THE CASE

An 18-year-old woman with no significant past medical history presented to the emergency department complaining of midsternal chest pain and mild shortness of breath, which had been intermittent for the past several months. She denied any history of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism risk factors, such as oral contraceptive use.

Laboratory values were within normal limits. An electrocardiogram (EKG), however, showed T-wave inversions in leads V₁ and V₂, and physical examination revealed decreased breath sounds in the right lung base. A chest radiograph and subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) were ordered.

The initial radiograph (FIGURE 1) showed a large right anterior mediastinal mass; the CT revealed fat, fluid, soft tissue, and ossification within the mass (FIGURE 2). The CT also showed evidence of local mass effect on the right atrium, as well as compressive atelectasis in the adjacent right lung, contributing to the patient’s EKG abnormality and physical exam findings.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Based on the patient’s clinical history and imaging findings, which were consistent with a benign well-differentiated teratoma, she was given a diagnosis of anterior mediastinal teratoma.

DISCUSSION

Teratomas are tumors composed of pluripotent stem cells that carry elements from all 3 of the embryologic layers (ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm).¹ There are 3 classifications of teratomas: mature (well-differentiated), immature (poorly differentiated), and malignant.

Tumors of germ cell origin are rare within the anterior mediastinum, accounting for 1% to 3% of total reported cases.² Among anterior mediastinal masses, germ cell tumors such as teratomas, seminomas, and nonseminomatous tumors comprise approximately 15% of adult and 24% of pediatric anterior mediastinal tumors.³

It is reported that up to 60% of patients with mediastinal teratomas present with no signs or symptoms upon diagnosis.⁴ When the mass is large, patients can develop chest pain or shortness of breath relating to tumor mass effect. In rare instances, there can be hemoptysis or trichoptysis, pathognomonic for teratomas with bronchial communication.⁵ Physical exam findings are also nonspecific and may include decreased breath sounds secondary to compressive atelectasis with large tumor burden.

Continue to: Radiographic imaging...

Radiographic imaging is essential to elucidate the diagnosis. Chest radiograph can show an intrathoracic mass, and CT can provide further characterization, such as density and precise location.

Location of mass guides differential

Localizing an intrathoracic mass in the anterior, middle, or posterior mediastinum allows for narrowing of the differential diagnosis (TABLE⁶). The main diagnostic consideration for a middle mediastinal or hilar mass is primary carcinoma. Posterior mediastinal masses, on the other hand, are generally of benign etiology and may include neurogenic tumors, foregut duplication cysts, or, in rare cases, extramedullary hematopoiesis.

The differential diagnosis of anterior mediastinal masses can be separated into 4 main categories of disease, colloquially known as the “4 Ts”:

Teratoma. Mixed tissue densities seen on CT relate to the multiple tissue types originating from the embryologic germ cell layers.Frequently, there will be fat, fluid, and calcifications.

Thyroid pathology. A goiter or thyroid cancer can manifest with endocrine dysfunction, such as thyroid-stimulating hormone and T3/T4 abnormalities. A thyroid mass tends to sit more superiorly than do other anterior mediastinal masses and may be confirmed using a nuclear scan looking for increased radioactive iodine uptake.

Continue to: Thymoma

Thymoma. The diagnostic features include parathymic syndromes such as myasthenia gravis (30%-50% of thymoma cases^7,8) and pure red cell aplasia (5% of thymoma cases⁹).

“Terrible” lymphoma. The most effective way to differentiate an anterior mediastinal mass due to lymphadenopathy (secondary to lymphoma) is to perform a tissue sample biopsy.

Also consider, as part of the differential for anterior mediastinal masses, such things as mesenchymal tumors, Morgagni hernia (anterior diaphragmatic defect), and pericardial cysts (fluid attenuating and usually located at the right cardiophrenic angle).

Surgical resection is effective

The treatment for anterior mediastinal teratoma is surgical resection.¹⁰ A complete surgical resection is typically curative and provides adequate therapy for symptom resolution.

The standard surgical approach involves gaining access to the anterior mediastinum via a median sternotomy. When there is extensive tumor involvement of the hemithorax, clamshell thoracotomy is preferred, requiring incisions in both the left and right hemithoraxes.¹¹

Continue to: Our patient

Our patient underwent resection of the tumor; the subsequent pathology report for the specimen (FIGURE 3) confirmed the diagnosis. There was no abnormal enhancement or vascular invasion to suggest aggressive or malignant potential.

THE TAKEAWAY

Patients frequently present with nonspecific and vague chest complaints. This case points to the importance of obtaining a thorough clinical history and conducting a complete physical examination to guide additional work-up and radiographic imaging.

CORRESPONDENCE
Cassie Tran, MD, 320 E North Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15212; [email protected]

THE CASE

An 18-year-old woman with no significant past medical history presented to the emergency department complaining of midsternal chest pain and mild shortness of breath, which had been intermittent for the past several months. She denied any history of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism risk factors, such as oral contraceptive use.

Laboratory values were within normal limits. An electrocardiogram (EKG), however, showed T-wave inversions in leads V₁ and V₂, and physical examination revealed decreased breath sounds in the right lung base. A chest radiograph and subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) were ordered.

The initial radiograph (FIGURE 1) showed a large right anterior mediastinal mass; the CT revealed fat, fluid, soft tissue, and ossification within the mass (FIGURE 2). The CT also showed evidence of local mass effect on the right atrium, as well as compressive atelectasis in the adjacent right lung, contributing to the patient’s EKG abnormality and physical exam findings.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Based on the patient’s clinical history and imaging findings, which were consistent with a benign well-differentiated teratoma, she was given a diagnosis of anterior mediastinal teratoma.

DISCUSSION

Teratomas are tumors composed of pluripotent stem cells that carry elements from all 3 of the embryologic layers (ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm).¹ There are 3 classifications of teratomas: mature (well-differentiated), immature (poorly differentiated), and malignant.

Tumors of germ cell origin are rare within the anterior mediastinum, accounting for 1% to 3% of total reported cases.² Among anterior mediastinal masses, germ cell tumors such as teratomas, seminomas, and nonseminomatous tumors comprise approximately 15% of adult and 24% of pediatric anterior mediastinal tumors.³

It is reported that up to 60% of patients with mediastinal teratomas present with no signs or symptoms upon diagnosis.⁴ When the mass is large, patients can develop chest pain or shortness of breath relating to tumor mass effect. In rare instances, there can be hemoptysis or trichoptysis, pathognomonic for teratomas with bronchial communication.⁵ Physical exam findings are also nonspecific and may include decreased breath sounds secondary to compressive atelectasis with large tumor burden.

Continue to: Radiographic imaging...

Radiographic imaging is essential to elucidate the diagnosis. Chest radiograph can show an intrathoracic mass, and CT can provide further characterization, such as density and precise location.

Location of mass guides differential

Localizing an intrathoracic mass in the anterior, middle, or posterior mediastinum allows for narrowing of the differential diagnosis (TABLE⁶). The main diagnostic consideration for a middle mediastinal or hilar mass is primary carcinoma. Posterior mediastinal masses, on the other hand, are generally of benign etiology and may include neurogenic tumors, foregut duplication cysts, or, in rare cases, extramedullary hematopoiesis.

The differential diagnosis of anterior mediastinal masses can be separated into 4 main categories of disease, colloquially known as the “4 Ts”:

Teratoma. Mixed tissue densities seen on CT relate to the multiple tissue types originating from the embryologic germ cell layers.Frequently, there will be fat, fluid, and calcifications.

Thyroid pathology. A goiter or thyroid cancer can manifest with endocrine dysfunction, such as thyroid-stimulating hormone and T3/T4 abnormalities. A thyroid mass tends to sit more superiorly than do other anterior mediastinal masses and may be confirmed using a nuclear scan looking for increased radioactive iodine uptake.

Continue to: Thymoma

Thymoma. The diagnostic features include parathymic syndromes such as myasthenia gravis (30%-50% of thymoma cases^7,8) and pure red cell aplasia (5% of thymoma cases⁹).

“Terrible” lymphoma. The most effective way to differentiate an anterior mediastinal mass due to lymphadenopathy (secondary to lymphoma) is to perform a tissue sample biopsy.

Also consider, as part of the differential for anterior mediastinal masses, such things as mesenchymal tumors, Morgagni hernia (anterior diaphragmatic defect), and pericardial cysts (fluid attenuating and usually located at the right cardiophrenic angle).

Surgical resection is effective

The treatment for anterior mediastinal teratoma is surgical resection.¹⁰ A complete surgical resection is typically curative and provides adequate therapy for symptom resolution.

The standard surgical approach involves gaining access to the anterior mediastinum via a median sternotomy. When there is extensive tumor involvement of the hemithorax, clamshell thoracotomy is preferred, requiring incisions in both the left and right hemithoraxes.¹¹

Continue to: Our patient

Our patient underwent resection of the tumor; the subsequent pathology report for the specimen (FIGURE 3) confirmed the diagnosis. There was no abnormal enhancement or vascular invasion to suggest aggressive or malignant potential.

THE TAKEAWAY

Patients frequently present with nonspecific and vague chest complaints. This case points to the importance of obtaining a thorough clinical history and conducting a complete physical examination to guide additional work-up and radiographic imaging.

CORRESPONDENCE
Cassie Tran, MD, 320 E North Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15212; [email protected]

THE CASE

An 18-year-old woman with no significant past medical history presented to the emergency department complaining of midsternal chest pain and mild shortness of breath, which had been intermittent for the past several months. She denied any history of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism risk factors, such as oral contraceptive use.

Laboratory values were within normal limits. An electrocardiogram (EKG), however, showed T-wave inversions in leads V₁ and V₂, and physical examination revealed decreased breath sounds in the right lung base. A chest radiograph and subsequent chest computed tomography (CT) were ordered.

The initial radiograph (FIGURE 1) showed a large right anterior mediastinal mass; the CT revealed fat, fluid, soft tissue, and ossification within the mass (FIGURE 2). The CT also showed evidence of local mass effect on the right atrium, as well as compressive atelectasis in the adjacent right lung, contributing to the patient’s EKG abnormality and physical exam findings.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Based on the patient’s clinical history and imaging findings, which were consistent with a benign well-differentiated teratoma, she was given a diagnosis of anterior mediastinal teratoma.

DISCUSSION

Teratomas are tumors composed of pluripotent stem cells that carry elements from all 3 of the embryologic layers (ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm).¹ There are 3 classifications of teratomas: mature (well-differentiated), immature (poorly differentiated), and malignant.

Tumors of germ cell origin are rare within the anterior mediastinum, accounting for 1% to 3% of total reported cases.² Among anterior mediastinal masses, germ cell tumors such as teratomas, seminomas, and nonseminomatous tumors comprise approximately 15% of adult and 24% of pediatric anterior mediastinal tumors.³

It is reported that up to 60% of patients with mediastinal teratomas present with no signs or symptoms upon diagnosis.⁴ When the mass is large, patients can develop chest pain or shortness of breath relating to tumor mass effect. In rare instances, there can be hemoptysis or trichoptysis, pathognomonic for teratomas with bronchial communication.⁵ Physical exam findings are also nonspecific and may include decreased breath sounds secondary to compressive atelectasis with large tumor burden.

Continue to: Radiographic imaging...

Radiographic imaging is essential to elucidate the diagnosis. Chest radiograph can show an intrathoracic mass, and CT can provide further characterization, such as density and precise location.

Location of mass guides differential

Localizing an intrathoracic mass in the anterior, middle, or posterior mediastinum allows for narrowing of the differential diagnosis (TABLE⁶). The main diagnostic consideration for a middle mediastinal or hilar mass is primary carcinoma. Posterior mediastinal masses, on the other hand, are generally of benign etiology and may include neurogenic tumors, foregut duplication cysts, or, in rare cases, extramedullary hematopoiesis.

The differential diagnosis of anterior mediastinal masses can be separated into 4 main categories of disease, colloquially known as the “4 Ts”:

Teratoma. Mixed tissue densities seen on CT relate to the multiple tissue types originating from the embryologic germ cell layers.Frequently, there will be fat, fluid, and calcifications.

Thyroid pathology. A goiter or thyroid cancer can manifest with endocrine dysfunction, such as thyroid-stimulating hormone and T3/T4 abnormalities. A thyroid mass tends to sit more superiorly than do other anterior mediastinal masses and may be confirmed using a nuclear scan looking for increased radioactive iodine uptake.

Continue to: Thymoma

Thymoma. The diagnostic features include parathymic syndromes such as myasthenia gravis (30%-50% of thymoma cases^7,8) and pure red cell aplasia (5% of thymoma cases⁹).

“Terrible” lymphoma. The most effective way to differentiate an anterior mediastinal mass due to lymphadenopathy (secondary to lymphoma) is to perform a tissue sample biopsy.

Also consider, as part of the differential for anterior mediastinal masses, such things as mesenchymal tumors, Morgagni hernia (anterior diaphragmatic defect), and pericardial cysts (fluid attenuating and usually located at the right cardiophrenic angle).

Surgical resection is effective

The treatment for anterior mediastinal teratoma is surgical resection.¹⁰ A complete surgical resection is typically curative and provides adequate therapy for symptom resolution.

The standard surgical approach involves gaining access to the anterior mediastinum via a median sternotomy. When there is extensive tumor involvement of the hemithorax, clamshell thoracotomy is preferred, requiring incisions in both the left and right hemithoraxes.¹¹

Continue to: Our patient

Our patient underwent resection of the tumor; the subsequent pathology report for the specimen (FIGURE 3) confirmed the diagnosis. There was no abnormal enhancement or vascular invasion to suggest aggressive or malignant potential.

THE TAKEAWAY

Patients frequently present with nonspecific and vague chest complaints. This case points to the importance of obtaining a thorough clinical history and conducting a complete physical examination to guide additional work-up and radiographic imaging.

CORRESPONDENCE
Cassie Tran, MD, 320 E North Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15212; [email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

For patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM), surgical resection is the only hope for cure, but conventional hepatectomy involves mechanical manipulation that could release tumor cells into the bloodstream and result in further spread.

To minimize this risk, an alternative method was introduced in 1992 – an anterior approach for open right hepatectomies, which involves less manipulation. However, a trial that compared the two surgical approaches showed no difference between the two in reducing intraoperative tumor cell dissemination.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were detected in 6 of 22 patients (27%) in the anterior hepatectomy group and in 5 of 21 (24%) patients in the conventional hepatectomy group, the study authors reported.

Operating time was longer with the anterior approach (221 vs. 171 minutes), but intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar for the two approaches. Median overall and disease-free survival were also similar (55 vs. 73 months and 48 vs. 40 months, respectively), as were recurrence patterns, reported Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, and colleagues. Dr. Rahbari is affiliated with the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

The findings were published online Nov. 4, 2020, in JAMA Surgery.

