁶

In cases of high suspicion, special culture tubes may be needed

Blood cultures and cerebrospinal fluid cultures are often falsely negative. Special culture tubes without polyanethol sulfonate preservative, which inhibits the growth of S moniliformis, may be required in cases of high suspicion. S moniliformis polymerase chain reaction may be available in some specialized labs.^7,8

Treatment options include 7 to 10 days of antibiotic therapy with oral penicillin 500 mg 4 times daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg twice daily, or oral doxycycline 100 mg every 12 hours.⁹

RBF may be fatal if not treated.³ Complications may include bacteremia, septicemia, meningitis, and endocarditis.

Our patient received empiric intravenous ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 hours and her fever and joint pain resolved within 48 hours. On Day 3 she was discharged home to complete a 10-day course of oral amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg. Her primary care physician reported that the rash resolved and the patient made a full recovery.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kate Rowland, MD, MS, Rush-Copley Family Medicine Residency, 2020 Ogden Ave. Suite 325, Aurora, IL 60504; [email protected].

A 59-year-old woman presented to our emergency department with a rash, severe acute pain in her left hip and lower back, and dyspnea on exertion. She denied having a headache and her mental status was at baseline. The woman reported exposure to rats and snakes one week prior to presentation, and mentioned getting bitten by a rat multiple times on the back of both of her hands while feeding it to her son’s pet snake. The patient had a history of a left hip replacement, with a revision and bone graft 5 years earlier.

The patient had a fever of 103° F during the physical examination. She had erythematous papules and central hemorrhagic eschars at the sites of the bites (FIGURE 1). She also had nonblanching petechiae on both of her lower legs (FIGURE 2) and on the dorsal and palmar aspects of her hands.

The patient’s lab work showed mild normocytic anemia with a hemoglobin level of 11.4 g/dL (normal, 12-16 g/dL) and a platelet count of 129,000/mcL (normal, 130,000-400,000/mcL). Her white blood cell count, chemistries, brain natriuretic peptide test, and chest x-ray were normal.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Rat bite fever

Based on the patient’s symptoms, history, and lab work, we concluded that this was a case of rat bite fever. RBF is a zoonotic systemic illness caused by infection from either the gram-negative bacillus Streptobacillus moniliformis, commonly found in the United States, or the gram-negative rod Spirillum minus, commonly seen in Asia. Anyone with exposure to rats is at risk for RBF, especially pet shop employees, lab workers, and people living in areas with rat infestations.¹

The rash associated with RBF can be petechial, purpuric, or maculopapular, but the presence of hemorrhagic nodules and ulcers at the site of the bite is especially indicative of the illness. The rash often involves the hands and feet, including the palms and soles.

To make the diagnosis of RBF, a careful history and a high index of suspicion are important. Fever and rigor are often the first symptoms to appear, beginning 3 to 10 days after the bite. Three to 4 days after the onset of fever, up to 75% of patients will develop a rash.² Joint and muscle aches are also common, as is a migrating pattern of arthritis.^2,3

Rule out other infections related to animal exposure

The differential diagnosis for RBF includes other animal-related infections, such as those from snake bites, leptospirosis, rabies, and pasteurellosis.

Symptoms associated with snake bite injuries appear rapidly after the bite and vary with the type of snake toxin. Hemotoxic symptoms may include intense pain, edema, petechiae, and ecchymosis from coagulopathy. Neurotoxic symptoms may include ptosis, weakness, and paresthesias. All snake bites should be treated with supportive care, and antivenin is indicated when symptoms or history indicate a bite from a venomous snake. Venomous snakes are rarely intentionally kept as pets.²

Leptospirosis is a zoonotic bacterial infection that may be spread through the urine of rats, dogs, or other mammals. Symptoms may be mild and limited to conjunctivitis, vomiting, and fever; life-threatening symptoms include hemorrhage and kidney failure. A petechial rash is not typical.⁴ Beta-lactam antibiotics are the treatment of choice.

Rabies is a viral infection that occurs after exposure to infected animals (most commonly raccoons, bats, skunks, and foxes). Symptoms include fever and mental status changes that can lead to death; rash is not a typical symptom. Exposed patients should receive post-exposure prophylaxis with immune globulin or a rabies vaccine.⁵

Pasteurellosis may also cause hemorrhagic nodules at the site of the bite or scratch, but bites are typically caused by larger animals such as dogs and livestock. Other symptoms include fever, sepsis, and osteomyelitis. Treatment includes amoxicillin-clavulanate or a fluoroquinolone-clindamycin combination.⁶

In cases of high suspicion, special culture tubes may be needed

Blood cultures and cerebrospinal fluid cultures are often falsely negative. Special culture tubes without polyanethol sulfonate preservative, which inhibits the growth of S moniliformis, may be required in cases of high suspicion. S moniliformis polymerase chain reaction may be available in some specialized labs.^7,8

Treatment options include 7 to 10 days of antibiotic therapy with oral penicillin 500 mg 4 times daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg twice daily, or oral doxycycline 100 mg every 12 hours.⁹

RBF may be fatal if not treated.³ Complications may include bacteremia, septicemia, meningitis, and endocarditis.

Our patient received empiric intravenous ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 hours and her fever and joint pain resolved within 48 hours. On Day 3 she was discharged home to complete a 10-day course of oral amoxicillin-clavulanate 875/125 mg. Her primary care physician reported that the rash resolved and the patient made a full recovery.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kate Rowland, MD, MS, Rush-Copley Family Medicine Residency, 2020 Ogden Ave. Suite 325, Aurora, IL 60504; [email protected].

THE CASE

A 32-year-old Chinese woman sought care from our family medicine clinic because she had a headache, neck pain, and an intermittent cough that had produced white sputum for 7 days. She described the headache as severe and pressure-like, and said that it had progressively worsened over the previous 3 weeks, coinciding with her first trip outside of China to the United States. The patient indicated that she also had occasional vomiting, dizziness, a low-grade fever, chills, night sweats, and increasing fatigue.

Prior to this visit, the patient had gone to the emergency department (ED) twice in one week, but was told that she had a migraine headache and a viral syndrome and was sent home. She was also told to make a follow-up appointment at our family medicine outpatient clinic.

Besides the symptoms that brought her to our clinic, the only other notable element of the patient’s history was a “neck mass” resection in China 8 years earlier. (The diagnosis of the neck mass was unknown.)

