Commentary

In response to Dr. Mark Zimmerman’s article, “Improving the recognition of borderline personality disorder” (Current Psychiatry. October 2017, p. 13-19), I think the topic of improving the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) requires us to examine our own biases and stigma toward this diagnosis. Let’s be honest: many psychiatrists don’t make the diagnosis because they don’t want to give their patient that diagnosis and they don’t want to treat a patient with that diagnosis. Evidence suggests that a great proportion of stigma aimed at BPD is initiated by mental health professionals.^1,2

Why all the stigma? Because mental health professionals don’t have complete information. The assumption used to be that BPD was “intractable” with no treatment. Even if this were true, it still would not be a reason to fail to disclose a diagnosis, because in other fields of medicine, the concept of “therapeutic privilege” fell by the wayside long ago. However, we now know that in many individuals with BPD, symptoms improve over time, and there are several effective treatments.

In DSM-II, published in 1968, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) was characterized as an “obsessive compulsive neurosis.” It was not reclassified as the current OCD diagnosis until DSM-III-R was published in 1987, after the FDA approved clomipramine. Why is this important? Because once people realized that there was a treatment, they started acknowledging OCD more often.

The first step in addressing the stigma toward BPD is that mental health professionals must recognize their own bias toward this diagnosis. We must be re-educated that this diagnosis carries hope, symptoms improve, and that there are effective treatments. This is how professionals will increase the recognition of BPD.

Michael Shapiro, MD, FAPA
Assistant Professor and Compliance Officer
Department of Psychiatry
University of Florida
Clinic Director
UF Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic at Springhill Health Center
Gainesville, Florida

References

1. Unruh BT, Gunderson JG. “Good enough” psychiatric residency training in borderline personality disorder: challenges, choice points, and a model generalist curriculum. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2016;24(5):367-377.
2. Sheehan L, Nieweglowski K, Corrigan P. The stigma of personality disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016;18(1):11.

Continue to: The author responds

The author responds

I agree with Dr. Shapiro that stigma by mental health clinicians contributes to the underdiagnosis of BPD. Mental health professions often hold a negative view of patients with personality disorders, particularly those with BPD, and see these patients as being more difficult to treat.^1-3 They are the patients that some clinicians are reluctant to treat.^3,4 Clinicians perceive patients with personality disorders as less mentally ill, more manipulative, and more able to control their behavior than patients with other psychiatric disorders.^3,5 Consistent with this, clinicians have less sympathetic attitudes and behave less empathically toward patients with BPD.^5,6 The term “borderline” also is sometimes used pejoratively to describe patients.¹

As I described in my article, there are several possible reasons BPD is under­diagnosed. Foremost is that mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders are common in patients with BPD, and the symptoms of these other disorders are typically patients’ chief concerns when they present for treatment. Patients with BPD do not usually report the features of BPD—such as abandonment fears, chronic feelings of emptiness, or an identity disturbance—as their chief concerns. If they did, BPD would likely be easier to recognize. On a related note, clinicians do not have the time, or do not take the time, to conduct a thorough enough evaluation to diagnose BPD when it occurs in a patient who presents for treatment of a mood disorder, anxiety disorder, or substance use disorder. Our clinical research group found that when psychiatrists are presented with the results of a semi-structured interview, BPD is much more frequently diagnosed.⁷ Such a finding would not be expected if stigma was the primary or sole reason for underdiagnosis.

Dr. Shapiro highlights the clinical consequence of underrecognition and underdiagnosis: the underutilization of empirically supported psychotherapies for BPD. A corollary of underdiagnosing BPD is overdiagnosis of bipolar disorder and overprescription of medication.⁸

There are other consequences of bias and stigma toward BPD. Despite the high levels of psychosocial morbidity, reduced health-related quality of life, high utilization of services, and excess mortality associated with BPD, this disorder is not included in the Global Burden of Disease Study. Thus, the public health significance of BPD is less fully appreciated. Finally, there is evidence that the level of funding for research from the National Institutes of Health is not commensurate with the level of psychosocial morbidity, mortality, and health expenditures associated with the disorder.⁹ Thus, the stigma toward BPD exists in both clinical and research communities.