This “timely” trial “addresses the concerns of many liver surgeons about detaching and shedding cancer cells into the hepatic veins during the initial mobilization of the right lobe,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, Iswanto Sucandy, MD, from the Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth, Tampa, and Allan Tsung, MD, from Ohio State University, Columbus.

“The medial rotation to get the right lobe out of its anatomical confinement is often mechanically rigorous (and potentially traumatic to the tumor and remaining parenchyma), but it is very helpful in facilitating later steps of the operation,” they wrote. “It seems intuitive and easy to extrapolate that this maneuver can increase the release of CTCs into the systemic circulation, thus leading to an inferior oncological outcome.”

However, this assumption appears to be unfounded in light of results from this latest study, they pointed out.

“The most likely reason for these findings is that surgical techniques for CLM resection play a minor role, compared with those of tumor biology and patient responses in affecting the metastatic cascade,” they suggested.
 

Tumor cell spread remains a concern

About 70% of patients experience hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence after conventional hepatectomy, noted the study authors, so the concern over tumor cell spread during surgical manipulation remains.

Although their study was limited by small sample size, the absence of bone marrow samples for eight patients, and early discontinuation of the study per protocol, the authors said the findings “do not support further efforts to reduce tumor cell dissemination and subsequent disease recurrence by minimizing intraoperative manipulation.”

The findings should “rather prompt strategies to prevent spontaneous tumor cell dissemination and to target minimal residual disease after potentially curative resection.”

The editorialists added that the results of this study provide further insights and points for discussion regarding the benefits of minimally invasive approaches to liver surgery, which have been shown in several studies to decrease dissemination of CTCs by reducing surgical manipulation of tumors.

The study was supported by the department of surgery at the University of Heidelberg. The study authors and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM), surgical resection is the only hope for cure, but conventional hepatectomy involves mechanical manipulation that could release tumor cells into the bloodstream and result in further spread.

To minimize this risk, an alternative method was introduced in 1992 – an anterior approach for open right hepatectomies, which involves less manipulation. However, a trial that compared the two surgical approaches showed no difference between the two in reducing intraoperative tumor cell dissemination.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were detected in 6 of 22 patients (27%) in the anterior hepatectomy group and in 5 of 21 (24%) patients in the conventional hepatectomy group, the study authors reported.

Operating time was longer with the anterior approach (221 vs. 171 minutes), but intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar for the two approaches. Median overall and disease-free survival were also similar (55 vs. 73 months and 48 vs. 40 months, respectively), as were recurrence patterns, reported Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, and colleagues. Dr. Rahbari is affiliated with the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

The findings were published online Nov. 4, 2020, in JAMA Surgery.

This “timely” trial “addresses the concerns of many liver surgeons about detaching and shedding cancer cells into the hepatic veins during the initial mobilization of the right lobe,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, Iswanto Sucandy, MD, from the Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth, Tampa, and Allan Tsung, MD, from Ohio State University, Columbus.

“The medial rotation to get the right lobe out of its anatomical confinement is often mechanically rigorous (and potentially traumatic to the tumor and remaining parenchyma), but it is very helpful in facilitating later steps of the operation,” they wrote. “It seems intuitive and easy to extrapolate that this maneuver can increase the release of CTCs into the systemic circulation, thus leading to an inferior oncological outcome.”

However, this assumption appears to be unfounded in light of results from this latest study, they pointed out.

“The most likely reason for these findings is that surgical techniques for CLM resection play a minor role, compared with those of tumor biology and patient responses in affecting the metastatic cascade,” they suggested.
 

Tumor cell spread remains a concern

About 70% of patients experience hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence after conventional hepatectomy, noted the study authors, so the concern over tumor cell spread during surgical manipulation remains.

Although their study was limited by small sample size, the absence of bone marrow samples for eight patients, and early discontinuation of the study per protocol, the authors said the findings “do not support further efforts to reduce tumor cell dissemination and subsequent disease recurrence by minimizing intraoperative manipulation.”

The findings should “rather prompt strategies to prevent spontaneous tumor cell dissemination and to target minimal residual disease after potentially curative resection.”

The editorialists added that the results of this study provide further insights and points for discussion regarding the benefits of minimally invasive approaches to liver surgery, which have been shown in several studies to decrease dissemination of CTCs by reducing surgical manipulation of tumors.

The study was supported by the department of surgery at the University of Heidelberg. The study authors and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM), surgical resection is the only hope for cure, but conventional hepatectomy involves mechanical manipulation that could release tumor cells into the bloodstream and result in further spread.

To minimize this risk, an alternative method was introduced in 1992 – an anterior approach for open right hepatectomies, which involves less manipulation. However, a trial that compared the two surgical approaches showed no difference between the two in reducing intraoperative tumor cell dissemination.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were detected in 6 of 22 patients (27%) in the anterior hepatectomy group and in 5 of 21 (24%) patients in the conventional hepatectomy group, the study authors reported.

Operating time was longer with the anterior approach (221 vs. 171 minutes), but intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar for the two approaches. Median overall and disease-free survival were also similar (55 vs. 73 months and 48 vs. 40 months, respectively), as were recurrence patterns, reported Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, and colleagues. Dr. Rahbari is affiliated with the University of Heidelberg (Germany).

The findings were published online Nov. 4, 2020, in JAMA Surgery.

This “timely” trial “addresses the concerns of many liver surgeons about detaching and shedding cancer cells into the hepatic veins during the initial mobilization of the right lobe,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, Iswanto Sucandy, MD, from the Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth, Tampa, and Allan Tsung, MD, from Ohio State University, Columbus.

“The medial rotation to get the right lobe out of its anatomical confinement is often mechanically rigorous (and potentially traumatic to the tumor and remaining parenchyma), but it is very helpful in facilitating later steps of the operation,” they wrote. “It seems intuitive and easy to extrapolate that this maneuver can increase the release of CTCs into the systemic circulation, thus leading to an inferior oncological outcome.”

However, this assumption appears to be unfounded in light of results from this latest study, they pointed out.

“The most likely reason for these findings is that surgical techniques for CLM resection play a minor role, compared with those of tumor biology and patient responses in affecting the metastatic cascade,” they suggested.
 

Tumor cell spread remains a concern

About 70% of patients experience hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence after conventional hepatectomy, noted the study authors, so the concern over tumor cell spread during surgical manipulation remains.

Although their study was limited by small sample size, the absence of bone marrow samples for eight patients, and early discontinuation of the study per protocol, the authors said the findings “do not support further efforts to reduce tumor cell dissemination and subsequent disease recurrence by minimizing intraoperative manipulation.”

The findings should “rather prompt strategies to prevent spontaneous tumor cell dissemination and to target minimal residual disease after potentially curative resection.”

The editorialists added that the results of this study provide further insights and points for discussion regarding the benefits of minimally invasive approaches to liver surgery, which have been shown in several studies to decrease dissemination of CTCs by reducing surgical manipulation of tumors.

The study was supported by the department of surgery at the University of Heidelberg. The study authors and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 45-year-old woman with no chronic medical illness presents to your office for her annual physical examination. After a medical assistant (MA) applies an automatic BP cuff to the patient’s left arm, the BP reading is 155/92 mm Hg. The MA then rechecks the BP, and this time it reads 160/98 mm Hg. The MA performs a manual BP reading, which is 158/90 mm Hg (left arm) and 162/100 mm Hg (right arm). The patient denies any headache, visual changes, chest pain, or difficulty breathing and tells the MA that her BP is always high during a doctor visit. You are wondering if she has hypertension or if is this the white-coat effect.

Depending on the definition of hypertension, its prevalence among US adults 18 years or older varies from 46%, based on the American College of Cardiology guideline (≥ 130/80 mm Hg), to 29%, based on the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) guideline (≥ 140/90 mm Hg for adults ages 18–59 years and ≥ 150/90 mm Hg for adults ≥ 60 years without diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease).^2,3

According to JNC-8, the prevalence is similar among men (30.2%) and women (27.7%) and increases with age: 18 to 39 years, 7.5%; 40 to 59 years, 33.2%; and ≥ 60 years, 63.1%.^3,4 When ranked by risk-attributable ­disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), high systolic blood pressure (SBP) is the leading risk factor, accounting for 10.4 million deaths and 218 million DALYs globally in 2017.⁵ National medical costs associated with hypertension are estimated to account for about $131 billion in annual health care expenditures, averaged over 12 years from 2003 to 2014.⁶

When performed correctly, the auscultatory method using a mercury sphygmomanometer correlates well with simultaneous intra-arterial BP and was considered the gold standard for office-based measurements for many years.^7,8 However, significant ­observer-related differences in auditory acuity and terminal digit rounding are sources of inaccurate measurement. White-coat hypertension cannot be detected with this method—another significant limitation. The inaccuracy of office-based BP readings leads to concerns about hypertension being inappropriately diagnosed in patients or delays in diagnosis occurring.⁹

A proposed solution to this problem is measurement using an oscillometric sphygmomanometer. This device uses a pressure transducer to assess the oscillations of pressure in a cuff during gradual deflation; it provides accurate BP measurements when fully automated and programmed to complete several BP measurements at appropriate intervals while the patient rests alone in a quiet room.¹⁰

The accuracy of this new method was tested in a 2009 cohort study of 309 patients referred to an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring unit at an academic hospital for diagnosis or management of hypertension.¹¹ The study compared mean awake ABP, which continuously measures patients’ BP throughout the day, manual sphygmomanometer readings taken by the patient’s own physician, and an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) device called BpTRU (an automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer) while the patient rested alone in the exam room.¹¹ The awake ABP is a federally approved standard for the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension.¹² In this study, the white-coat response was negated with the use of the automated BpTRU device.¹¹

A 2019 meta-analysis that included 26 studies (N = 7116) comparing AOBP with other BP measurement techniques concluded that the use of automated oscillometric BP readings is more accurate for diagnosing hypertension and assists in negating the white-coat hypertension effect.⁹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

STUDY SUMMARY

Automated office BP devices are just as accurate as more expensive ABP studies

This systematic review and meta-analysis (N = 9279; 23 cross-sectional, 1 cohort, and 7 randomized controlled trials [N = 1304], of which 17 studies overlapped with those included in the previously mentioned meta-analysis⁹) compared SBP and diastolic blood pressure measured by an oscillometric AOBP device to awake or daytime ABP (continuously monitoring BP while awake, used as a standard for BP measurement), routine manual office BP, or research BP measurements.

The study also explored the protocol by which the best AOBP results could be obtained. For AOBP measurement, the included trials had no more than 2 minutes of elapsed time between individual AOBP measurements and had at least 3 AOBP readings to calculate the mean.

Compared with AOBP, in samples with an SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg, SBP readings were significantly higher for both routine office visits (mean difference [MD] = 14.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 11.8–17.2) and research (MD = 7 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.9–9.1). However, no difference was found between AOBP and awake ambulatory SBP values (MD = 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.1 to 1.7). In all cases, heterogeneity of the included studies was high (I² was > 75%). There was no evidence of small-study effect or publication bias, and little evidence of potential financial bias. The most accurate methodology for AOBP measurements included multiple BP readings and the patient resting alone in a quiet location.

This meta-analysis supports the use of an automated office blood pressure device to accurately screen for hypertension and avoid the white-coat effect.

Although there was statistical heterogeneity, the results were confirmed in the authors’ analysis of studies with high methodologic quality. In addition, researchers performed multiple meta-regression analyses to evaluate the statistical heterogeneity and found no significant differences based on age, body mass index, number of treated patients, gender, measurement interval, or added rest before AOBP.

WHAT'S NEW

Study confirms unattended, automated office BP as preferred technique

This is the second recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to directly compare AOBP with other common techniques of BP measurement in screening for and diagnosing hypertension in the clinical setting. ⁹

Continue to: This meta-analysis...

This meta-analysis emphasized the technique (see below) by which to obtain the best AOBP vs ABP results, whereas the other ­meta-analysis⁹ did not. Thus the study provides practice-based settings with the information they need to more closely replicate the results of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Also, the equivalency comparison with the more expensive and intrusive ABP monitoring may save money, improve patient adherence, and increase patient satisfaction. Given these advantages, along with its demonstrated accuracy, AOBP should be adopted in routine clinical practice to screen patients for hypertension.

CAVEATS

Close adherence to measurementprocedures is a necessity

Effective use of AOBP in clinical practice requires close adherence to the AOBP study procedures described in this meta-analysis. These include taking multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, recorded with a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adjusting workflows, addressing cost

Physicians may be reluctant to adopt this technique because they may not be convinced of its advantages compared with the traditional methods of recording BP and because of difficulties with implementing new rooming workflows.¹² The cost of AOBP devices used in this study (Omron 907 and BpTRU; BpTRU ceased operations in 2017) were not disclosed, which may be a hindrance, as devices may cost $1000 or more.

Effective use of automated office blood pressure requires that one take multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

An online search for “automated oscillometric BP monitor” by one of the PURL authors (RCM) found oscillometric AOBP devices ranging from $150 to > $1000, depending on whether the device was medical grade; a search for “Omron 907” found devices for ≤ $599 on multiple sites. However, none of the lower-cost devices indicated the ability to take multiple, unattended BP readings.

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 45-year-old woman with no chronic medical illness presents to your office for her annual physical examination. After a medical assistant (MA) applies an automatic BP cuff to the patient’s left arm, the BP reading is 155/92 mm Hg. The MA then rechecks the BP, and this time it reads 160/98 mm Hg. The MA performs a manual BP reading, which is 158/90 mm Hg (left arm) and 162/100 mm Hg (right arm). The patient denies any headache, visual changes, chest pain, or difficulty breathing and tells the MA that her BP is always high during a doctor visit. You are wondering if she has hypertension or if is this the white-coat effect.