Concerned about her presenting signs and symptoms, we sent the patient to the ED, where she was admitted for further evaluation and treatment of possible meningitis. In the ED, she had a temperature of 101.5° F; her other vital signs were normal. A physical exam revealed mild neck stiffness.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A chest computed tomography (CT) scan demonstrated extensive confluent nodular infiltrates in the lung apices bilaterally with the largest confluent nodule measuring 6 cm (FIGURE 1). A chest x-ray demonstrated extensive bilateral pulmonary interstitial infiltrates that were most pronounced in the upper lung fields (FIGURE 2).

Lumbar puncture results revealed lymphocytic pleocytosis with elevated protein and low glucose levels (TABLE). Based on these results, the family medicine team suspected that our patient had tuberculous meningitis (TBM).

The team consulted with Infectious Diseases for management of TBM, and they placed our patient in a negative pressure room on airborne isolation. In addition, she was started on rifampin 450 mg/d, pyrazinamide 1000 mg/d, ethambutol 800 mg/d, and isoniazid (INH) 800 mg/d, as well as pyridoxine and intravenous dexamethasone.

DISCUSSION

TBM accounts for approximately 1% of all cases of TB and 5% of extrapulmonary diseases in immunocompetent individuals.¹ In 2015, there were approximately 10.4 million cases of TB worldwide, and 6 countries accounted for 60% of the global total: India, Indonesia, China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and South Africa.² TBM is typically a subacute disease with symptoms that can persist for weeks before diagnosis.³ An early diagnosis is critical, as the mortality rate remains relatively high (as high as nearly 70% in underdeveloped and developed countries) despite effective treatment regimens.³ (For updated recommendations on TB screening, see this month’s Practice Alert.)

Once you suspect tuberculous meningitis, isolate the patient, obtain appropriate cultures and smears, and start anti-tuberculosis drugs and adjunctive corticosteroids immediately.

Most health care facilities use AFB smears to determine when patients with suspected TB should be isolated. However, AFB smears are positive in only 60% of TB cases.⁴ One study indicated that nucleic acid amplification by PCR can improve sensitivity from 60% to 87% and specificity from 98% to 100%.⁵

The presentation of TBM varies by phase of disease:

• The prodromal phase typically lasts for 2 to 3 weeks. It is characterized by an insidious onset of malaise, headache, low-grade fever, irritability, and personality changes.
• The meningitis phase is characterized by pronounced neurologic features such as meningismus, protracted headache, confusion, myelopathy, and sensory deficits, as well as vomiting, lethargy, and urinary retention.
• During the paralytic phase, patients experience profound confusion, followed by stupor, coma, seizures, progressive paraplegia, and often, hemiparesis.^1,3,6

Treatment should be given for a total of 9 to 12 months

Initiate treatment for TB based on a strong clinical suspicion for the disease. Treatment of TBM consists of an intensive phase with 4 anti-TB drugs for 2 months (typically INH 800 mg/d, rifampin 450 mg/d, pyrazinamide 1000 mg/d, and ethambutol 800 mg/d) and a continuation phase with 2 drugs (INH and rifampin) for 7 to 10 additional months, resulting in a total treatment duration of 9 to 12 months.

Our patient was discharged from the hospital after 2 weeks on an anti-TB medication regimen of INH, rifampin, and pyrazinamide, along with pyridoxine and a tapering dose of dexamethasone. After the initial 2 months of intensive phase therapy, she was switched to INH 300 mg/d and rifampin 450 mg/d for the continuation phase. The patient followed up at our family medicine outpatient clinic with slow improvement of her muscle weakness before returning to China once she was placed on the continuation phase drugs.

THE TAKEAWAY

Suspect TB in high-risk patients traveling from endemic areas. Our patient, a Chinese woman visiting Brooklyn, New York, should’ve been considered high risk for TB even without her travel history from China because Brooklyn has a high rate of TB, as well. (In 2015, Sunset Park, Brooklyn had 18.2 cases of TB per 100,000 people, which was more than double the citywide rate.⁷)

TBM is a subacute disease with an often subtle presentation. Once you suspect TBM, isolate the patient, obtain appropriate cultures and smears, and start anti-TB drugs and adjunctive corticosteroids immediately, while the results of studies for AFB are still pending. Prompt diagnosis and treatment can save a patient’s life.

THE CASE

A 32-year-old Chinese woman sought care from our family medicine clinic because she had a headache, neck pain, and an intermittent cough that had produced white sputum for 7 days. She described the headache as severe and pressure-like, and said that it had progressively worsened over the previous 3 weeks, coinciding with her first trip outside of China to the United States. The patient indicated that she also had occasional vomiting, dizziness, a low-grade fever, chills, night sweats, and increasing fatigue.

Prior to this visit, the patient had gone to the emergency department (ED) twice in one week, but was told that she had a migraine headache and a viral syndrome and was sent home. She was also told to make a follow-up appointment at our family medicine outpatient clinic.

Besides the symptoms that brought her to our clinic, the only other notable element of the patient’s history was a “neck mass” resection in China 8 years earlier. (The diagnosis of the neck mass was unknown.)

Concerned about her presenting signs and symptoms, we sent the patient to the ED, where she was admitted for further evaluation and treatment of possible meningitis. In the ED, she had a temperature of 101.5° F; her other vital signs were normal. A physical exam revealed mild neck stiffness.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A chest computed tomography (CT) scan demonstrated extensive confluent nodular infiltrates in the lung apices bilaterally with the largest confluent nodule measuring 6 cm (FIGURE 1). A chest x-ray demonstrated extensive bilateral pulmonary interstitial infiltrates that were most pronounced in the upper lung fields (FIGURE 2).

Lumbar puncture results revealed lymphocytic pleocytosis with elevated protein and low glucose levels (TABLE). Based on these results, the family medicine team suspected that our patient had tuberculous meningitis (TBM).

The team consulted with Infectious Diseases for management of TBM, and they placed our patient in a negative pressure room on airborne isolation. In addition, she was started on rifampin 450 mg/d, pyrazinamide 1000 mg/d, ethambutol 800 mg/d, and isoniazid (INH) 800 mg/d, as well as pyridoxine and intravenous dexamethasone.

DISCUSSION

TBM accounts for approximately 1% of all cases of TB and 5% of extrapulmonary diseases in immunocompetent individuals.¹ In 2015, there were approximately 10.4 million cases of TB worldwide, and 6 countries accounted for 60% of the global total: India, Indonesia, China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and South Africa.² TBM is typically a subacute disease with symptoms that can persist for weeks before diagnosis.³ An early diagnosis is critical, as the mortality rate remains relatively high (as high as nearly 70% in underdeveloped and developed countries) despite effective treatment regimens.³ (For updated recommendations on TB screening, see this month’s Practice Alert.)

Once you suspect tuberculous meningitis, isolate the patient, obtain appropriate cultures and smears, and start anti-tuberculosis drugs and adjunctive corticosteroids immediately.

Most health care facilities use AFB smears to determine when patients with suspected TB should be isolated. However, AFB smears are positive in only 60% of TB cases.⁴ One study indicated that nucleic acid amplification by PCR can improve sensitivity from 60% to 87% and specificity from 98% to 100%.⁵

The presentation of TBM varies by phase of disease:

• The prodromal phase typically lasts for 2 to 3 weeks. It is characterized by an insidious onset of malaise, headache, low-grade fever, irritability, and personality changes.
• The meningitis phase is characterized by pronounced neurologic features such as meningismus, protracted headache, confusion, myelopathy, and sensory deficits, as well as vomiting, lethargy, and urinary retention.
• During the paralytic phase, patients experience profound confusion, followed by stupor, coma, seizures, progressive paraplegia, and often, hemiparesis.^1,3,6

Treatment should be given for a total of 9 to 12 months

Initiate treatment for TB based on a strong clinical suspicion for the disease. Treatment of TBM consists of an intensive phase with 4 anti-TB drugs for 2 months (typically INH 800 mg/d, rifampin 450 mg/d, pyrazinamide 1000 mg/d, and ethambutol 800 mg/d) and a continuation phase with 2 drugs (INH and rifampin) for 7 to 10 additional months, resulting in a total treatment duration of 9 to 12 months.

Our patient was discharged from the hospital after 2 weeks on an anti-TB medication regimen of INH, rifampin, and pyrazinamide, along with pyridoxine and a tapering dose of dexamethasone. After the initial 2 months of intensive phase therapy, she was switched to INH 300 mg/d and rifampin 450 mg/d for the continuation phase. The patient followed up at our family medicine outpatient clinic with slow improvement of her muscle weakness before returning to China once she was placed on the continuation phase drugs.

THE TAKEAWAY

Suspect TB in high-risk patients traveling from endemic areas. Our patient, a Chinese woman visiting Brooklyn, New York, should’ve been considered high risk for TB even without her travel history from China because Brooklyn has a high rate of TB, as well. (In 2015, Sunset Park, Brooklyn had 18.2 cases of TB per 100,000 people, which was more than double the citywide rate.⁷)

TBM is a subacute disease with an often subtle presentation. Once you suspect TBM, isolate the patient, obtain appropriate cultures and smears, and start anti-TB drugs and adjunctive corticosteroids immediately, while the results of studies for AFB are still pending. Prompt diagnosis and treatment can save a patient’s life.

THE CASE

A 32-year-old Chinese woman sought care from our family medicine clinic because she had a headache, neck pain, and an intermittent cough that had produced white sputum for 7 days. She described the headache as severe and pressure-like, and said that it had progressively worsened over the previous 3 weeks, coinciding with her first trip outside of China to the United States. The patient indicated that she also had occasional vomiting, dizziness, a low-grade fever, chills, night sweats, and increasing fatigue.

Prior to this visit, the patient had gone to the emergency department (ED) twice in one week, but was told that she had a migraine headache and a viral syndrome and was sent home. She was also told to make a follow-up appointment at our family medicine outpatient clinic.

Besides the symptoms that brought her to our clinic, the only other notable element of the patient’s history was a “neck mass” resection in China 8 years earlier. (The diagnosis of the neck mass was unknown.)

Concerned about her presenting signs and symptoms, we sent the patient to the ED, where she was admitted for further evaluation and treatment of possible meningitis. In the ED, she had a temperature of 101.5° F; her other vital signs were normal. A physical exam revealed mild neck stiffness.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A chest computed tomography (CT) scan demonstrated extensive confluent nodular infiltrates in the lung apices bilaterally with the largest confluent nodule measuring 6 cm (FIGURE 1). A chest x-ray demonstrated extensive bilateral pulmonary interstitial infiltrates that were most pronounced in the upper lung fields (FIGURE 2).

Lumbar puncture results revealed lymphocytic pleocytosis with elevated protein and low glucose levels (TABLE). Based on these results, the family medicine team suspected that our patient had tuberculous meningitis (TBM).

The team consulted with Infectious Diseases for management of TBM, and they placed our patient in a negative pressure room on airborne isolation. In addition, she was started on rifampin 450 mg/d, pyrazinamide 1000 mg/d, ethambutol 800 mg/d, and isoniazid (INH) 800 mg/d, as well as pyridoxine and intravenous dexamethasone.

DISCUSSION

TBM accounts for approximately 1% of all cases of TB and 5% of extrapulmonary diseases in immunocompetent individuals.¹ In 2015, there were approximately 10.4 million cases of TB worldwide, and 6 countries accounted for 60% of the global total: India, Indonesia, China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and South Africa.² TBM is typically a subacute disease with symptoms that can persist for weeks before diagnosis.³ An early diagnosis is critical, as the mortality rate remains relatively high (as high as nearly 70% in underdeveloped and developed countries) despite effective treatment regimens.³ (For updated recommendations on TB screening, see this month’s Practice Alert.)

Once you suspect tuberculous meningitis, isolate the patient, obtain appropriate cultures and smears, and start anti-tuberculosis drugs and adjunctive corticosteroids immediately.

Most health care facilities use AFB smears to determine when patients with suspected TB should be isolated. However, AFB smears are positive in only 60% of TB cases.⁴ One study indicated that nucleic acid amplification by PCR can improve sensitivity from 60% to 87% and specificity from 98% to 100%.⁵

The presentation of TBM varies by phase of disease:

• The prodromal phase typically lasts for 2 to 3 weeks. It is characterized by an insidious onset of malaise, headache, low-grade fever, irritability, and personality changes.
• The meningitis phase is characterized by pronounced neurologic features such as meningismus, protracted headache, confusion, myelopathy, and sensory deficits, as well as vomiting, lethargy, and urinary retention.
• During the paralytic phase, patients experience profound confusion, followed by stupor, coma, seizures, progressive paraplegia, and often, hemiparesis.^1,3,6

Treatment should be given for a total of 9 to 12 months

Initiate treatment for TB based on a strong clinical suspicion for the disease. Treatment of TBM consists of an intensive phase with 4 anti-TB drugs for 2 months (typically INH 800 mg/d, rifampin 450 mg/d, pyrazinamide 1000 mg/d, and ethambutol 800 mg/d) and a continuation phase with 2 drugs (INH and rifampin) for 7 to 10 additional months, resulting in a total treatment duration of 9 to 12 months.