Depending on the definition of hypertension, its prevalence among US adults 18 years or older varies from 46%, based on the American College of Cardiology guideline (≥ 130/80 mm Hg), to 29%, based on the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) guideline (≥ 140/90 mm Hg for adults ages 18–59 years and ≥ 150/90 mm Hg for adults ≥ 60 years without diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease).^2,3

According to JNC-8, the prevalence is similar among men (30.2%) and women (27.7%) and increases with age: 18 to 39 years, 7.5%; 40 to 59 years, 33.2%; and ≥ 60 years, 63.1%.^3,4 When ranked by risk-attributable ­disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), high systolic blood pressure (SBP) is the leading risk factor, accounting for 10.4 million deaths and 218 million DALYs globally in 2017.⁵ National medical costs associated with hypertension are estimated to account for about $131 billion in annual health care expenditures, averaged over 12 years from 2003 to 2014.⁶

When performed correctly, the auscultatory method using a mercury sphygmomanometer correlates well with simultaneous intra-arterial BP and was considered the gold standard for office-based measurements for many years.^7,8 However, significant ­observer-related differences in auditory acuity and terminal digit rounding are sources of inaccurate measurement. White-coat hypertension cannot be detected with this method—another significant limitation. The inaccuracy of office-based BP readings leads to concerns about hypertension being inappropriately diagnosed in patients or delays in diagnosis occurring.⁹

A proposed solution to this problem is measurement using an oscillometric sphygmomanometer. This device uses a pressure transducer to assess the oscillations of pressure in a cuff during gradual deflation; it provides accurate BP measurements when fully automated and programmed to complete several BP measurements at appropriate intervals while the patient rests alone in a quiet room.¹⁰

The accuracy of this new method was tested in a 2009 cohort study of 309 patients referred to an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring unit at an academic hospital for diagnosis or management of hypertension.¹¹ The study compared mean awake ABP, which continuously measures patients’ BP throughout the day, manual sphygmomanometer readings taken by the patient’s own physician, and an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) device called BpTRU (an automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer) while the patient rested alone in the exam room.¹¹ The awake ABP is a federally approved standard for the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension.¹² In this study, the white-coat response was negated with the use of the automated BpTRU device.¹¹

A 2019 meta-analysis that included 26 studies (N = 7116) comparing AOBP with other BP measurement techniques concluded that the use of automated oscillometric BP readings is more accurate for diagnosing hypertension and assists in negating the white-coat hypertension effect.⁹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

STUDY SUMMARY

Automated office BP devices are just as accurate as more expensive ABP studies

This systematic review and meta-analysis (N = 9279; 23 cross-sectional, 1 cohort, and 7 randomized controlled trials [N = 1304], of which 17 studies overlapped with those included in the previously mentioned meta-analysis⁹) compared SBP and diastolic blood pressure measured by an oscillometric AOBP device to awake or daytime ABP (continuously monitoring BP while awake, used as a standard for BP measurement), routine manual office BP, or research BP measurements.

The study also explored the protocol by which the best AOBP results could be obtained. For AOBP measurement, the included trials had no more than 2 minutes of elapsed time between individual AOBP measurements and had at least 3 AOBP readings to calculate the mean.

Compared with AOBP, in samples with an SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg, SBP readings were significantly higher for both routine office visits (mean difference [MD] = 14.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 11.8–17.2) and research (MD = 7 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.9–9.1). However, no difference was found between AOBP and awake ambulatory SBP values (MD = 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.1 to 1.7). In all cases, heterogeneity of the included studies was high (I² was > 75%). There was no evidence of small-study effect or publication bias, and little evidence of potential financial bias. The most accurate methodology for AOBP measurements included multiple BP readings and the patient resting alone in a quiet location.

This meta-analysis supports the use of an automated office blood pressure device to accurately screen for hypertension and avoid the white-coat effect.

Although there was statistical heterogeneity, the results were confirmed in the authors’ analysis of studies with high methodologic quality. In addition, researchers performed multiple meta-regression analyses to evaluate the statistical heterogeneity and found no significant differences based on age, body mass index, number of treated patients, gender, measurement interval, or added rest before AOBP.

WHAT'S NEW

Study confirms unattended, automated office BP as preferred technique

This is the second recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to directly compare AOBP with other common techniques of BP measurement in screening for and diagnosing hypertension in the clinical setting. ⁹

Continue to: This meta-analysis...

This meta-analysis emphasized the technique (see below) by which to obtain the best AOBP vs ABP results, whereas the other ­meta-analysis⁹ did not. Thus the study provides practice-based settings with the information they need to more closely replicate the results of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Also, the equivalency comparison with the more expensive and intrusive ABP monitoring may save money, improve patient adherence, and increase patient satisfaction. Given these advantages, along with its demonstrated accuracy, AOBP should be adopted in routine clinical practice to screen patients for hypertension.

CAVEATS

Close adherence to measurementprocedures is a necessity

Effective use of AOBP in clinical practice requires close adherence to the AOBP study procedures described in this meta-analysis. These include taking multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, recorded with a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adjusting workflows, addressing cost

Physicians may be reluctant to adopt this technique because they may not be convinced of its advantages compared with the traditional methods of recording BP and because of difficulties with implementing new rooming workflows.¹² The cost of AOBP devices used in this study (Omron 907 and BpTRU; BpTRU ceased operations in 2017) were not disclosed, which may be a hindrance, as devices may cost $1000 or more.

Effective use of automated office blood pressure requires that one take multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

An online search for “automated oscillometric BP monitor” by one of the PURL authors (RCM) found oscillometric AOBP devices ranging from $150 to > $1000, depending on whether the device was medical grade; a search for “Omron 907” found devices for ≤ $599 on multiple sites. However, none of the lower-cost devices indicated the ability to take multiple, unattended BP readings.

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 45-year-old woman with no chronic medical illness presents to your office for her annual physical examination. After a medical assistant (MA) applies an automatic BP cuff to the patient’s left arm, the BP reading is 155/92 mm Hg. The MA then rechecks the BP, and this time it reads 160/98 mm Hg. The MA performs a manual BP reading, which is 158/90 mm Hg (left arm) and 162/100 mm Hg (right arm). The patient denies any headache, visual changes, chest pain, or difficulty breathing and tells the MA that her BP is always high during a doctor visit. You are wondering if she has hypertension or if is this the white-coat effect.

Depending on the definition of hypertension, its prevalence among US adults 18 years or older varies from 46%, based on the American College of Cardiology guideline (≥ 130/80 mm Hg), to 29%, based on the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) guideline (≥ 140/90 mm Hg for adults ages 18–59 years and ≥ 150/90 mm Hg for adults ≥ 60 years without diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease).^2,3

According to JNC-8, the prevalence is similar among men (30.2%) and women (27.7%) and increases with age: 18 to 39 years, 7.5%; 40 to 59 years, 33.2%; and ≥ 60 years, 63.1%.^3,4 When ranked by risk-attributable ­disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), high systolic blood pressure (SBP) is the leading risk factor, accounting for 10.4 million deaths and 218 million DALYs globally in 2017.⁵ National medical costs associated with hypertension are estimated to account for about $131 billion in annual health care expenditures, averaged over 12 years from 2003 to 2014.⁶

When performed correctly, the auscultatory method using a mercury sphygmomanometer correlates well with simultaneous intra-arterial BP and was considered the gold standard for office-based measurements for many years.^7,8 However, significant ­observer-related differences in auditory acuity and terminal digit rounding are sources of inaccurate measurement. White-coat hypertension cannot be detected with this method—another significant limitation. The inaccuracy of office-based BP readings leads to concerns about hypertension being inappropriately diagnosed in patients or delays in diagnosis occurring.⁹

A proposed solution to this problem is measurement using an oscillometric sphygmomanometer. This device uses a pressure transducer to assess the oscillations of pressure in a cuff during gradual deflation; it provides accurate BP measurements when fully automated and programmed to complete several BP measurements at appropriate intervals while the patient rests alone in a quiet room.¹⁰

The accuracy of this new method was tested in a 2009 cohort study of 309 patients referred to an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring unit at an academic hospital for diagnosis or management of hypertension.¹¹ The study compared mean awake ABP, which continuously measures patients’ BP throughout the day, manual sphygmomanometer readings taken by the patient’s own physician, and an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) device called BpTRU (an automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer) while the patient rested alone in the exam room.¹¹ The awake ABP is a federally approved standard for the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension.¹² In this study, the white-coat response was negated with the use of the automated BpTRU device.¹¹

A 2019 meta-analysis that included 26 studies (N = 7116) comparing AOBP with other BP measurement techniques concluded that the use of automated oscillometric BP readings is more accurate for diagnosing hypertension and assists in negating the white-coat hypertension effect.⁹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

STUDY SUMMARY

Automated office BP devices are just as accurate as more expensive ABP studies

This systematic review and meta-analysis (N = 9279; 23 cross-sectional, 1 cohort, and 7 randomized controlled trials [N = 1304], of which 17 studies overlapped with those included in the previously mentioned meta-analysis⁹) compared SBP and diastolic blood pressure measured by an oscillometric AOBP device to awake or daytime ABP (continuously monitoring BP while awake, used as a standard for BP measurement), routine manual office BP, or research BP measurements.

The study also explored the protocol by which the best AOBP results could be obtained. For AOBP measurement, the included trials had no more than 2 minutes of elapsed time between individual AOBP measurements and had at least 3 AOBP readings to calculate the mean.

Compared with AOBP, in samples with an SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg, SBP readings were significantly higher for both routine office visits (mean difference [MD] = 14.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 11.8–17.2) and research (MD = 7 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.9–9.1). However, no difference was found between AOBP and awake ambulatory SBP values (MD = 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.1 to 1.7). In all cases, heterogeneity of the included studies was high (I² was > 75%). There was no evidence of small-study effect or publication bias, and little evidence of potential financial bias. The most accurate methodology for AOBP measurements included multiple BP readings and the patient resting alone in a quiet location.

This meta-analysis supports the use of an automated office blood pressure device to accurately screen for hypertension and avoid the white-coat effect.

Although there was statistical heterogeneity, the results were confirmed in the authors’ analysis of studies with high methodologic quality. In addition, researchers performed multiple meta-regression analyses to evaluate the statistical heterogeneity and found no significant differences based on age, body mass index, number of treated patients, gender, measurement interval, or added rest before AOBP.

WHAT'S NEW

Study confirms unattended, automated office BP as preferred technique

This is the second recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to directly compare AOBP with other common techniques of BP measurement in screening for and diagnosing hypertension in the clinical setting. ⁹

Continue to: This meta-analysis...

This meta-analysis emphasized the technique (see below) by which to obtain the best AOBP vs ABP results, whereas the other ­meta-analysis⁹ did not. Thus the study provides practice-based settings with the information they need to more closely replicate the results of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Also, the equivalency comparison with the more expensive and intrusive ABP monitoring may save money, improve patient adherence, and increase patient satisfaction. Given these advantages, along with its demonstrated accuracy, AOBP should be adopted in routine clinical practice to screen patients for hypertension.

CAVEATS

Close adherence to measurementprocedures is a necessity

Effective use of AOBP in clinical practice requires close adherence to the AOBP study procedures described in this meta-analysis. These include taking multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, recorded with a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Adjusting workflows, addressing cost

Physicians may be reluctant to adopt this technique because they may not be convinced of its advantages compared with the traditional methods of recording BP and because of difficulties with implementing new rooming workflows.¹² The cost of AOBP devices used in this study (Omron 907 and BpTRU; BpTRU ceased operations in 2017) were not disclosed, which may be a hindrance, as devices may cost $1000 or more.

Effective use of automated office blood pressure requires that one take multiple (at least 3) BP readings, 1 to 2 minutes apart, while the patient rests alone in a quiet place.

An online search for “automated oscillometric BP monitor” by one of the PURL authors (RCM) found oscillometric AOBP devices ranging from $150 to > $1000, depending on whether the device was medical grade; a search for “Omron 907” found devices for ≤ $599 on multiple sites. However, none of the lower-cost devices indicated the ability to take multiple, unattended BP readings.

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.

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.

Since the last Practice Alert update on recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force,¹ the Task Force has completed work on 12 topics (TABLE 1).^2-17 Five of these topics have been discussed in JFP audio recordings, and the links are provided in TABLE 1.

This latest Task Force endeavor resulted in 18 recommendations (TABLE 2), all of which reaffirm previous recommendations on these topics and expand the scope of 2. There were 2 “A” recommendations, 6 “B” recommendations, 2 “D” recommendations, and 8 “I” statements, indicating that there was insufficient evidence to assess effectiveness or harms. The willingness to make “I” statements when there is little or no evidence on the intervention being assessed distinguishes the USPSTF from other clinical guideline committees.

Screening for carotid artery stenosis

One of the “D” recommendations this past year reaffirms the prior recommendation against screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic adults—ie, those without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or neurologic signs or symptoms that might be caused by carotid artery stenosis.² The screening tests the Task Force researched included carotid duplex ultrasonography (DUS), magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography. The Task Force did not look at the value of auscultation for carotid bruits because it has been proven to be inaccurate and they do not consider it to be a useful screening tool. 

The Task Force based its “D” recommendation on a lack of evidence for any benefit in detecting asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, and on evidence that screening can lead to harms through false-positive tests and potential complications from carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery angioplasty and stenting. In its clinical considerations, the Task Force emphasized the primary prevention of atherosclerotic disease by focusing on the following actions:

• screening for high blood pressure in adults
• encouraging tobacco smoking cessation in adults
• promoting a healthy diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors
• recommending aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer
• advising statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults ages 45 to 75 years who have 1 or more risk factors (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, smoking) and those with a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or greater.

This “D” recommendation differs from recommendations made by other professional organizations, some of which recommend testing with DUS for asymptomatic patients with a carotid bruit, and others that recommend DUS screening in patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and in those with known peripheral artery disease or other cardiovascular disease.^18,19

Smoking cessation in adults

Smoking tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing about 480,000 deaths annually.³ Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications including miscarriage, congenital anomalies, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption.

The Task Force published recommendations earlier this year advising all clinicians to ask all adult patients about tobacco use; and, for those who smoke, to provide (or refer them to) smoking cessation behavioral therapy. The Task Force also recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults. (There is a lack of information to assess the harms and benefits of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.)

Continue to: FDA-approved medications...

The Task Force recommends prescribing pharmacotherapy approved by the FDA for smoking cessation for nonpregnant adults.

FDA-approved medications for treating tobacco smoking dependence are nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion hydrochloride, and varenicline.³ NRT is available in transdermal patches, lozenges, gum, inhalers, and nasal sprays.

In addition, the Task Force indicates that there is insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes when used as a method of achieving smoking cessation: “Few randomized trials have evaluated the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to increase tobacco smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults, and no trials have evaluated e-­cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons.”⁴

Hepatitis B infection screening

The Task Force reaffirmed a previous recommendation to screen for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection only in adults who are at high risk,⁵ rather than universal screening that it recommends for hepatitis C virus infection (HCV).⁷ (See: https://bit.ly/3tt064Q). The Task Force has a separate recommendation to screen all pregnant women for hepatitis B at the first prenatal visit.⁶

Those at high risk for hepatitis B who should be screened include individuals born in countries or regions of the world with a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) prevalence ≥ 2% and individuals born in the United States who have not received HBV vaccine and whose parents were born in regions with an HBsAg prevalence ≥ 8%.⁵ (A table listing countries with HBsAg ≥ 8%—as well as those in lower prevalence categories—is included with the recommendation.⁵)

Screening individuals at high risk for HBV infection is important because nearly two-thirds of those infected are unaware of their condition.