Our patient was discharged from the hospital after 2 weeks on an anti-TB medication regimen of INH, rifampin, and pyrazinamide, along with pyridoxine and a tapering dose of dexamethasone. After the initial 2 months of intensive phase therapy, she was switched to INH 300 mg/d and rifampin 450 mg/d for the continuation phase. The patient followed up at our family medicine outpatient clinic with slow improvement of her muscle weakness before returning to China once she was placed on the continuation phase drugs.

THE TAKEAWAY

Suspect TB in high-risk patients traveling from endemic areas. Our patient, a Chinese woman visiting Brooklyn, New York, should’ve been considered high risk for TB even without her travel history from China because Brooklyn has a high rate of TB, as well. (In 2015, Sunset Park, Brooklyn had 18.2 cases of TB per 100,000 people, which was more than double the citywide rate.⁷)

TBM is a subacute disease with an often subtle presentation. Once you suspect TBM, isolate the patient, obtain appropriate cultures and smears, and start anti-TB drugs and adjunctive corticosteroids immediately, while the results of studies for AFB are still pending. Prompt diagnosis and treatment can save a patient’s life.

Since the last Practice Alert update on the United States Preventive Services Task Force in May of 2016,¹ the Task Force has released 19 recommendations on 13 topics that include: the use of aspirin and statins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD); support for breastfeeding; use of folic acid during pregnancy; and screening for syphilis, latent tuberculosis (TB), herpes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), colorectal cancer (CRC), obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), celiac disease, and skin cancer. The Task Force also released a draft recommendation regarding prostate cancer screening in asymptomatic men (see “A change for prostate cancer screening?”) and addressed screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women, the subject of this month’s audiocast. (To listen, go to: http://bit.ly/2nIVoD5.)

Recommendations to implement

Recommendations from the past year that family physicians should put into practice are detailed below and in TABLE 1.^2-8

CRC: Screen all individuals ages 50 to 75, but 76 to 85 selectively. The Task Force reaffirmed its 2008 finding that screening for CRC in adults ages 50 to 75 years is substantially beneficial.² In contrast to the previous recommendation, however, the new one does not state which screening tests are preferred. The tests considered were 3 stool tests (fecal immunochemical test [FIT], FIT-tumor DNA testing [FIT-DNA], and guaiac-based fecal occult blood test [gFOBT]), as well as 3 direct visualization tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and CT colonoscopy). The Task Force assessed various testing frequencies of each test and some test combinations. While the Task Force does not recommend any one screening strategy, there are still significant unknowns about FIT-DNA and CT colonoscopy. The American Academy of Family Physicians does not recommend using these 2 tests for screening purposes at this time.⁹

CRC screening for adults ages 76 to 85 was given a “C” recommendation, which means the value of the service to the population overall is small, but that certain individuals may benefit from it. The Task Force advises selectively offering a “C” service to individuals based on professional judgment and patient preferences. Regarding CRC screening in individuals 76 years or older, the ones most likely to benefit are those who have never been screened and those without significant comorbidities that could limit life expectancy. All “C” recommendations from the past year are listed in TABLE 2.^2-4

CVD prevention: When aspirin or a statin is indicated. The Task Force released 2 recommendations for the prevention of CVD this past year. One pertained to the use of low-dose aspirin³ (which also helps to prevent CRC), and the other addressed the use of low- to moderate-dose statins.⁴ Each recommendation is fairly complicated and nuanced in terms of age and risk for CVD. A decision to use low-dose aspirin must also consider the risk of bleeding.

To calculate a patient’s risk for CVD, the Task Force recommends using the risk calculator developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (http://www.cvriskcalculator.com/).

Adults for whom low-dose aspirin and low- to moderate-dose statins are recommended are described in TABLE 1.^2-8 Patients for whom individual decision making is advised, rather than a generalized recommendation, are reviewed in TABLE 2.^2-4 There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for the use of aspirin before age 50 or at age 70 and older,³ and for the use of statins in adults age 76 and older who do not have a history of CVD⁴ (TABLE 3^3,4,10-14). The use of low-dose aspirin and low-to-moderate dose statins have been the subject of JFP audiocasts in May 2016 and January 2017. (See http://bit.ly/2oiun8d and http://bit.ly/2oqkohR.)

2 pregnancy-related recommendations. To prevent neural tube defects in newborns, the Task Force now recommends daily folic acid, 0.4 to 0.8 mg (400 to 800 mcg), for all women who are planning on or are capable of becoming pregnant.⁵ This is an update of a 2009 recommendation that was worded slightly differently, recommending the supplement for all women of childbearing age.

A new recommendation on breastfeeding recognizes its benefits for both mother and baby and finds that interventions to encourage breastfeeding increase the prevalence of this practice and its duration.⁶ Interventions—provided to individuals or groups by professionals or peers or through formal education—include promoting the benefits of breastfeeding, giving practical advice and direct support on how to breastfeed, and offering psychological support.

Latent TB: Advantages of newer testing method. The recommendation on screening for latent tuberculosis (TB) is an update from the one made in 1996.⁷ At that time, screening for latent infection was performed using a tuberculin skin test (TST). Now a TST or interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) can be used. Testing with IGRA may be the best option for those who have received a bacille Calmette–Guérin vaccination (because it can cause a false-positive TST) or for those who are not likely to return to have their TST read.

A new recommendation on breastfeeding finds that interventions to encourage breastfeeding increase the prevalence of this practice and its duration.

Those at high risk for latent TB include people who were born or have resided in countries with a high TB prevalence, those who have lived in a correctional institution or homeless shelter, and anyone in a high-risk group based on local epidemiology of the disease. (Read more on TB in this month’s Case Report.) Others at high risk are those who are immune suppressed because of infection or medications, and those who work in health care or correctional facilities. Screening of these groups is usually conducted as part of occupational health or is considered part of routine health care.

Syphilis: Screen high-risk individuals in 2 steps. The recommendation on syphilis screening basically reaffirms the one from 2004.⁸ Those at high risk for syphilis include men who have sex with men (who now account for 90% of new cases), those who are HIV positive, and those who engage in commercial sex work. Other racial and demographic groups can be at high risk depending on the local epidemiology of the disease. In a separate recommendation, the Task Force advises screening all pregnant women for syphilis.

Screening for syphilis infection involves 2 steps: first, a nontreponemal test (Venereal Disease Research Laboratory [VDRL] or rapid plasma reagin [RPR] test); second, a confirmatory treponemal antibody detection test (fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption [FTA-ABS] or Treponema pallidum particle agglutination [TPPA] test). Treatment for syphilis remains benzathine penicillin with the number of injections depending on the stage of infection. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the best source for current recommendations for treatment of all sexually transmitted infections.¹⁵

Screening tests to avoid

TABLE 4^16,17 lists screening tests the Task Force recommends against. While chronic obstructive pulmonary disease afflicts 14% of US adults ages 40 to 79 years and is the third leading cause of death in the country, the Task Force found that early detection in asymptomatic adults does not affect the course of the illness and is of no benefit.¹⁶

Genital herpes, also prevalent, infects an estimated one out of 6 individuals, ages 14 to 49. It causes little mortality, except in neonates, but those infected can have recurrent flares and suffer psychological harms from stigmatization. Most genital herpes is caused by herpes simplex virus-2, and there is a serological test to detect it. However, the Task Force recommends against using the test to screen asymptomatic adults and adolescents, including those who are pregnant. This recommendation is based on the test’s high false-positive rate, which can cause emotional harm, and on the lack of evidence that detection through screening improves outcomes.¹⁷

The evidence is lacking for these practices

The Task Force is one of only a few organizations that will not make a recommendation if evidence is lacking on benefits and harms. In addition to the ‘I’ statements regarding CVD and CRC mentioned earlier, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to recommend screening for lipid disorders in individuals ages 20 years or younger,¹⁰ performing a visual skin exam as a screening tool for skin cancer,¹¹ screening for celiac disease,¹² performing a periodic pelvic examination in asymptomatic women,¹³ and screening for obstructive sleep apnea using screening questionnaires¹⁴ (TABLE 3^3,4,10-14).

Since the last Practice Alert update on the United States Preventive Services Task Force in May of 2016,¹ the Task Force has released 19 recommendations on 13 topics that include: the use of aspirin and statins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD); support for breastfeeding; use of folic acid during pregnancy; and screening for syphilis, latent tuberculosis (TB), herpes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), colorectal cancer (CRC), obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), celiac disease, and skin cancer. The Task Force also released a draft recommendation regarding prostate cancer screening in asymptomatic men (see “A change for prostate cancer screening?”) and addressed screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women, the subject of this month’s audiocast. (To listen, go to: http://bit.ly/2nIVoD5.)

Recommendations to implement

Recommendations from the past year that family physicians should put into practice are detailed below and in TABLE 1.^2-8

CRC: Screen all individuals ages 50 to 75, but 76 to 85 selectively. The Task Force reaffirmed its 2008 finding that screening for CRC in adults ages 50 to 75 years is substantially beneficial.² In contrast to the previous recommendation, however, the new one does not state which screening tests are preferred. The tests considered were 3 stool tests (fecal immunochemical test [FIT], FIT-tumor DNA testing [FIT-DNA], and guaiac-based fecal occult blood test [gFOBT]), as well as 3 direct visualization tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and CT colonoscopy). The Task Force assessed various testing frequencies of each test and some test combinations. While the Task Force does not recommend any one screening strategy, there are still significant unknowns about FIT-DNA and CT colonoscopy. The American Academy of Family Physicians does not recommend using these 2 tests for screening purposes at this time.⁹

CRC screening for adults ages 76 to 85 was given a “C” recommendation, which means the value of the service to the population overall is small, but that certain individuals may benefit from it. The Task Force advises selectively offering a “C” service to individuals based on professional judgment and patient preferences. Regarding CRC screening in individuals 76 years or older, the ones most likely to benefit are those who have never been screened and those without significant comorbidities that could limit life expectancy. All “C” recommendations from the past year are listed in TABLE 2.^2-4

CVD prevention: When aspirin or a statin is indicated. The Task Force released 2 recommendations for the prevention of CVD this past year. One pertained to the use of low-dose aspirin³ (which also helps to prevent CRC), and the other addressed the use of low- to moderate-dose statins.⁴ Each recommendation is fairly complicated and nuanced in terms of age and risk for CVD. A decision to use low-dose aspirin must also consider the risk of bleeding.

To calculate a patient’s risk for CVD, the Task Force recommends using the risk calculator developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (http://www.cvriskcalculator.com/).

Adults for whom low-dose aspirin and low- to moderate-dose statins are recommended are described in TABLE 1.^2-8 Patients for whom individual decision making is advised, rather than a generalized recommendation, are reviewed in TABLE 2.^2-4 There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for the use of aspirin before age 50 or at age 70 and older,³ and for the use of statins in adults age 76 and older who do not have a history of CVD⁴ (TABLE 3^3,4,10-14). The use of low-dose aspirin and low-to-moderate dose statins have been the subject of JFP audiocasts in May 2016 and January 2017. (See http://bit.ly/2oiun8d and http://bit.ly/2oqkohR.)

2 pregnancy-related recommendations. To prevent neural tube defects in newborns, the Task Force now recommends daily folic acid, 0.4 to 0.8 mg (400 to 800 mcg), for all women who are planning on or are capable of becoming pregnant.⁵ This is an update of a 2009 recommendation that was worded slightly differently, recommending the supplement for all women of childbearing age.

A new recommendation on breastfeeding recognizes its benefits for both mother and baby and finds that interventions to encourage breastfeeding increase the prevalence of this practice and its duration.⁶ Interventions—provided to individuals or groups by professionals or peers or through formal education—include promoting the benefits of breastfeeding, giving practical advice and direct support on how to breastfeed, and offering psychological support.

Latent TB: Advantages of newer testing method. The recommendation on screening for latent tuberculosis (TB) is an update from the one made in 1996.⁷ At that time, screening for latent infection was performed using a tuberculin skin test (TST). Now a TST or interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) can be used. Testing with IGRA may be the best option for those who have received a bacille Calmette–Guérin vaccination (because it can cause a false-positive TST) or for those who are not likely to return to have their TST read.

A new recommendation on breastfeeding finds that interventions to encourage breastfeeding increase the prevalence of this practice and its duration.

Those at high risk for latent TB include people who were born or have resided in countries with a high TB prevalence, those who have lived in a correctional institution or homeless shelter, and anyone in a high-risk group based on local epidemiology of the disease. (Read more on TB in this month’s Case Report.) Others at high risk are those who are immune suppressed because of infection or medications, and those who work in health care or correctional facilities. Screening of these groups is usually conducted as part of occupational health or is considered part of routine health care.

Syphilis: Screen high-risk individuals in 2 steps. The recommendation on syphilis screening basically reaffirms the one from 2004.⁸ Those at high risk for syphilis include men who have sex with men (who now account for 90% of new cases), those who are HIV positive, and those who engage in commercial sex work. Other racial and demographic groups can be at high risk depending on the local epidemiology of the disease. In a separate recommendation, the Task Force advises screening all pregnant women for syphilis.