HBV screening should also be offered to other high-risk groups that have a prevalence of positive HBsAg ≥ 2%: those who have injected drugs in the past or are currently injecting drugs; men who have sex with men; individuals with HIV; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of people known to be HBsAg positive.⁵

Continue to: It is estimated that...

It is estimated that > 860,000 people in the United States have chronic HBV infection and that close to two-thirds of them are unaware of their infection.⁵ The screening test for HBV is highly accurate; sensitivity and specificity are both > 98%.⁵ While there is no direct evidence that screening, detecting, and treating asymptomatic HBV infection reduces morbidity and mortality, the Task Force felt that the evidence for improvement in multiple outcomes in those with HBV when treated with antiviral regimens was sufficient to support the recommendation.

Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy

While bacterial vaginosis (BV) is associated with a two-fold risk of preterm delivery, treating BV during pregnancy does not seem to reduce this risk, indicating that some other variable is involved.⁸ In addition, studies that looked at screening for, and treatment of, ­asymptomatic BV in pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (defined primarily as those with a previous preterm delivery) have shown inconsistent results. There is the potential for harm in treating BV in pregnancy, chiefly involving gastrointestinal upset caused by metronidazole or clindamycin.

Given that there are no benefits—and some harms—resulting from treatment, the Task Force recommends against screening for BV in non-high-risk pregnant women. A lack of sufficient information to assess any potential benefits to screening in high-risk pregnancies led the Task Force to an “I” statement on this question.⁸

Behavioral counseling on healthy diet, exercise for adults with CV risks

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death in the United States. The major risk factors for CVD, which can be modified, are high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, obesity or overweight, and lack of physical activity.

The Task Force has previously recommended intensive behavioral interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity in those who are overweight/obese and in those with abnormal blood glucose levels,⁹ and has addressed smoking prevention and cessation.⁴ This new recommendation applies to those with other CVD risks such as high blood pressure and/or hyperlipidemia and those with an estimated 10-year CVD risk of ≥ 7.5%.¹⁰

Continue to: Behavioral interventions...

Behavioral interventions included in the Task Force analysis employed a median of 12 contacts and an estimated 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months.¹⁰ Most interventions involved motivational interviewing and instruction on behavioral change methods. These interventions can be provided by primary care clinicians, as well as a wide range of other trained professionals. The Affordable Care Act dictates that all “A” and “B” recommendations must be provided by commercial health plans at no out-of-pocket expense for the patient.

Nutritional advice should include reductions in saturated fats, salt, and sugars and increases in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet are often recommended.¹⁰ Physical activity counseling should advocate for 90 to 180 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous activity.

This new recommendation, along with the previous ones pertaining to behavioral interventions for lifestyle changes, make it clear that intensive interventions are needed to achieve meaningful change. Simple advice from a clinician will have little to no effect.

Task Force reviews evidence on HTN, smoking cessation in young people

In 2020 the Task Force completed reviews of evidence relevant to screening for high blood pressure¹¹ and intervening for tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents.¹² The Task Force concluded that the evidence is insufficient to make a judgment on screening for high blood pressure and for providing smoking cessation interventions. It did, however, reaffirm a previous recommendation to provide interventions to children and adolescents to prevent tobacco and e-cigarette use.

Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is discouraged due to a lack of evidence for benefit in detection, and on evidence that false-positives lead to harm from procedures such as endarterectomy.

The 2 “I” statements are in disagreement with recommendations of other professional organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Heart Association recommend routine screening for high blood pressure starting at age 3 years. And the AAP recommends screening teenagers for tobacco use and offering tobacco dependence treatment, referral, or both (including pharmacotherapy) when indicated. E-cigarettes are not recommended as a treatment for tobacco dependence.²⁰

Continue to: The difference between...

The difference between the methods used by the Task Force and other guideline-­producing organizations becomes apparent when it comes to recommendations pertaining to children and adolescents, for whom long-term outcome-oriented studies on prevention issues are rare. The Task Force is unwilling to make recommendations when evidence does not exist. The AAP often makes recommendations based on expert opinion consensus in such situations. One notable part of each Task Force recommendation statement is a discussion of what other organizations recommend on the same topic so that these differences can be openly described.

Better Task Force funding could expand topic coverage

It is worth revisiting 2 issues that were pointed out in last year’s USPSTF summary in this column.¹ First, the Task Force methods are robust and evidence based, and recommendations therefore are rarely changed once they are made at an “A”, “B”, or “D” level. Second, Task Force resources are finite, and thus, the group is currently unable to update previous recommendations with greater frequency or to consider many new topics. In the past 2 years, the Task Force has developed recommendations on only 2 completely new topics. Hopefully, its budget can be expanded so that new topics can be added in the future.

I applaud the joint statement by the editors of the family medicine journals to commit to the eradication of systemic racism in medicine ( J Fam Pract . 2021;70:3 -4). These are crucial times in our history, where proactive change is necessary. The leadership they have shown is important.

Even in systems where insurance status is the same, there are documented differences in care.

No one wants health disparities. So, to eliminate them, we need to know what they are and where they came from. In my presentations on health disparities to students, residents, and health care providers, I use 3 definitions of health disparities. My definitions are slightly different from those proposed in the seminal report, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, from the National Academy of Medicine (then Institute of Medicine).¹ I like to think that my definitions elicit the information needed to guide change.

The first definition focuses on health statistics. When there are different outcomes for different demographic groups for the same disease, that is a disparity. This could be Black vs white, male vs female, or 1 zip code vs another.² We owe ourselves an explanation for these differences if we are to be able to propose solutions.

Second, there are disparities in the provision of health care. If there are 2 individuals who present with the exact same symptoms, we need to ask ourselves why they would be treated differently. Even in systems where insurance status is the same, there are documented differences in care. A well-studied example of this is pain. In 1 such study, a ­meta-analysis showed that Blacks were less likely than whites to receive medication for acute pain in the emergency department (OR = 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43-0.83]).³ Other examples of differences by race include cardiac ­services,⁴ lung cancer screening,⁵ and stroke ­interventions.⁶ 

The third definition of health disparities involves differences in health-seeking behavior. This is not to blame the “victim,” but to understand the reason why the difference exists so that adequate interventions can be designed to improve outcomes. Traditionally, the concept of access referenced whether or not the patient had health insurance. But the provision of health insurance is insufficient to explain issues of access.⁷

Extrinsic and intrinsic factors at work. Factors related to insurance are an example of the extrinsic factors related to access. However, there are intrinsic factors related to access, most of which involve health literacy. We must ask ourselves: What are the best practices to educate patients to get the care they need? I will take this 1 step further; it is the duty of all health care professionals to improve health literacy 1 patient, 1 community at a time.

The next point that I make in my presentations on health disparities is that if you control for socioeconomic status, some of the health disparities go away. However, they rarely disappear. We measure socioeconomic status in a variety of ways: education, insurance status, income, and wealth. And as would be expected, these variables are usually correlated. We also know that these variables are not distributed equally by race. This is by design. This has been intentional. This has been, in many cases, our country’s policy. This is the result of systemic racism. 

Continue to: It is necessary...

It is necessary for us to be willing to accept the toxicity of racism. This we can assess in 2 major ways. First, if we apply the Koch postulates or the Bradford Hill criteria for causation to racism, we can assess the degree to which racism is an explanation for health disparities. These principles offer methods for determining the relationship between risk and outcome.

Second, when we analyze the historical antecedents of health disparities, we find that racism is directly responsible not only for the current toxicity that Black people face today, but for the socioeconomic disparities that continue to exist. Let me give just a few examples. 

1. The Farm Security Administration was created in 1937 to avoid the collapse of the farming industry. As a compromise to southern legislators, a model was approved to allow local administration of support to farmers that essentially condoned the discrimination that had been occurring and would continue to occur—especially in the South.
2. The National Housing Act of 1934 was created to provide stability to the banking industry at a time of national crisis. It subsidized a massive building program, and many of the units had restrictive covenants that prevented the sale to Blacks. It also codified redlining that prevented insured mortgages from being provided to Black communities.
3. The Social Security Act of 1935 was created to provide benefits for the elderly and disabled. All workers were included except domestic workers and farm workers—the majority of whom were Black. This was another compromise that was made with southern congressman to get this act passed.  
4. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (also known as the GI Bill) was passed to support veterans returning from World War II. Two major functions of the bill were to support educational opportunities for veterans and their families and to support the purchase of homes. From 1945 to 1954, the US added 13 million new homes. In 1946 and 1947, the Veterans Administration financed 40% of all single-­family houses in the United States. Additionally, there were educational benefits for veterans to go to college or to learn a trade. These provisions, education, and housing were not equally available to Blacks. Columbia University professor Ira Katznelson called this act and others “affirmative action for whites.” ⁸

In 2019, the median income in white households was $76,057 and in Black households it was $46,073. ⁹ So, when we look at disparities of income, we must acknowledge this difference within the context of the current environment and the historical conditions that created these disparities. If we go 1 step further and look at disparities of wealth, we find that in 2019, the median wealth for white families was $188,200 and the median wealth for Black families was $24,100. ¹⁰

When one considers that a major contributor of wealth is home ownership, these differences seem logical—particularly related to points 1, 2, and 4 that I've just described. These economic disparities would not be as great today if the 4 examples given here (not to mention numerous other examples) had been administered equitably. The same applies to disparities in housing, employment, and education. Systemic racism is the causative agent. Systemic racism must be neutralized if we are to obtain anything close to health equity. ¹¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recently taken new steps to recognize the role of racism in health. ¹² The CDC plans to use “science to investigate and better understand the intersection of racism and health, and then to take action.” ¹³ 

It is time for the entire nation to recognize the links between racism and health outcomes and examine how we can design, implement, and evaluate interventions that will permanently correct these inequities.

I applaud the joint statement by the editors of the family medicine journals to commit to the eradication of systemic racism in medicine ( J Fam Pract . 2021;70:3 -4). These are crucial times in our history, where proactive change is necessary. The leadership they have shown is important.

Even in systems where insurance status is the same, there are documented differences in care.

No one wants health disparities. So, to eliminate them, we need to know what they are and where they came from. In my presentations on health disparities to students, residents, and health care providers, I use 3 definitions of health disparities. My definitions are slightly different from those proposed in the seminal report, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, from the National Academy of Medicine (then Institute of Medicine).¹ I like to think that my definitions elicit the information needed to guide change.

The first definition focuses on health statistics. When there are different outcomes for different demographic groups for the same disease, that is a disparity. This could be Black vs white, male vs female, or 1 zip code vs another.² We owe ourselves an explanation for these differences if we are to be able to propose solutions.

Second, there are disparities in the provision of health care. If there are 2 individuals who present with the exact same symptoms, we need to ask ourselves why they would be treated differently. Even in systems where insurance status is the same, there are documented differences in care. A well-studied example of this is pain. In 1 such study, a ­meta-analysis showed that Blacks were less likely than whites to receive medication for acute pain in the emergency department (OR = 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43-0.83]).³ Other examples of differences by race include cardiac ­services,⁴ lung cancer screening,⁵ and stroke ­interventions.⁶ 

The third definition of health disparities involves differences in health-seeking behavior. This is not to blame the “victim,” but to understand the reason why the difference exists so that adequate interventions can be designed to improve outcomes. Traditionally, the concept of access referenced whether or not the patient had health insurance. But the provision of health insurance is insufficient to explain issues of access.⁷

Extrinsic and intrinsic factors at work. Factors related to insurance are an example of the extrinsic factors related to access. However, there are intrinsic factors related to access, most of which involve health literacy. We must ask ourselves: What are the best practices to educate patients to get the care they need? I will take this 1 step further; it is the duty of all health care professionals to improve health literacy 1 patient, 1 community at a time.

The next point that I make in my presentations on health disparities is that if you control for socioeconomic status, some of the health disparities go away. However, they rarely disappear. We measure socioeconomic status in a variety of ways: education, insurance status, income, and wealth. And as would be expected, these variables are usually correlated. We also know that these variables are not distributed equally by race. This is by design. This has been intentional. This has been, in many cases, our country’s policy. This is the result of systemic racism. 

Continue to: It is necessary...

It is necessary for us to be willing to accept the toxicity of racism. This we can assess in 2 major ways. First, if we apply the Koch postulates or the Bradford Hill criteria for causation to racism, we can assess the degree to which racism is an explanation for health disparities. These principles offer methods for determining the relationship between risk and outcome.

Second, when we analyze the historical antecedents of health disparities, we find that racism is directly responsible not only for the current toxicity that Black people face today, but for the socioeconomic disparities that continue to exist. Let me give just a few examples. 

1. The Farm Security Administration was created in 1937 to avoid the collapse of the farming industry. As a compromise to southern legislators, a model was approved to allow local administration of support to farmers that essentially condoned the discrimination that had been occurring and would continue to occur—especially in the South.
2. The National Housing Act of 1934 was created to provide stability to the banking industry at a time of national crisis. It subsidized a massive building program, and many of the units had restrictive covenants that prevented the sale to Blacks. It also codified redlining that prevented insured mortgages from being provided to Black communities.
3. The Social Security Act of 1935 was created to provide benefits for the elderly and disabled. All workers were included except domestic workers and farm workers—the majority of whom were Black. This was another compromise that was made with southern congressman to get this act passed.  
4. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (also known as the GI Bill) was passed to support veterans returning from World War II. Two major functions of the bill were to support educational opportunities for veterans and their families and to support the purchase of homes. From 1945 to 1954, the US added 13 million new homes. In 1946 and 1947, the Veterans Administration financed 40% of all single-­family houses in the United States. Additionally, there were educational benefits for veterans to go to college or to learn a trade. These provisions, education, and housing were not equally available to Blacks. Columbia University professor Ira Katznelson called this act and others “affirmative action for whites.” ⁸

In 2019, the median income in white households was $76,057 and in Black households it was $46,073. ⁹ So, when we look at disparities of income, we must acknowledge this difference within the context of the current environment and the historical conditions that created these disparities. If we go 1 step further and look at disparities of wealth, we find that in 2019, the median wealth for white families was $188,200 and the median wealth for Black families was $24,100. ¹⁰

When one considers that a major contributor of wealth is home ownership, these differences seem logical—particularly related to points 1, 2, and 4 that I've just described. These economic disparities would not be as great today if the 4 examples given here (not to mention numerous other examples) had been administered equitably. The same applies to disparities in housing, employment, and education. Systemic racism is the causative agent. Systemic racism must be neutralized if we are to obtain anything close to health equity. ¹¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recently taken new steps to recognize the role of racism in health. ¹² The CDC plans to use “science to investigate and better understand the intersection of racism and health, and then to take action.” ¹³ 

It is time for the entire nation to recognize the links between racism and health outcomes and examine how we can design, implement, and evaluate interventions that will permanently correct these inequities.

I applaud the joint statement by the editors of the family medicine journals to commit to the eradication of systemic racism in medicine ( J Fam Pract . 2021;70:3 -4). These are crucial times in our history, where proactive change is necessary. The leadership they have shown is important.

Even in systems where insurance status is the same, there are documented differences in care.

No one wants health disparities. So, to eliminate them, we need to know what they are and where they came from. In my presentations on health disparities to students, residents, and health care providers, I use 3 definitions of health disparities. My definitions are slightly different from those proposed in the seminal report, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, from the National Academy of Medicine (then Institute of Medicine).¹ I like to think that my definitions elicit the information needed to guide change.

The first definition focuses on health statistics. When there are different outcomes for different demographic groups for the same disease, that is a disparity. This could be Black vs white, male vs female, or 1 zip code vs another.² We owe ourselves an explanation for these differences if we are to be able to propose solutions.

Second, there are disparities in the provision of health care. If there are 2 individuals who present with the exact same symptoms, we need to ask ourselves why they would be treated differently. Even in systems where insurance status is the same, there are documented differences in care. A well-studied example of this is pain. In 1 such study, a ­meta-analysis showed that Blacks were less likely than whites to receive medication for acute pain in the emergency department (OR = 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43-0.83]).³ Other examples of differences by race include cardiac ­services,⁴ lung cancer screening,⁵ and stroke ­interventions.⁶ 

The third definition of health disparities involves differences in health-seeking behavior. This is not to blame the “victim,” but to understand the reason why the difference exists so that adequate interventions can be designed to improve outcomes. Traditionally, the concept of access referenced whether or not the patient had health insurance. But the provision of health insurance is insufficient to explain issues of access.⁷

Extrinsic and intrinsic factors at work. Factors related to insurance are an example of the extrinsic factors related to access. However, there are intrinsic factors related to access, most of which involve health literacy. We must ask ourselves: What are the best practices to educate patients to get the care they need? I will take this 1 step further; it is the duty of all health care professionals to improve health literacy 1 patient, 1 community at a time.

The next point that I make in my presentations on health disparities is that if you control for socioeconomic status, some of the health disparities go away. However, they rarely disappear. We measure socioeconomic status in a variety of ways: education, insurance status, income, and wealth. And as would be expected, these variables are usually correlated. We also know that these variables are not distributed equally by race. This is by design. This has been intentional. This has been, in many cases, our country’s policy. This is the result of systemic racism. 

Continue to: It is necessary...

It is necessary for us to be willing to accept the toxicity of racism. This we can assess in 2 major ways. First, if we apply the Koch postulates or the Bradford Hill criteria for causation to racism, we can assess the degree to which racism is an explanation for health disparities. These principles offer methods for determining the relationship between risk and outcome.

Second, when we analyze the historical antecedents of health disparities, we find that racism is directly responsible not only for the current toxicity that Black people face today, but for the socioeconomic disparities that continue to exist. Let me give just a few examples. 

1. The Farm Security Administration was created in 1937 to avoid the collapse of the farming industry. As a compromise to southern legislators, a model was approved to allow local administration of support to farmers that essentially condoned the discrimination that had been occurring and would continue to occur—especially in the South.
2. The National Housing Act of 1934 was created to provide stability to the banking industry at a time of national crisis. It subsidized a massive building program, and many of the units had restrictive covenants that prevented the sale to Blacks. It also codified redlining that prevented insured mortgages from being provided to Black communities.
3. The Social Security Act of 1935 was created to provide benefits for the elderly and disabled. All workers were included except domestic workers and farm workers—the majority of whom were Black. This was another compromise that was made with southern congressman to get this act passed.  
4. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (also known as the GI Bill) was passed to support veterans returning from World War II. Two major functions of the bill were to support educational opportunities for veterans and their families and to support the purchase of homes. From 1945 to 1954, the US added 13 million new homes. In 1946 and 1947, the Veterans Administration financed 40% of all single-­family houses in the United States. Additionally, there were educational benefits for veterans to go to college or to learn a trade. These provisions, education, and housing were not equally available to Blacks. Columbia University professor Ira Katznelson called this act and others “affirmative action for whites.” ⁸

In 2019, the median income in white households was $76,057 and in Black households it was $46,073. ⁹ So, when we look at disparities of income, we must acknowledge this difference within the context of the current environment and the historical conditions that created these disparities. If we go 1 step further and look at disparities of wealth, we find that in 2019, the median wealth for white families was $188,200 and the median wealth for Black families was $24,100. ¹⁰

When one considers that a major contributor of wealth is home ownership, these differences seem logical—particularly related to points 1, 2, and 4 that I've just described. These economic disparities would not be as great today if the 4 examples given here (not to mention numerous other examples) had been administered equitably. The same applies to disparities in housing, employment, and education. Systemic racism is the causative agent. Systemic racism must be neutralized if we are to obtain anything close to health equity. ¹¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recently taken new steps to recognize the role of racism in health. ¹² The CDC plans to use “science to investigate and better understand the intersection of racism and health, and then to take action.” ¹³ 

It is time for the entire nation to recognize the links between racism and health outcomes and examine how we can design, implement, and evaluate interventions that will permanently correct these inequities.

Approximately 60 million people in the United States run for exercise at least once a calendar year, with approximately 11 million of them running > 100 days a year.^1,2 Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise, whose benefits include a decrease in the risk of all-cause early mortality, cancer, and diabetes; an improved lipid profile; and better mental health.³

However, running is also the cause of a significant percentage of exercise-associated injuries: More than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.⁴ Given the high incidence of running-related injury, an important component of primary care is accurately diagnosing and managing such injuries and counseling patients about how to prevent them.

This article reviews risk factors for running-related injury and summarizes evidence-based recommendations for prevention.

CASE

During a health maintenance examination, Clara K, a 47-year-old woman who is obese (body mass index [BMI], 34) and has bilateral knee osteoarthritis (OA), inquires about establishing a weight-loss strategy. Ms. K is interested in starting an exercise regimen involving running but is worried about provoking a flare of OA pain.

Risk factors for running injuries

Several risk factors—some modifiable, others nonmodifiable—are associated with running-related injury (TABLE 1^4-16). In addition, research suggests that other variables once thought to be risk factors, such as running surface and the Q-angle (described later), are not associated with running-related injury.

Modifiable risk factors

Changes in a training regimen or type of training. Many runners escalate training regimens as their fitness improves. Increasing mileage and changing the type of training (such as introducing hills or interval training) are independent risk factors for sustaining injury.⁵

Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise; however, more than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.

The traditional recommendation has been for a runner to slowly increase or modify training with a 10% weekly increase in mileage or intensity.¹⁷ However, a randomized controlled trial failed to show a lower incidence of injury among amateur runners who adopted a graded exercise program.¹⁸ Regardless: It is still prudent to recommend a gradual increase in activity, such as taking ≥ 1 day off between running workouts or starting with a walking or jogging program, especially when there is a history of injury.¹⁹

Continue to: Excessive mileage

Excessive mileage. Many runners aspire to complete high-mileage runs. There is low-quality evidence demonstrating that high-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of running-related injury.⁵ Injuries that occur with higher mileage are more often those of the hip and hamstring.⁵ A study noted that running ≤ 25 miles a week was protective against calf injury.⁶

Overall, there is little evidence to show that high-mileage running is associated with increased risk of running-related injury. However, this is still a risk factor that you should address with patients who have a running program—especially novices and those who ramp up mileage quickly.

Type of surface. Access to running surfaces—concrete, pavement, trails, treadmills, and athletic tracks—varies by time of day and season. Softer surfaces include treadmill, tracks, and trails; harder surfaces include asphalt and concrete.

There are limited data linking running surface with risk of injury.⁷ A study did not find an association between peak impact force based on running surface⁸; the authors hypothesized that runners compensate for a harder surface by making kinematic adjustments to minimize impact. With no strong evidence to link running-related injury to a particular running surface, patients should not be restricted to a softer running surface unless they notice a difference in comfort, because it is likely that they can compensate for a harder surface by adapting their gait.

Patients can therefore be counseled to run locally on sidewalks and neighborhood streets—if safe to do so—instead of obtaining a gym membership or driving to run on a trail. Such reassurance can increase a patient’s access to running and reduce barriers to exercise.

Continue to: BMI

BMI. Elevated BMI increases joint contact forces, which might increase risk of pain and injury.²⁰ Results of studies investigating the link between BMI and running injury are mixed; some report that, in regard to bone stress injury, overweight BMI (> 25) is a risk factor for male runners and underweight BMI (< 18.5) is a risk factor for female runners.^4,6 An observational study concluded that, among half-marathon and marathon runners, there was no significant increase in race-related injury, based on BMI.⁹ However, another study showed a higher rate of running-related injury in novice runners who had a higher BMI.¹⁰ A prospective cohort study found that runners with a higher BMI reported increased knee stiffness, which can place a runner at higher risk of overuse injury.⁴

Although these results conflict, there is consistency in the finding that obese novice runners are likely at increased risk of running-related injury; it is reasonable, therefore, for you to discuss strategies to reduce the risk of other modifiable factors, especially among obese novice runners. Patients with a higher BMI should not be discouraged from running, because exercise in combination with healthy eating habits is essential to decrease the myriad adverse health outcomes associated with obesity.

Female runners with a lower BMI, especially in the presence of other components of the female athlete triad (inadequate nutrition, amenorrhea, and low bone density), should be counseled about their increased risk of bone stress injury.²¹ Notably, a study of female US Navy recruits randomized to receive a trial of dietary supplementation of vitamin D plus calcium, or placebo, showed a 21% lower incidence of bone stress injury in the active-treatment group.²² To mitigate risk of injury associated with low BMI and the female athlete triad, therefore, a multidisciplinary approach of nutrition intervention, dietary optimization of vitamin D and calcium, and, possibly, activity modification should be implemented when appropriate.

Running gait. A study using 2-dimensional gait analysis to visualize biomechanical running patterns in injured and noninjured runners found that, in regard to mechanical variables, running-related injury was most strongly associated with contralateral pelvic drop.²³ Gait retraining can be employed to help decrease contralateral pelvic drop.²⁴ In addition, pelvic drop is often a result of weak gluteal muscles, and can be improved by doing strengthening exercises at home or with physical therapy.

Longer stride is also associated with running-related injury.²⁵ A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.^25,26 These improvements were maintained at 1-month and 3-month follow-up, and required only 1 gait retraining session.

Continue to: Get analysis is not feasible...

Gait analysis is not feasible in most primary care clinics. Instead, patients who run and (1) in whom pain persists despite more traditional treatments and (2) who have had recurring injury should be referred to a gait lab for analysis, usually by a physical therapist.

Nonmodifiable risk factors

Arch height. A high arch (pes cavus) is associated with increased risk of running-related injury, including bone stress injury, Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciitis, and patellofemoral pain syndrome.⁵ The mechanism of injury is thought to be increased forefoot loading forces.¹

A review article showed that patients with pes cavus have reduced pain when using an orthosis, although there is no associated decrease in the risk of injury.⁵ To the contrary, a prospective study concluded that arch height was unrelated to increased risk of running-related injury.⁷

A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.

Evidence regarding flat feet (pes planus) and risk of injury is also mixed. Some studies show that pes planus is not associated with increased risk of injury in athletes.¹² A cross-sectional study in older patients showed those with pes planus morphology had a higher rate of knee pain and wearing away of medial compartment cartilage.¹³ Because this study comprised only older adults, it is not generalizable to runners—nor can conclusions be drawn about causation, given the cross-sectional nature of the study.

Although a foot orthosis can correct mechanical differences caused by pes planus morphology, there is not enough evidence to conclude that correction results in a lower rate of injury. In sum, data are mixed with regard to arch height as a risk factor for running-related injury.

Continue to: Patients with...

Patients with pes planus or pes cavus should not be discouraged from running, however. If they experience pain with running, they might benefit from a trial of arch support inserts; or consider referral to an orthotist for evaluation for a custom orthosis.

Sex. Based on a prospective cohort study, female runners have a slightly higher rate of running injury than male counterparts.⁴ Similarly, a study showed that female military members generally had a higher incidence of stress fractures than male military members—specifically, femoral shaft and neck stress fractures.¹⁴ Runners who fall in the spectrum of the female athlete triad, as described earlier, are particularly vulnerable to bone stress injury. It is reasonable, therefore, to review risk factors for injury with female runners (as it is with all runners), especially those who have sustained a prior running-related injury.

Increased Q-angle (an obsolete risk factor). The Q-angle is approximated by drawing a line from the anterior superior iliac spine to the patella and a second line from the patella to the tibial tubercle. In males, a normal Q-angle is 14°; in females, 17° (SD = 4.5°). The Q-angle can be obtained by goniometric or radiographic measurement.

An increased Q-angle had been considered an intrinsic risk factor for running injury but has not been shown to be associated with increased risk of running-related injury or patellofemoral pain syndrome.^27,28 Because the Q-angle is not a clinically relevant tool in assessing risk of injury, do not routinely measure it or include it in risk-factor counseling.

OA. Based on a systematic review of observational studies, data are inconclusive with regard to whether running contributes to, or is protective against, knee OA.¹⁵ In a large cohort study, running (1) was protective against development of hip OA and (2) decreased the risk of requiring hip replacement.²⁹ This finding was supported by animal-model research that concluded that it is inactivity that results in thinning of articular cartilage.²⁹ In addition, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials concluded that knee joint-loading exercises are not harmful to articular cartilage (this is low-quality evidence, however).¹⁶

Continue to: Given that there...

Given that there are no high-quality studies suggesting that running contributes to or exacerbates OA, patients with OA can be counseled to start or continue running as tolerated because the health benefit of running likely outweighs risk. Patients with pre-existing moderate-to-severe OA might report knee and hip pain that is already exacerbated by certain activities; if a high-impact activity, such as running, makes that pain worse, exercise counseling that you provide can be tailored to include lower-impact alternatives, such as swimming, cycling, or an elliptical workout.

CASE

In response to Ms. K’s interest in beginning an exercise regimen that includes running, you perform a complete routine pre-participation evaluation and appropriate cardiac screening. You discuss risk factors for running injury, focusing on modifiable risk factors.

High-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of injury, most often of the hip and hamstring.

Ms. K is perimenopausal but reports a history of regular menstrual cycles. She eats a relatively well-balanced diet. You advise that her BMI should not restrict her from incorporating running into her fitness regimen. Also, you reassure her that she should not restrict running based on a diagnosis of OA; instead, you advise her to monitor her symptoms and reconsider her program if running makes her knee pain worse.