Screening for syphilis infection involves 2 steps: first, a nontreponemal test (Venereal Disease Research Laboratory [VDRL] or rapid plasma reagin [RPR] test); second, a confirmatory treponemal antibody detection test (fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption [FTA-ABS] or Treponema pallidum particle agglutination [TPPA] test). Treatment for syphilis remains benzathine penicillin with the number of injections depending on the stage of infection. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the best source for current recommendations for treatment of all sexually transmitted infections.¹⁵

Screening tests to avoid

TABLE 4^16,17 lists screening tests the Task Force recommends against. While chronic obstructive pulmonary disease afflicts 14% of US adults ages 40 to 79 years and is the third leading cause of death in the country, the Task Force found that early detection in asymptomatic adults does not affect the course of the illness and is of no benefit.¹⁶

Genital herpes, also prevalent, infects an estimated one out of 6 individuals, ages 14 to 49. It causes little mortality, except in neonates, but those infected can have recurrent flares and suffer psychological harms from stigmatization. Most genital herpes is caused by herpes simplex virus-2, and there is a serological test to detect it. However, the Task Force recommends against using the test to screen asymptomatic adults and adolescents, including those who are pregnant. This recommendation is based on the test’s high false-positive rate, which can cause emotional harm, and on the lack of evidence that detection through screening improves outcomes.¹⁷

The evidence is lacking for these practices

The Task Force is one of only a few organizations that will not make a recommendation if evidence is lacking on benefits and harms. In addition to the ‘I’ statements regarding CVD and CRC mentioned earlier, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to recommend screening for lipid disorders in individuals ages 20 years or younger,¹⁰ performing a visual skin exam as a screening tool for skin cancer,¹¹ screening for celiac disease,¹² performing a periodic pelvic examination in asymptomatic women,¹³ and screening for obstructive sleep apnea using screening questionnaires¹⁴ (TABLE 3^3,4,10-14).

Since the last Practice Alert update on the United States Preventive Services Task Force in May of 2016,¹ the Task Force has released 19 recommendations on 13 topics that include: the use of aspirin and statins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD); support for breastfeeding; use of folic acid during pregnancy; and screening for syphilis, latent tuberculosis (TB), herpes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), colorectal cancer (CRC), obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), celiac disease, and skin cancer. The Task Force also released a draft recommendation regarding prostate cancer screening in asymptomatic men (see “A change for prostate cancer screening?”) and addressed screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women, the subject of this month’s audiocast. (To listen, go to: http://bit.ly/2nIVoD5.)

Recommendations to implement

Recommendations from the past year that family physicians should put into practice are detailed below and in TABLE 1.^2-8

CRC: Screen all individuals ages 50 to 75, but 76 to 85 selectively. The Task Force reaffirmed its 2008 finding that screening for CRC in adults ages 50 to 75 years is substantially beneficial.² In contrast to the previous recommendation, however, the new one does not state which screening tests are preferred. The tests considered were 3 stool tests (fecal immunochemical test [FIT], FIT-tumor DNA testing [FIT-DNA], and guaiac-based fecal occult blood test [gFOBT]), as well as 3 direct visualization tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and CT colonoscopy). The Task Force assessed various testing frequencies of each test and some test combinations. While the Task Force does not recommend any one screening strategy, there are still significant unknowns about FIT-DNA and CT colonoscopy. The American Academy of Family Physicians does not recommend using these 2 tests for screening purposes at this time.⁹

CRC screening for adults ages 76 to 85 was given a “C” recommendation, which means the value of the service to the population overall is small, but that certain individuals may benefit from it. The Task Force advises selectively offering a “C” service to individuals based on professional judgment and patient preferences. Regarding CRC screening in individuals 76 years or older, the ones most likely to benefit are those who have never been screened and those without significant comorbidities that could limit life expectancy. All “C” recommendations from the past year are listed in TABLE 2.^2-4

CVD prevention: When aspirin or a statin is indicated. The Task Force released 2 recommendations for the prevention of CVD this past year. One pertained to the use of low-dose aspirin³ (which also helps to prevent CRC), and the other addressed the use of low- to moderate-dose statins.⁴ Each recommendation is fairly complicated and nuanced in terms of age and risk for CVD. A decision to use low-dose aspirin must also consider the risk of bleeding.

To calculate a patient’s risk for CVD, the Task Force recommends using the risk calculator developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (http://www.cvriskcalculator.com/).

Adults for whom low-dose aspirin and low- to moderate-dose statins are recommended are described in TABLE 1.^2-8 Patients for whom individual decision making is advised, rather than a generalized recommendation, are reviewed in TABLE 2.^2-4 There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for the use of aspirin before age 50 or at age 70 and older,³ and for the use of statins in adults age 76 and older who do not have a history of CVD⁴ (TABLE 3^3,4,10-14). The use of low-dose aspirin and low-to-moderate dose statins have been the subject of JFP audiocasts in May 2016 and January 2017. (See http://bit.ly/2oiun8d and http://bit.ly/2oqkohR.)

2 pregnancy-related recommendations. To prevent neural tube defects in newborns, the Task Force now recommends daily folic acid, 0.4 to 0.8 mg (400 to 800 mcg), for all women who are planning on or are capable of becoming pregnant.⁵ This is an update of a 2009 recommendation that was worded slightly differently, recommending the supplement for all women of childbearing age.

A new recommendation on breastfeeding recognizes its benefits for both mother and baby and finds that interventions to encourage breastfeeding increase the prevalence of this practice and its duration.⁶ Interventions—provided to individuals or groups by professionals or peers or through formal education—include promoting the benefits of breastfeeding, giving practical advice and direct support on how to breastfeed, and offering psychological support.

Latent TB: Advantages of newer testing method. The recommendation on screening for latent tuberculosis (TB) is an update from the one made in 1996.⁷ At that time, screening for latent infection was performed using a tuberculin skin test (TST). Now a TST or interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) can be used. Testing with IGRA may be the best option for those who have received a bacille Calmette–Guérin vaccination (because it can cause a false-positive TST) or for those who are not likely to return to have their TST read.

A new recommendation on breastfeeding finds that interventions to encourage breastfeeding increase the prevalence of this practice and its duration.

Those at high risk for latent TB include people who were born or have resided in countries with a high TB prevalence, those who have lived in a correctional institution or homeless shelter, and anyone in a high-risk group based on local epidemiology of the disease. (Read more on TB in this month’s Case Report.) Others at high risk are those who are immune suppressed because of infection or medications, and those who work in health care or correctional facilities. Screening of these groups is usually conducted as part of occupational health or is considered part of routine health care.