At this point, Ms. K is ready to run. She tells you that, based on your guidance, she feels more comfortable and safe starting a running program.

Preventing injury

After reviewing risk factors for running-­related injury with patients, encourage other evidence-based methods of reducing that risk.

Continue to: Shoes

The running shoe industry offers a variety of running shoes, from minimalist shoes to cushioned stability shoes that vary based on the amount of cushioning, level of motion control, and amount of heel-to-toe drop. With so many options, new runners might wonder which shoes can reduce their risk of injury and how they should select a pair.

Stability. A characteristic of running shoes promoted by the industry is their stability: ie, their motion control. Stability shoes are marketed to runners who overpronate and therefore limit motion to prevent overpronation. The benefit of stability shoes, or stability insoles, is unclear.³⁰ A randomized controlled trial showed that, in runners who overpronate, motion-control shoes reduced their risk of injury.³¹ However, another study assessed whether shoes that had been “prescribed” based on foot morphology and stride reduced the risk of injury (compared to neutral, cushioned shoes) and found no change in the incidence of soft-tissue injury.³² Given no strong evidence to suggest otherwise, runners can be advised to buy shoes based on comfort rather than on foot morphology or running stride.

Heel-to-toe drop. Another component of shoe variability is heel-to-toe drop (the height difference between heel and forefoot). A study suggests that moderate-to-high (8-12 mm) heel-to-toe drop is associated with a reduced risk of running injury.³³ Barefoot running shoes, which, typically, have no heel-to-toe drop, are associated with increased risk of injury—specifically, foot stress fracture (especially in runners who are even moderately overweight).^34,35

Shoe age and shoe wear can be modified to reduce injury. There is evidence that running shoes lose approximately 50% of cushioning after 300 to 500 miles of use.³⁶ Another study found that rotating running shoes—ideally, different types or brands—can lead to fewer running-related injuries.³⁷

In general, patients can be counseled to use shoes that feel comfortable, as long as they replace them regularly (TABLE 2). Runners can also consider alternating pairs of different running shoes between runs. Overweight runners should avoid minimally cushioned and low heel-to-toe drop running shoes.

Continue to: Cross-training

Cross-training exercises for runners include cycling, an elliptical workout, swimming, and weightlifting. Incorporating cross-­training can be protective against running injury because cross-training requires different movement patterns, prevents overuse, and equalizes muscle imbalances that occur with running.⁷ In addition, replacing running with a cross-training activity can decrease weekly running time and mileage, which can further reduce risk of running-related injury.⁷ Runners—especially higher-mileage runners—should be encouraged to incorporate cross-training into their workout regimen to decrease their risk of injury.

There is no reason to counsel runners to run on a softer running surface, unless they find that doing so is more comfortable.

Stretching. The authors of a Cochrane review concluded that there is no significant reduction in injury associated with hamstring or gastrocnemius stretching.³² A small randomized, controlled, crossover study concluded that participants subjectively felt their performance was better when warm-ups included stretching.³⁸ This perceived improvement in performance was similar between groups who completed dynamic or static stretching. However, no difference was noted in flexibility or objective performance between groups who stretched or did not stretch before activity.

Although there is no supporting evidence that stretching reduces the risk of injury, stretching is a low-risk intervention. Because stretching might provide subjective benefit to runners, you need not discourage patients from including this activity in their running program.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kartik Sidhar, MD, 15370 Huff Way, Brookfield, WI, 53005; [email protected]

Approximately 60 million people in the United States run for exercise at least once a calendar year, with approximately 11 million of them running > 100 days a year.^1,2 Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise, whose benefits include a decrease in the risk of all-cause early mortality, cancer, and diabetes; an improved lipid profile; and better mental health.³

However, running is also the cause of a significant percentage of exercise-associated injuries: More than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.⁴ Given the high incidence of running-related injury, an important component of primary care is accurately diagnosing and managing such injuries and counseling patients about how to prevent them.

This article reviews risk factors for running-related injury and summarizes evidence-based recommendations for prevention.

CASE

During a health maintenance examination, Clara K, a 47-year-old woman who is obese (body mass index [BMI], 34) and has bilateral knee osteoarthritis (OA), inquires about establishing a weight-loss strategy. Ms. K is interested in starting an exercise regimen involving running but is worried about provoking a flare of OA pain.

Risk factors for running injuries

Several risk factors—some modifiable, others nonmodifiable—are associated with running-related injury (TABLE 1^4-16). In addition, research suggests that other variables once thought to be risk factors, such as running surface and the Q-angle (described later), are not associated with running-related injury.

Modifiable risk factors

Changes in a training regimen or type of training. Many runners escalate training regimens as their fitness improves. Increasing mileage and changing the type of training (such as introducing hills or interval training) are independent risk factors for sustaining injury.⁵

Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise; however, more than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.

The traditional recommendation has been for a runner to slowly increase or modify training with a 10% weekly increase in mileage or intensity.¹⁷ However, a randomized controlled trial failed to show a lower incidence of injury among amateur runners who adopted a graded exercise program.¹⁸ Regardless: It is still prudent to recommend a gradual increase in activity, such as taking ≥ 1 day off between running workouts or starting with a walking or jogging program, especially when there is a history of injury.¹⁹

Continue to: Excessive mileage

Excessive mileage. Many runners aspire to complete high-mileage runs. There is low-quality evidence demonstrating that high-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of running-related injury.⁵ Injuries that occur with higher mileage are more often those of the hip and hamstring.⁵ A study noted that running ≤ 25 miles a week was protective against calf injury.⁶

Overall, there is little evidence to show that high-mileage running is associated with increased risk of running-related injury. However, this is still a risk factor that you should address with patients who have a running program—especially novices and those who ramp up mileage quickly.

Type of surface. Access to running surfaces—concrete, pavement, trails, treadmills, and athletic tracks—varies by time of day and season. Softer surfaces include treadmill, tracks, and trails; harder surfaces include asphalt and concrete.

There are limited data linking running surface with risk of injury.⁷ A study did not find an association between peak impact force based on running surface⁸; the authors hypothesized that runners compensate for a harder surface by making kinematic adjustments to minimize impact. With no strong evidence to link running-related injury to a particular running surface, patients should not be restricted to a softer running surface unless they notice a difference in comfort, because it is likely that they can compensate for a harder surface by adapting their gait.

Patients can therefore be counseled to run locally on sidewalks and neighborhood streets—if safe to do so—instead of obtaining a gym membership or driving to run on a trail. Such reassurance can increase a patient’s access to running and reduce barriers to exercise.

Continue to: BMI

BMI. Elevated BMI increases joint contact forces, which might increase risk of pain and injury.²⁰ Results of studies investigating the link between BMI and running injury are mixed; some report that, in regard to bone stress injury, overweight BMI (> 25) is a risk factor for male runners and underweight BMI (< 18.5) is a risk factor for female runners.^4,6 An observational study concluded that, among half-marathon and marathon runners, there was no significant increase in race-related injury, based on BMI.⁹ However, another study showed a higher rate of running-related injury in novice runners who had a higher BMI.¹⁰ A prospective cohort study found that runners with a higher BMI reported increased knee stiffness, which can place a runner at higher risk of overuse injury.⁴

Although these results conflict, there is consistency in the finding that obese novice runners are likely at increased risk of running-related injury; it is reasonable, therefore, for you to discuss strategies to reduce the risk of other modifiable factors, especially among obese novice runners. Patients with a higher BMI should not be discouraged from running, because exercise in combination with healthy eating habits is essential to decrease the myriad adverse health outcomes associated with obesity.

Female runners with a lower BMI, especially in the presence of other components of the female athlete triad (inadequate nutrition, amenorrhea, and low bone density), should be counseled about their increased risk of bone stress injury.²¹ Notably, a study of female US Navy recruits randomized to receive a trial of dietary supplementation of vitamin D plus calcium, or placebo, showed a 21% lower incidence of bone stress injury in the active-treatment group.²² To mitigate risk of injury associated with low BMI and the female athlete triad, therefore, a multidisciplinary approach of nutrition intervention, dietary optimization of vitamin D and calcium, and, possibly, activity modification should be implemented when appropriate.

Running gait. A study using 2-dimensional gait analysis to visualize biomechanical running patterns in injured and noninjured runners found that, in regard to mechanical variables, running-related injury was most strongly associated with contralateral pelvic drop.²³ Gait retraining can be employed to help decrease contralateral pelvic drop.²⁴ In addition, pelvic drop is often a result of weak gluteal muscles, and can be improved by doing strengthening exercises at home or with physical therapy.

Longer stride is also associated with running-related injury.²⁵ A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.^25,26 These improvements were maintained at 1-month and 3-month follow-up, and required only 1 gait retraining session.

Continue to: Get analysis is not feasible...

Gait analysis is not feasible in most primary care clinics. Instead, patients who run and (1) in whom pain persists despite more traditional treatments and (2) who have had recurring injury should be referred to a gait lab for analysis, usually by a physical therapist.

Nonmodifiable risk factors

Arch height. A high arch (pes cavus) is associated with increased risk of running-related injury, including bone stress injury, Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciitis, and patellofemoral pain syndrome.⁵ The mechanism of injury is thought to be increased forefoot loading forces.¹

A review article showed that patients with pes cavus have reduced pain when using an orthosis, although there is no associated decrease in the risk of injury.⁵ To the contrary, a prospective study concluded that arch height was unrelated to increased risk of running-related injury.⁷

A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.

Evidence regarding flat feet (pes planus) and risk of injury is also mixed. Some studies show that pes planus is not associated with increased risk of injury in athletes.¹² A cross-sectional study in older patients showed those with pes planus morphology had a higher rate of knee pain and wearing away of medial compartment cartilage.¹³ Because this study comprised only older adults, it is not generalizable to runners—nor can conclusions be drawn about causation, given the cross-sectional nature of the study.

Although a foot orthosis can correct mechanical differences caused by pes planus morphology, there is not enough evidence to conclude that correction results in a lower rate of injury. In sum, data are mixed with regard to arch height as a risk factor for running-related injury.

Continue to: Patients with...

Patients with pes planus or pes cavus should not be discouraged from running, however. If they experience pain with running, they might benefit from a trial of arch support inserts; or consider referral to an orthotist for evaluation for a custom orthosis.

Sex. Based on a prospective cohort study, female runners have a slightly higher rate of running injury than male counterparts.⁴ Similarly, a study showed that female military members generally had a higher incidence of stress fractures than male military members—specifically, femoral shaft and neck stress fractures.¹⁴ Runners who fall in the spectrum of the female athlete triad, as described earlier, are particularly vulnerable to bone stress injury. It is reasonable, therefore, to review risk factors for injury with female runners (as it is with all runners), especially those who have sustained a prior running-related injury.

Increased Q-angle (an obsolete risk factor). The Q-angle is approximated by drawing a line from the anterior superior iliac spine to the patella and a second line from the patella to the tibial tubercle. In males, a normal Q-angle is 14°; in females, 17° (SD = 4.5°). The Q-angle can be obtained by goniometric or radiographic measurement.

An increased Q-angle had been considered an intrinsic risk factor for running injury but has not been shown to be associated with increased risk of running-related injury or patellofemoral pain syndrome.^27,28 Because the Q-angle is not a clinically relevant tool in assessing risk of injury, do not routinely measure it or include it in risk-factor counseling.

OA. Based on a systematic review of observational studies, data are inconclusive with regard to whether running contributes to, or is protective against, knee OA.¹⁵ In a large cohort study, running (1) was protective against development of hip OA and (2) decreased the risk of requiring hip replacement.²⁹ This finding was supported by animal-model research that concluded that it is inactivity that results in thinning of articular cartilage.²⁹ In addition, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials concluded that knee joint-loading exercises are not harmful to articular cartilage (this is low-quality evidence, however).¹⁶

Continue to: Given that there...

Given that there are no high-quality studies suggesting that running contributes to or exacerbates OA, patients with OA can be counseled to start or continue running as tolerated because the health benefit of running likely outweighs risk. Patients with pre-existing moderate-to-severe OA might report knee and hip pain that is already exacerbated by certain activities; if a high-impact activity, such as running, makes that pain worse, exercise counseling that you provide can be tailored to include lower-impact alternatives, such as swimming, cycling, or an elliptical workout.

CASE

In response to Ms. K’s interest in beginning an exercise regimen that includes running, you perform a complete routine pre-participation evaluation and appropriate cardiac screening. You discuss risk factors for running injury, focusing on modifiable risk factors.

High-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of injury, most often of the hip and hamstring.

Ms. K is perimenopausal but reports a history of regular menstrual cycles. She eats a relatively well-balanced diet. You advise that her BMI should not restrict her from incorporating running into her fitness regimen. Also, you reassure her that she should not restrict running based on a diagnosis of OA; instead, you advise her to monitor her symptoms and reconsider her program if running makes her knee pain worse.

At this point, Ms. K is ready to run. She tells you that, based on your guidance, she feels more comfortable and safe starting a running program.

Preventing injury

After reviewing risk factors for running-­related injury with patients, encourage other evidence-based methods of reducing that risk.

Continue to: Shoes

The running shoe industry offers a variety of running shoes, from minimalist shoes to cushioned stability shoes that vary based on the amount of cushioning, level of motion control, and amount of heel-to-toe drop. With so many options, new runners might wonder which shoes can reduce their risk of injury and how they should select a pair.

Stability. A characteristic of running shoes promoted by the industry is their stability: ie, their motion control. Stability shoes are marketed to runners who overpronate and therefore limit motion to prevent overpronation. The benefit of stability shoes, or stability insoles, is unclear.³⁰ A randomized controlled trial showed that, in runners who overpronate, motion-control shoes reduced their risk of injury.³¹ However, another study assessed whether shoes that had been “prescribed” based on foot morphology and stride reduced the risk of injury (compared to neutral, cushioned shoes) and found no change in the incidence of soft-tissue injury.³² Given no strong evidence to suggest otherwise, runners can be advised to buy shoes based on comfort rather than on foot morphology or running stride.

Heel-to-toe drop. Another component of shoe variability is heel-to-toe drop (the height difference between heel and forefoot). A study suggests that moderate-to-high (8-12 mm) heel-to-toe drop is associated with a reduced risk of running injury.³³ Barefoot running shoes, which, typically, have no heel-to-toe drop, are associated with increased risk of injury—specifically, foot stress fracture (especially in runners who are even moderately overweight).^34,35

Shoe age and shoe wear can be modified to reduce injury. There is evidence that running shoes lose approximately 50% of cushioning after 300 to 500 miles of use.³⁶ Another study found that rotating running shoes—ideally, different types or brands—can lead to fewer running-related injuries.³⁷

In general, patients can be counseled to use shoes that feel comfortable, as long as they replace them regularly (TABLE 2). Runners can also consider alternating pairs of different running shoes between runs. Overweight runners should avoid minimally cushioned and low heel-to-toe drop running shoes.