Syphilis: Screen high-risk individuals in 2 steps. The recommendation on syphilis screening basically reaffirms the one from 2004.⁸ Those at high risk for syphilis include men who have sex with men (who now account for 90% of new cases), those who are HIV positive, and those who engage in commercial sex work. Other racial and demographic groups can be at high risk depending on the local epidemiology of the disease. In a separate recommendation, the Task Force advises screening all pregnant women for syphilis.

Screening for syphilis infection involves 2 steps: first, a nontreponemal test (Venereal Disease Research Laboratory [VDRL] or rapid plasma reagin [RPR] test); second, a confirmatory treponemal antibody detection test (fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption [FTA-ABS] or Treponema pallidum particle agglutination [TPPA] test). Treatment for syphilis remains benzathine penicillin with the number of injections depending on the stage of infection. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the best source for current recommendations for treatment of all sexually transmitted infections.¹⁵

Screening tests to avoid

TABLE 4^16,17 lists screening tests the Task Force recommends against. While chronic obstructive pulmonary disease afflicts 14% of US adults ages 40 to 79 years and is the third leading cause of death in the country, the Task Force found that early detection in asymptomatic adults does not affect the course of the illness and is of no benefit.¹⁶

Genital herpes, also prevalent, infects an estimated one out of 6 individuals, ages 14 to 49. It causes little mortality, except in neonates, but those infected can have recurrent flares and suffer psychological harms from stigmatization. Most genital herpes is caused by herpes simplex virus-2, and there is a serological test to detect it. However, the Task Force recommends against using the test to screen asymptomatic adults and adolescents, including those who are pregnant. This recommendation is based on the test’s high false-positive rate, which can cause emotional harm, and on the lack of evidence that detection through screening improves outcomes.¹⁷

The evidence is lacking for these practices

The Task Force is one of only a few organizations that will not make a recommendation if evidence is lacking on benefits and harms. In addition to the ‘I’ statements regarding CVD and CRC mentioned earlier, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to recommend screening for lipid disorders in individuals ages 20 years or younger,¹⁰ performing a visual skin exam as a screening tool for skin cancer,¹¹ screening for celiac disease,¹² performing a periodic pelvic examination in asymptomatic women,¹³ and screening for obstructive sleep apnea using screening questionnaires¹⁴ (TABLE 3^3,4,10-14).

ABSTRACT

Objective To reduce unnecessary orthopedic referrals by developing a protocol for managing physiologic bow legs in the primary care environment through the use of a noninvasive technique that simultaneously tracks normal varus progression and screens for potential pathologic bowing requiring an orthopedic referral.

Methods Retrospective study of 155 patients with physiologic genu varum and 10 with infantile Blount’s disease. We used fingerbreadth measurements to document progression or resolution of bow legs. Final diagnoses were made by one orthopedic surgeon using clinical and radiographic evidence. We divided genu varum patients into 3 groups: patients presenting with bow legs before 18 months of age (MOA), patients presenting between 18 and 23 MOA, and patients presenting at 24 MOA or older for analyses relevant to the development of the follow-up protocol.

Results Physiologic genu varum patients walked earlier than average infants (10 months vs 12-15 months; P<.001). Physiologic genu varum patients presenting before 18 MOA demonstrated initial signs of correction between 18 and 24 MOA and resolution by 30 MOA. Physiologic genu varum patients presenting between 18 and 23 MOA demonstrated initial signs of correction between 24 MOA and 30 MOA and resolution by 36 MOA.

Conclusion Primary care physicians can manage most children presenting with bow legs. Management focuses on following the progression or resolution of varus with regular follow-up. For patients presenting with bow legs, we recommend a follow-up protocol using mainly well-child checkups and a simple clinical assessment to monitor varus progression and screen for pathologic bowing.

Bow legs in young children can be a concern for parents.^1,2 By far, the most common reason for bow legs is physiologic genu varum,^3-5 a nonprogressive stage of normal development in young children that generally resolves spontaneously without treatment.^1,6-11 Normally developing children undergo a varus phase between birth and 18 to 24 months of age (MOA), at which time there is usually a transition in alignment from varus to straight to valgus (knock knees), which will correct to straight or mild valgus throughout adolescence.^{1,6,7,9,10,12-17}

The most common form of pathologic bow legs is Blount’s disease, also known as tibia vara, which must be differentiated from physiologic genu varum.^{8-10,15,18-24} The progressive varus deformity of Blount’s disease usually requires orthopedic intervention.^1,10,23-26 Early diagnosis may spare patients complex interventions, improve prognosis, and limit complications that include gait abnormalities,^4,8,10,27 knee joint instability,^4,24,27 osteoarthritis,^9,20,27 meniscal tears,²⁷ and degenerative joint disease.^19,20,27

Although variables such as walking age, race, weight, and gender have been suggested as risk factors for Blount’s disease, they have not been useful in differentiating between Blount’s pathology and physiologic genu varum.^{1,4,5,7,10,20,28} In the primary care setting, distinguishing physiologic from pathologic forms of bow legs is possible with a thorough history and physical exam and with radiographs, as warranted.^1,2,15 More than 40% of genu varum/genu valgum cases referred for orthopedic consultation turn out to be the physiologic form,² suggesting a need for guidelines in the primary care setting to help direct referral and follow-up. The purpose of this study was to provide recommendations to family physicians for evaluating and managing children with bow legs.

Materials and methods

This study, approved by the Internal Review Board of Akron Children’s Hospital, is a retrospective review of children seen by a single pediatric orthopedic surgeon (DSW) from 1970 to 2012. Four-hundred twenty-four children were received for evaluation of bow legs. Excluded from our final analysis were 220 subjects seen only once for this specific referral and 39 subjects diagnosed with a condition other than genu varum or Blount’s disease (ie, rickets, skeletal dysplasia, sequelae of trauma, or infection). Ten subjects with Blount’s disease and 155 subjects with physiologic genu varum were included in the final data analysis.

More than 40% of genu varum cases referred for orthopedic consultation turn out to be the physiologic form.In addition to noting the age at which a patient walked independently, at each visit we documented age and the fingerbreadth (varus) distance between the medial femoral condyles with the child’s ankles held together. Parents reported age of independent walking for just 3 children with Blount’s disease and for 134 children with physiologic genu varum. Study variables for the genu varum data analysis were age of walking, age at presentation, age at varus correction, age at varus resolution, time between presentation and varus correction, and time between presentation and varus resolution. Varus correction is defined as any decrease in varus angulation since presentation. Varus resolution is defined as varus correction to less than or equal to half of the varus angulation at presentation. For inclusion in the age-at-resolution analysis, a child must have been evaluated at regular follow-up visits (all rechecks within 8 months).

To measure varus distance, we used the fingerbreadth method described by Weiner in a study of 600 cases (FIGURE).⁶ This simple technique, which requires no special equipment, accurately detected differences in varus angulation and tracked the normal pattern of lower limb angular development. The patient should be supine on the examination table with legs extended. With one hand, the examiner holds the child’s ankles together, ensuring the medial malleoli are in contact. With the other hand, the examiner measures the fingerbreadth distance between the medial femoral condyles. Alternatively, a ruler may be used to measure the distance. This latter method may be especially useful in practices where the patient is likely to see more than one provider for well child care.

We divided the genu varum subject group into 3 subgroups by age at presentation: 103 subjects were younger than 18 months; 47 were 18 to 23 months; and 5 were 24 months or older. We used the data analysis toolkit in Microsoft Excel 2013 to perform a statistical analysis of study variables. We assumed the genu varum population is a normally distributed population. We used a 95% confidence level (α=0.05) for all calculations of confidence intervals (CIs), student t-tests, and tolerance intervals. Based on the data analysis results, we developed a series of follow-up and referral guidelines for practitioners.

Results

The mean walking age for those diagnosed with physiologic genu varum was 10 months (95% CI, 9.8-10.4), which is significantly younger than the 12 months of age (at the earliest) typical of toddlers in general (P<.001). There was no significant difference between the walking age of male and female children diagnosed with genu varum (P=.37).

Of the children presenting with the primary complaint of bow legs, 6% subsequently developed Blount’s disease. These patients presented at a mean age of 20.9 months and were diagnosed at a mean age of 23.9 months. Following the Blount’s disease diagnosis, we initiated therapy in all cases (3 surgical, 7 bracing).

Physiologic genu varum patients presented at a mean age of 16.4 months, with only 3.23% presenting at older than 23 months. On average, physiologic genu varum patients presenting before 24 months of age showed measurable varus correction 5 months after presentation and achieved varus resolution 7.3 months after presentation (TABLE 1). Assuming the patient population is normally distributed, we can be 95% confident that 95% of physiologic genu varum patients presenting before 18 months of age will show measurable varus correction by 24 months and will resolve without intervention by 30 months (TABLE 2). Patients presenting between 18 and 23 months of age should show measurable varus correction by 30 months and resolution by 36 months (TABLE 3).

Discussion

Primary care physicians have the ability to differentiate physiologic genu varum from pathologic forms of bow legs with a thorough history, physical exam, and radiographic examination, if necessary^1,2,13 (TABLE 4^{1,7,8,10,12,14,18-20,22,24,27}). Several approaches to differentiating Blount’s disease and physiologic genu varum have been described in the literature.^{1,4,7,8,10,14,22,23}

The average age at which children begin to walk independently is between 13 and 15 months.^5,18,29-31 Recently, it has been suggested that the range be expanded to include 12 months of age.³⁰ The association between early walking (at 10-11 months)^12,20,22 and Blount’s disease is generally accepted in the orthopedic literature.^{1,4,7,10,19-22} However, some authors have suggested early walking also contributes to genu varum.^{1,5,8,10,18,28} The mean age of independent walking for children with physiologic genu varum suggested in the literature (10 months) was confirmed in our study and found to be significantly younger than the average for toddlers generally.^1,22 Early walking is clearly associated with both physiologic genu varum and Blount’s disease, but no direct causation has been identified in either case. An alternative means of differentiating these entities is needed.

Primary care physicians can differentiate physiologic genu varum from pathologic forms of bow legs with a thorough history, physical exam, and radiographic examination (if needed).Radiographic examination of the knee is essential to the diagnosis of Blount’s disease as well as other, less common causes of pathologic bow legs (skeletal dysplasia, rickets, traumatic growth plate insults, infections, neoplasms).^1,8,14,19 The common radiologic classification of staging for Blount’s disease is the Langenskiöld staging system, which involves identification of characteristic radiographic changes at the tibial physis.^{5,8,14,15,18,22,24}

The fingerbreadth method, which requires no special equipment, accurately detected differences in varus angulation and tracked the normal pattern of lower limb angular development.Sequential measurement of genu varum is most useful in differentiating between physiologic and pathologic processes. Physiologic genu varum, an exaggeration of the normal developmental pattern, characteristically resolves and evolves into physiologic genu valgum by 3 years of age.^1,6-11 The pathophysiology of Blount’s disease is believed to be related to biomechanical overloading of the posteromedial proximal tibia during gait with the knee in a varus orientation. Excess loading on the proximal medial physis contributes to varus progression.^{4,10,14,20,25,27} Patients with Blount’s disease progress with varus and concomitant internal tibial torsion associated with growth plate irregularities and eventually exhibit premature closure.^{1,10,14,18,20,23,24,26} In the months prior to Blount’s disease diagnosis, increasing varus has been reported.^4,7,10,19 Varus progression that differs from the expected pattern indicates possible pathologic bow legs and should prompt radiologic evaluation and, often, an orthopedic referral.^{3,4,7-9,12,13,21}

In our study, only 3% of children with physiologic genu varum presented at 24 months of age or older, compared with 20% of Blount’s disease patients. We recommend considering orthopedic referral for any patient presenting with bow legs at 24 months of age or older. Additionally, consider orthopedic referral for any patient whose varus has not begun to correct within 8 months or has not resolved within 14 months of presentation, as more than 95% of patients with physiologic genu varum are expected to meet these milestones (TABLE 1). And do not hesitate to refer patients at any stage of follow-up if you suspect pathology or if parents are anxious.

If no sign of pathology is immediately identified, we recommend the following course of action:

• Record a reference fingerbreadth or ruler measurement at the initial presentation.
• Re-examine the knee varus at the next regular well-child visit (TABLE 5).

In our study, only 3% of children with physiologic genu varum presented at 24 months of age or older, compared with 20% of Blount's disease patients.Re-examining the patient prior to the next well-child visit is unnecessary, as some degree of bowing is typical until age 18 to 24 months.^{1,6,7,9,12,13,17} Recommend orthopedic referral for any patient with varus that has progressed since initial presentation. Without signs of pathology, repeat varus assessment at the next well-child visit. This schedule minimizes the need for additional physician appointments by integrating follow-up into the typical well-child visits at 18, 24, 30, and 36 months of age.³² The 6-month follow-up interval was a feature of our study and is recommended in the related literature.¹²