Continue to: Cross-training

Cross-training exercises for runners include cycling, an elliptical workout, swimming, and weightlifting. Incorporating cross-­training can be protective against running injury because cross-training requires different movement patterns, prevents overuse, and equalizes muscle imbalances that occur with running.⁷ In addition, replacing running with a cross-training activity can decrease weekly running time and mileage, which can further reduce risk of running-related injury.⁷ Runners—especially higher-mileage runners—should be encouraged to incorporate cross-training into their workout regimen to decrease their risk of injury.

There is no reason to counsel runners to run on a softer running surface, unless they find that doing so is more comfortable.

Stretching. The authors of a Cochrane review concluded that there is no significant reduction in injury associated with hamstring or gastrocnemius stretching.³² A small randomized, controlled, crossover study concluded that participants subjectively felt their performance was better when warm-ups included stretching.³⁸ This perceived improvement in performance was similar between groups who completed dynamic or static stretching. However, no difference was noted in flexibility or objective performance between groups who stretched or did not stretch before activity.

Although there is no supporting evidence that stretching reduces the risk of injury, stretching is a low-risk intervention. Because stretching might provide subjective benefit to runners, you need not discourage patients from including this activity in their running program.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kartik Sidhar, MD, 15370 Huff Way, Brookfield, WI, 53005; [email protected]

Approximately 60 million people in the United States run for exercise at least once a calendar year, with approximately 11 million of them running > 100 days a year.^1,2 Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise, whose benefits include a decrease in the risk of all-cause early mortality, cancer, and diabetes; an improved lipid profile; and better mental health.³

However, running is also the cause of a significant percentage of exercise-associated injuries: More than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.⁴ Given the high incidence of running-related injury, an important component of primary care is accurately diagnosing and managing such injuries and counseling patients about how to prevent them.

This article reviews risk factors for running-related injury and summarizes evidence-based recommendations for prevention.

CASE

During a health maintenance examination, Clara K, a 47-year-old woman who is obese (body mass index [BMI], 34) and has bilateral knee osteoarthritis (OA), inquires about establishing a weight-loss strategy. Ms. K is interested in starting an exercise regimen involving running but is worried about provoking a flare of OA pain.

Risk factors for running injuries

Several risk factors—some modifiable, others nonmodifiable—are associated with running-related injury (TABLE 1^4-16). In addition, research suggests that other variables once thought to be risk factors, such as running surface and the Q-angle (described later), are not associated with running-related injury.

Modifiable risk factors

Changes in a training regimen or type of training. Many runners escalate training regimens as their fitness improves. Increasing mileage and changing the type of training (such as introducing hills or interval training) are independent risk factors for sustaining injury.⁵

Running is an affordable, convenient, and efficient form of exercise; however, more than 60% of runners report overuse injury annually.

The traditional recommendation has been for a runner to slowly increase or modify training with a 10% weekly increase in mileage or intensity.¹⁷ However, a randomized controlled trial failed to show a lower incidence of injury among amateur runners who adopted a graded exercise program.¹⁸ Regardless: It is still prudent to recommend a gradual increase in activity, such as taking ≥ 1 day off between running workouts or starting with a walking or jogging program, especially when there is a history of injury.¹⁹

Continue to: Excessive mileage

Excessive mileage. Many runners aspire to complete high-mileage runs. There is low-quality evidence demonstrating that high-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of running-related injury.⁵ Injuries that occur with higher mileage are more often those of the hip and hamstring.⁵ A study noted that running ≤ 25 miles a week was protective against calf injury.⁶

Overall, there is little evidence to show that high-mileage running is associated with increased risk of running-related injury. However, this is still a risk factor that you should address with patients who have a running program—especially novices and those who ramp up mileage quickly.

Type of surface. Access to running surfaces—concrete, pavement, trails, treadmills, and athletic tracks—varies by time of day and season. Softer surfaces include treadmill, tracks, and trails; harder surfaces include asphalt and concrete.

There are limited data linking running surface with risk of injury.⁷ A study did not find an association between peak impact force based on running surface⁸; the authors hypothesized that runners compensate for a harder surface by making kinematic adjustments to minimize impact. With no strong evidence to link running-related injury to a particular running surface, patients should not be restricted to a softer running surface unless they notice a difference in comfort, because it is likely that they can compensate for a harder surface by adapting their gait.

Patients can therefore be counseled to run locally on sidewalks and neighborhood streets—if safe to do so—instead of obtaining a gym membership or driving to run on a trail. Such reassurance can increase a patient’s access to running and reduce barriers to exercise.

Continue to: BMI

BMI. Elevated BMI increases joint contact forces, which might increase risk of pain and injury.²⁰ Results of studies investigating the link between BMI and running injury are mixed; some report that, in regard to bone stress injury, overweight BMI (> 25) is a risk factor for male runners and underweight BMI (< 18.5) is a risk factor for female runners.^4,6 An observational study concluded that, among half-marathon and marathon runners, there was no significant increase in race-related injury, based on BMI.⁹ However, another study showed a higher rate of running-related injury in novice runners who had a higher BMI.¹⁰ A prospective cohort study found that runners with a higher BMI reported increased knee stiffness, which can place a runner at higher risk of overuse injury.⁴

Although these results conflict, there is consistency in the finding that obese novice runners are likely at increased risk of running-related injury; it is reasonable, therefore, for you to discuss strategies to reduce the risk of other modifiable factors, especially among obese novice runners. Patients with a higher BMI should not be discouraged from running, because exercise in combination with healthy eating habits is essential to decrease the myriad adverse health outcomes associated with obesity.

Female runners with a lower BMI, especially in the presence of other components of the female athlete triad (inadequate nutrition, amenorrhea, and low bone density), should be counseled about their increased risk of bone stress injury.²¹ Notably, a study of female US Navy recruits randomized to receive a trial of dietary supplementation of vitamin D plus calcium, or placebo, showed a 21% lower incidence of bone stress injury in the active-treatment group.²² To mitigate risk of injury associated with low BMI and the female athlete triad, therefore, a multidisciplinary approach of nutrition intervention, dietary optimization of vitamin D and calcium, and, possibly, activity modification should be implemented when appropriate.

Running gait. A study using 2-dimensional gait analysis to visualize biomechanical running patterns in injured and noninjured runners found that, in regard to mechanical variables, running-related injury was most strongly associated with contralateral pelvic drop.²³ Gait retraining can be employed to help decrease contralateral pelvic drop.²⁴ In addition, pelvic drop is often a result of weak gluteal muscles, and can be improved by doing strengthening exercises at home or with physical therapy.

Longer stride is also associated with running-related injury.²⁵ A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.^25,26 These improvements were maintained at 1-month and 3-month follow-up, and required only 1 gait retraining session.

Continue to: Get analysis is not feasible...

Gait analysis is not feasible in most primary care clinics. Instead, patients who run and (1) in whom pain persists despite more traditional treatments and (2) who have had recurring injury should be referred to a gait lab for analysis, usually by a physical therapist.

Nonmodifiable risk factors

Arch height. A high arch (pes cavus) is associated with increased risk of running-related injury, including bone stress injury, Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciitis, and patellofemoral pain syndrome.⁵ The mechanism of injury is thought to be increased forefoot loading forces.¹

A review article showed that patients with pes cavus have reduced pain when using an orthosis, although there is no associated decrease in the risk of injury.⁵ To the contrary, a prospective study concluded that arch height was unrelated to increased risk of running-related injury.⁷

A study showed improvement in patellofemoral pain by having runners increase stride rate by 10%, which reduces stride length to a significant degree.

Evidence regarding flat feet (pes planus) and risk of injury is also mixed. Some studies show that pes planus is not associated with increased risk of injury in athletes.¹² A cross-sectional study in older patients showed those with pes planus morphology had a higher rate of knee pain and wearing away of medial compartment cartilage.¹³ Because this study comprised only older adults, it is not generalizable to runners—nor can conclusions be drawn about causation, given the cross-sectional nature of the study.

Although a foot orthosis can correct mechanical differences caused by pes planus morphology, there is not enough evidence to conclude that correction results in a lower rate of injury. In sum, data are mixed with regard to arch height as a risk factor for running-related injury.

Continue to: Patients with...

Patients with pes planus or pes cavus should not be discouraged from running, however. If they experience pain with running, they might benefit from a trial of arch support inserts; or consider referral to an orthotist for evaluation for a custom orthosis.

Sex. Based on a prospective cohort study, female runners have a slightly higher rate of running injury than male counterparts.⁴ Similarly, a study showed that female military members generally had a higher incidence of stress fractures than male military members—specifically, femoral shaft and neck stress fractures.¹⁴ Runners who fall in the spectrum of the female athlete triad, as described earlier, are particularly vulnerable to bone stress injury. It is reasonable, therefore, to review risk factors for injury with female runners (as it is with all runners), especially those who have sustained a prior running-related injury.

Increased Q-angle (an obsolete risk factor). The Q-angle is approximated by drawing a line from the anterior superior iliac spine to the patella and a second line from the patella to the tibial tubercle. In males, a normal Q-angle is 14°; in females, 17° (SD = 4.5°). The Q-angle can be obtained by goniometric or radiographic measurement.

An increased Q-angle had been considered an intrinsic risk factor for running injury but has not been shown to be associated with increased risk of running-related injury or patellofemoral pain syndrome.^27,28 Because the Q-angle is not a clinically relevant tool in assessing risk of injury, do not routinely measure it or include it in risk-factor counseling.

OA. Based on a systematic review of observational studies, data are inconclusive with regard to whether running contributes to, or is protective against, knee OA.¹⁵ In a large cohort study, running (1) was protective against development of hip OA and (2) decreased the risk of requiring hip replacement.²⁹ This finding was supported by animal-model research that concluded that it is inactivity that results in thinning of articular cartilage.²⁹ In addition, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials concluded that knee joint-loading exercises are not harmful to articular cartilage (this is low-quality evidence, however).¹⁶

Continue to: Given that there...

Given that there are no high-quality studies suggesting that running contributes to or exacerbates OA, patients with OA can be counseled to start or continue running as tolerated because the health benefit of running likely outweighs risk. Patients with pre-existing moderate-to-severe OA might report knee and hip pain that is already exacerbated by certain activities; if a high-impact activity, such as running, makes that pain worse, exercise counseling that you provide can be tailored to include lower-impact alternatives, such as swimming, cycling, or an elliptical workout.

CASE

In response to Ms. K’s interest in beginning an exercise regimen that includes running, you perform a complete routine pre-participation evaluation and appropriate cardiac screening. You discuss risk factors for running injury, focusing on modifiable risk factors.

High-mileage running, especially > 40 miles per week, is associated with increased risk of injury, most often of the hip and hamstring.

Ms. K is perimenopausal but reports a history of regular menstrual cycles. She eats a relatively well-balanced diet. You advise that her BMI should not restrict her from incorporating running into her fitness regimen. Also, you reassure her that she should not restrict running based on a diagnosis of OA; instead, you advise her to monitor her symptoms and reconsider her program if running makes her knee pain worse.

At this point, Ms. K is ready to run. She tells you that, based on your guidance, she feels more comfortable and safe starting a running program.

Preventing injury

After reviewing risk factors for running-­related injury with patients, encourage other evidence-based methods of reducing that risk.

Continue to: Shoes

The running shoe industry offers a variety of running shoes, from minimalist shoes to cushioned stability shoes that vary based on the amount of cushioning, level of motion control, and amount of heel-to-toe drop. With so many options, new runners might wonder which shoes can reduce their risk of injury and how they should select a pair.

Stability. A characteristic of running shoes promoted by the industry is their stability: ie, their motion control. Stability shoes are marketed to runners who overpronate and therefore limit motion to prevent overpronation. The benefit of stability shoes, or stability insoles, is unclear.³⁰ A randomized controlled trial showed that, in runners who overpronate, motion-control shoes reduced their risk of injury.³¹ However, another study assessed whether shoes that had been “prescribed” based on foot morphology and stride reduced the risk of injury (compared to neutral, cushioned shoes) and found no change in the incidence of soft-tissue injury.³² Given no strong evidence to suggest otherwise, runners can be advised to buy shoes based on comfort rather than on foot morphology or running stride.

Heel-to-toe drop. Another component of shoe variability is heel-to-toe drop (the height difference between heel and forefoot). A study suggests that moderate-to-high (8-12 mm) heel-to-toe drop is associated with a reduced risk of running injury.³³ Barefoot running shoes, which, typically, have no heel-to-toe drop, are associated with increased risk of injury—specifically, foot stress fracture (especially in runners who are even moderately overweight).^34,35

Shoe age and shoe wear can be modified to reduce injury. There is evidence that running shoes lose approximately 50% of cushioning after 300 to 500 miles of use.³⁶ Another study found that rotating running shoes—ideally, different types or brands—can lead to fewer running-related injuries.³⁷

In general, patients can be counseled to use shoes that feel comfortable, as long as they replace them regularly (TABLE 2). Runners can also consider alternating pairs of different running shoes between runs. Overweight runners should avoid minimally cushioned and low heel-to-toe drop running shoes.

Continue to: Cross-training

Cross-training exercises for runners include cycling, an elliptical workout, swimming, and weightlifting. Incorporating cross-­training can be protective against running injury because cross-training requires different movement patterns, prevents overuse, and equalizes muscle imbalances that occur with running.⁷ In addition, replacing running with a cross-training activity can decrease weekly running time and mileage, which can further reduce risk of running-related injury.⁷ Runners—especially higher-mileage runners—should be encouraged to incorporate cross-training into their workout regimen to decrease their risk of injury.

There is no reason to counsel runners to run on a softer running surface, unless they find that doing so is more comfortable.

Stretching. The authors of a Cochrane review concluded that there is no significant reduction in injury associated with hamstring or gastrocnemius stretching.³² A small randomized, controlled, crossover study concluded that participants subjectively felt their performance was better when warm-ups included stretching.³⁸ This perceived improvement in performance was similar between groups who completed dynamic or static stretching. However, no difference was noted in flexibility or objective performance between groups who stretched or did not stretch before activity.

Although there is no supporting evidence that stretching reduces the risk of injury, stretching is a low-risk intervention. Because stretching might provide subjective benefit to runners, you need not discourage patients from including this activity in their running program.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kartik Sidhar, MD, 15370 Huff Way, Brookfield, WI, 53005; [email protected]

High adolescent body mass index is tied to increasing risks of stroke in young adulthood in both men and women, results of a large, population-based cohort study show.

Copyright American Stroke Association

High and even high-normal body mass index (BMI) were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk, regardless of whether or not individuals had diabetes.

Overweight and obese adolescent groups in the study had a roughly two- to threefold increased risk of ischemic stroke, which was apparent even before age 30 years in the study that was based on records of Israeli adolescents evaluated prior to mandatory military service.

These findings highlight the importance of treating and preventing high BMI among adolescence, study coauthor Gilad Twig, MD, MPH, PhD, said in a press release.

“Adults who survive stroke earlier in life face poor functional outcomes, which can lead to unemployment, depression and anxiety,” said Dr. Twig, associate professor in the department of military medicine in The Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The costs of stroke prevention and care, already high, are expected to become even higher as the adolescent obesity prevalence goes up, fueling further increases in stroke rate, Dr. Twig added.

This is believed to be the first study showing that stroke risk is associated with higher BMI values in both men and women, not just men, Dr. Twig and coauthors said in their article, published May 13, 2021 in the journal Stroke. Previous studies assessing the stroke-BMI relationship in adolescents were based on records of Swedish men evaluated during military conscription at age 18.

In the present study, Dr. Twig and coauthors assessed the linkage between adolescent BMI and first stroke event in 1.9 million male and female adolescents in Israel who were evaluated 1 year prior to mandatory military service, between the years of 1985 and 2013.

They cross-referenced that information with stroke events in a national registry to which all hospitals in Israel are required to report.

The adolescents were about 17 years of age on average at the time of evaluation, 58% were male, and 84% were born in Israel. The mean age at the beginning of follow-up for stroke was about 31 years.

Over the follow-up period, investigators identified 1,088 first stroke events, including 921 ischemic and 167 hemorrhagic strokes.

A gradual increase in stroke rate was seen across BMI categories for ischemic strokes, but not so much for hemorrhagic strokes, investigators found.

Hazard ratios for first ischemic stroke event were 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.6) for the high-normal BMI group, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.6-2.4) for the overweight group, and 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8-4.5) for the obese group after adjusting for age and sex at beginning of follow-up, investigators reported.

When the adjusted results were stratified by presence or absence of diabetes, estimates were similar to what was seen in the overall risk model, they added.

Among those young adults who developed ischemic stroke, 43% smoked, 29% had high blood pressure, 17% had diabetes, and 32% had abnormal lipids at the time of diagnosis, the reported data showed.

The clinical and public health implications of these findings could be substantial, since strokes are associated with worse medical and socioeconomic outcomes in younger as compared with older individuals, according to Dr. Twig and coauthors.

Younger individuals with stroke have a higher risk of recurrent stroke, heart attack, long-term care, or death, they said. Moreover, about half of young-adult stroke survivors have poor functional outcomes, and their risk of unemployment and depression/anxiety is higher than in young individuals without stroke.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up BMI data were not available for all participants. As a result, the contribution of obesity to stroke risk over time could not be assessed, and the independent risk of BMI during adolescence could not be determined. In addition, the authors said the study underrepresents orthodox and ultraorthodox Jewish women, as they are not obligated to serve in the Israeli military.

The study authors had no disclosures related to the study, which was supported by a medical corps Israel Defense Forces research grant.

High adolescent body mass index is tied to increasing risks of stroke in young adulthood in both men and women, results of a large, population-based cohort study show.

Copyright American Stroke Association

High and even high-normal body mass index (BMI) were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk, regardless of whether or not individuals had diabetes.

Overweight and obese adolescent groups in the study had a roughly two- to threefold increased risk of ischemic stroke, which was apparent even before age 30 years in the study that was based on records of Israeli adolescents evaluated prior to mandatory military service.

These findings highlight the importance of treating and preventing high BMI among adolescence, study coauthor Gilad Twig, MD, MPH, PhD, said in a press release.

“Adults who survive stroke earlier in life face poor functional outcomes, which can lead to unemployment, depression and anxiety,” said Dr. Twig, associate professor in the department of military medicine in The Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The costs of stroke prevention and care, already high, are expected to become even higher as the adolescent obesity prevalence goes up, fueling further increases in stroke rate, Dr. Twig added.

This is believed to be the first study showing that stroke risk is associated with higher BMI values in both men and women, not just men, Dr. Twig and coauthors said in their article, published May 13, 2021 in the journal Stroke. Previous studies assessing the stroke-BMI relationship in adolescents were based on records of Swedish men evaluated during military conscription at age 18.

In the present study, Dr. Twig and coauthors assessed the linkage between adolescent BMI and first stroke event in 1.9 million male and female adolescents in Israel who were evaluated 1 year prior to mandatory military service, between the years of 1985 and 2013.

They cross-referenced that information with stroke events in a national registry to which all hospitals in Israel are required to report.

The adolescents were about 17 years of age on average at the time of evaluation, 58% were male, and 84% were born in Israel. The mean age at the beginning of follow-up for stroke was about 31 years.

Over the follow-up period, investigators identified 1,088 first stroke events, including 921 ischemic and 167 hemorrhagic strokes.

A gradual increase in stroke rate was seen across BMI categories for ischemic strokes, but not so much for hemorrhagic strokes, investigators found.

Hazard ratios for first ischemic stroke event were 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.6) for the high-normal BMI group, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.6-2.4) for the overweight group, and 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8-4.5) for the obese group after adjusting for age and sex at beginning of follow-up, investigators reported.

When the adjusted results were stratified by presence or absence of diabetes, estimates were similar to what was seen in the overall risk model, they added.

Among those young adults who developed ischemic stroke, 43% smoked, 29% had high blood pressure, 17% had diabetes, and 32% had abnormal lipids at the time of diagnosis, the reported data showed.

The clinical and public health implications of these findings could be substantial, since strokes are associated with worse medical and socioeconomic outcomes in younger as compared with older individuals, according to Dr. Twig and coauthors.

Younger individuals with stroke have a higher risk of recurrent stroke, heart attack, long-term care, or death, they said. Moreover, about half of young-adult stroke survivors have poor functional outcomes, and their risk of unemployment and depression/anxiety is higher than in young individuals without stroke.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up BMI data were not available for all participants. As a result, the contribution of obesity to stroke risk over time could not be assessed, and the independent risk of BMI during adolescence could not be determined. In addition, the authors said the study underrepresents orthodox and ultraorthodox Jewish women, as they are not obligated to serve in the Israeli military.

The study authors had no disclosures related to the study, which was supported by a medical corps Israel Defense Forces research grant.

High adolescent body mass index is tied to increasing risks of stroke in young adulthood in both men and women, results of a large, population-based cohort study show.

Copyright American Stroke Association

High and even high-normal body mass index (BMI) were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk, regardless of whether or not individuals had diabetes.

Overweight and obese adolescent groups in the study had a roughly two- to threefold increased risk of ischemic stroke, which was apparent even before age 30 years in the study that was based on records of Israeli adolescents evaluated prior to mandatory military service.

These findings highlight the importance of treating and preventing high BMI among adolescence, study coauthor Gilad Twig, MD, MPH, PhD, said in a press release.

“Adults who survive stroke earlier in life face poor functional outcomes, which can lead to unemployment, depression and anxiety,” said Dr. Twig, associate professor in the department of military medicine in The Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The costs of stroke prevention and care, already high, are expected to become even higher as the adolescent obesity prevalence goes up, fueling further increases in stroke rate, Dr. Twig added.

This is believed to be the first study showing that stroke risk is associated with higher BMI values in both men and women, not just men, Dr. Twig and coauthors said in their article, published May 13, 2021 in the journal Stroke. Previous studies assessing the stroke-BMI relationship in adolescents were based on records of Swedish men evaluated during military conscription at age 18.

In the present study, Dr. Twig and coauthors assessed the linkage between adolescent BMI and first stroke event in 1.9 million male and female adolescents in Israel who were evaluated 1 year prior to mandatory military service, between the years of 1985 and 2013.

They cross-referenced that information with stroke events in a national registry to which all hospitals in Israel are required to report.

The adolescents were about 17 years of age on average at the time of evaluation, 58% were male, and 84% were born in Israel. The mean age at the beginning of follow-up for stroke was about 31 years.

Over the follow-up period, investigators identified 1,088 first stroke events, including 921 ischemic and 167 hemorrhagic strokes.

A gradual increase in stroke rate was seen across BMI categories for ischemic strokes, but not so much for hemorrhagic strokes, investigators found.

Hazard ratios for first ischemic stroke event were 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.6) for the high-normal BMI group, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.6-2.4) for the overweight group, and 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8-4.5) for the obese group after adjusting for age and sex at beginning of follow-up, investigators reported.

When the adjusted results were stratified by presence or absence of diabetes, estimates were similar to what was seen in the overall risk model, they added.

Among those young adults who developed ischemic stroke, 43% smoked, 29% had high blood pressure, 17% had diabetes, and 32% had abnormal lipids at the time of diagnosis, the reported data showed.

The clinical and public health implications of these findings could be substantial, since strokes are associated with worse medical and socioeconomic outcomes in younger as compared with older individuals, according to Dr. Twig and coauthors.

Younger individuals with stroke have a higher risk of recurrent stroke, heart attack, long-term care, or death, they said. Moreover, about half of young-adult stroke survivors have poor functional outcomes, and their risk of unemployment and depression/anxiety is higher than in young individuals without stroke.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up BMI data were not available for all participants. As a result, the contribution of obesity to stroke risk over time could not be assessed, and the independent risk of BMI during adolescence could not be determined. In addition, the authors said the study underrepresents orthodox and ultraorthodox Jewish women, as they are not obligated to serve in the Israeli military.

The study authors had no disclosures related to the study, which was supported by a medical corps Israel Defense Forces research grant.

In keeping with CHEST’s commitment to advocating for our patients, we recently hosted a 2-day Health Policy and Advocacy Conference. This event aimed to carry on the tradition of the annual spring meeting held by the National Association for the Medical Direction of Respiratory Care (NAMDRC), which CHEST acquired last year.

In working with my Co-Chair, Katie Sarmiento, MD, MPH, we tried to stay true to what was so valuable from meetings past: convening stakeholders to discuss issues through their particular lens. While there were differences – this year, we gathered around a virtual table – the diversity of perspectives remained intact, bridging the landscape from clinical practice, the patients and caregivers we serve, the businesses that serve the field, and the decision-makers who must be swayed to create the change we desire.

In keeping with CHEST’s commitment to advocating for our patients, we recently hosted a 2-day Health Policy and Advocacy Conference. This event aimed to carry on the tradition of the annual spring meeting held by the National Association for the Medical Direction of Respiratory Care (NAMDRC), which CHEST acquired last year.

In working with my Co-Chair, Katie Sarmiento, MD, MPH, we tried to stay true to what was so valuable from meetings past: convening stakeholders to discuss issues through their particular lens. While there were differences – this year, we gathered around a virtual table – the diversity of perspectives remained intact, bridging the landscape from clinical practice, the patients and caregivers we serve, the businesses that serve the field, and the decision-makers who must be swayed to create the change we desire.

In keeping with CHEST’s commitment to advocating for our patients, we recently hosted a 2-day Health Policy and Advocacy Conference. This event aimed to carry on the tradition of the annual spring meeting held by the National Association for the Medical Direction of Respiratory Care (NAMDRC), which CHEST acquired last year.

In working with my Co-Chair, Katie Sarmiento, MD, MPH, we tried to stay true to what was so valuable from meetings past: convening stakeholders to discuss issues through their particular lens. While there were differences – this year, we gathered around a virtual table – the diversity of perspectives remained intact, bridging the landscape from clinical practice, the patients and caregivers we serve, the businesses that serve the field, and the decision-makers who must be swayed to create the change we desire.

Clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization associated with reslizumab treatment in adults with severe eosinophilic asthma in real-world practice. By Dr. M. Wechsler et al.



Corticosteroid therapy is associated with improved outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory phenotype. By Dr. H. Qiu, et al.



Quantitative emphysema on low-dose computed tomography of the chest and risk of lung cancer and airflow obstruction: An analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial.By Dr. M. Han, et al.



How I Do It: Endobronchial valves for the treatment of advanced emphysema. By Dr. D-J. Slebos, et al.



Prolonged hospitalization following acute respiratory failure. By Dr. M. Marmor, et al.



How I Do It: Assessing patients for air travel. By Dr. J. Mandel, et al.



Development and validation of algorithms to identify pulmonary arterial hypertension in administrative data. By Dr. K. Gillmeyer, et al.



Sleep apnea and insomnia: Emerging evidence for effective clinical management. By Dr. J. Ong, et al.



Shades of gray: Subsolid nodule considerations and management. By Dr. L. Azour, et al.

Clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization associated with reslizumab treatment in adults with severe eosinophilic asthma in real-world practice. By Dr. M. Wechsler et al.



Corticosteroid therapy is associated with improved outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory phenotype. By Dr. H. Qiu, et al.



Quantitative emphysema on low-dose computed tomography of the chest and risk of lung cancer and airflow obstruction: An analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial.By Dr. M. Han, et al.



How I Do It: Endobronchial valves for the treatment of advanced emphysema. By Dr. D-J. Slebos, et al.



Prolonged hospitalization following acute respiratory failure. By Dr. M. Marmor, et al.



How I Do It: Assessing patients for air travel. By Dr. J. Mandel, et al.



Development and validation of algorithms to identify pulmonary arterial hypertension in administrative data. By Dr. K. Gillmeyer, et al.



Sleep apnea and insomnia: Emerging evidence for effective clinical management. By Dr. J. Ong, et al.



Shades of gray: Subsolid nodule considerations and management. By Dr. L. Azour, et al.

Clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization associated with reslizumab treatment in adults with severe eosinophilic asthma in real-world practice. By Dr. M. Wechsler et al.



Corticosteroid therapy is associated with improved outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory phenotype. By Dr. H. Qiu, et al.



Quantitative emphysema on low-dose computed tomography of the chest and risk of lung cancer and airflow obstruction: An analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial.By Dr. M. Han, et al.



How I Do It: Endobronchial valves for the treatment of advanced emphysema. By Dr. D-J. Slebos, et al.



Prolonged hospitalization following acute respiratory failure. By Dr. M. Marmor, et al.



How I Do It: Assessing patients for air travel. By Dr. J. Mandel, et al.



Development and validation of algorithms to identify pulmonary arterial hypertension in administrative data. By Dr. K. Gillmeyer, et al.



Sleep apnea and insomnia: Emerging evidence for effective clinical management. By Dr. J. Ong, et al.



Shades of gray: Subsolid nodule considerations and management. By Dr. L. Azour, et al.