Mark Zimmerman, MD
Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior
Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University
Rhode Island Hospital
Providence, Rhode Island

References

1. Cleary M, Siegfried N, Walter G. Experience, knowledge and attitudes of mental health staff regarding clients with a borderline personality disorder. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2002;11(3):186-191.
2. Gallop R, Lancee WJ, Garfinkel P. How nursing staff respond to the label “borderline personality disorder.” Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1989;40(8):815-819.
3. Lewis G, Appleby L. Personality disorder: the patients psychiatrists dislike. Br J Psychiatry. 1988;153:44-49.
4. Black DW, Pfohl B, Blum N, et al. Attitudes toward borderline personality disorder: a survey of 706 mental health clinicians. CNS Spectr. 2011;16(3):67-74.
5. Markham D, Trower P. The effects of the psychiatric label ‘borderline personality disorder’ on nursing staff’s perceptions and causal attributions for challenging behaviours. Br J Clin Psychol. 2003;42(pt 3):243-256.
6. Fraser K, Gallop R. Nurses’ confirming/disconfirming responses to patients diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 1993;7(6):336-341.
7. Zimmerman M, Mattia JI. Differences between clinical and research practices in diagnosing borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(10):1570-1574.
8. Zimmerman M, Ruggero CJ, Chelminski I, et al. Is bipolar disorder overdiagnosed? J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(6):935-940.
9. Zimmerman M, Gazarian D. Is research on borderline personality disorder underfunded by the National Institute of Health? Psychiatry Res. 2014;220(3):941-944.

In response to Dr. Mark Zimmerman’s article, “Improving the recognition of borderline personality disorder” (Current Psychiatry. October 2017, p. 13-19), I think the topic of improving the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) requires us to examine our own biases and stigma toward this diagnosis. Let’s be honest: many psychiatrists don’t make the diagnosis because they don’t want to give their patient that diagnosis and they don’t want to treat a patient with that diagnosis. Evidence suggests that a great proportion of stigma aimed at BPD is initiated by mental health professionals.^1,2

Why all the stigma? Because mental health professionals don’t have complete information. The assumption used to be that BPD was “intractable” with no treatment. Even if this were true, it still would not be a reason to fail to disclose a diagnosis, because in other fields of medicine, the concept of “therapeutic privilege” fell by the wayside long ago. However, we now know that in many individuals with BPD, symptoms improve over time, and there are several effective treatments.

In DSM-II, published in 1968, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) was characterized as an “obsessive compulsive neurosis.” It was not reclassified as the current OCD diagnosis until DSM-III-R was published in 1987, after the FDA approved clomipramine. Why is this important? Because once people realized that there was a treatment, they started acknowledging OCD more often.

The first step in addressing the stigma toward BPD is that mental health professionals must recognize their own bias toward this diagnosis. We must be re-educated that this diagnosis carries hope, symptoms improve, and that there are effective treatments. This is how professionals will increase the recognition of BPD.

Michael Shapiro, MD, FAPA
Assistant Professor and Compliance Officer
Department of Psychiatry
University of Florida
Clinic Director
UF Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic at Springhill Health Center
Gainesville, Florida

References

1. Unruh BT, Gunderson JG. “Good enough” psychiatric residency training in borderline personality disorder: challenges, choice points, and a model generalist curriculum. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2016;24(5):367-377.
2. Sheehan L, Nieweglowski K, Corrigan P. The stigma of personality disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016;18(1):11.

Continue to: The author responds

The author responds

I agree with Dr. Shapiro that stigma by mental health clinicians contributes to the underdiagnosis of BPD. Mental health professions often hold a negative view of patients with personality disorders, particularly those with BPD, and see these patients as being more difficult to treat.^1-3 They are the patients that some clinicians are reluctant to treat.^3,4 Clinicians perceive patients with personality disorders as less mentally ill, more manipulative, and more able to control their behavior than patients with other psychiatric disorders.^3,5 Consistent with this, clinicians have less sympathetic attitudes and behave less empathically toward patients with BPD.^5,6 The term “borderline” also is sometimes used pejoratively to describe patients.¹

As I described in my article, there are several possible reasons BPD is under­diagnosed. Foremost is that mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders are common in patients with BPD, and the symptoms of these other disorders are typically patients’ chief concerns when they present for treatment. Patients with BPD do not usually report the features of BPD—such as abandonment fears, chronic feelings of emptiness, or an identity disturbance—as their chief concerns. If they did, BPD would likely be easier to recognize. On a related note, clinicians do not have the time, or do not take the time, to conduct a thorough enough evaluation to diagnose BPD when it occurs in a patient who presents for treatment of a mood disorder, anxiety disorder, or substance use disorder. Our clinical research group found that when psychiatrists are presented with the results of a semi-structured interview, BPD is much more frequently diagnosed.⁷ Such a finding would not be expected if stigma was the primary or sole reason for underdiagnosis.

Dr. Shapiro highlights the clinical consequence of underrecognition and underdiagnosis: the underutilization of empirically supported psychotherapies for BPD. A corollary of underdiagnosing BPD is overdiagnosis of bipolar disorder and overprescription of medication.⁸

There are other consequences of bias and stigma toward BPD. Despite the high levels of psychosocial morbidity, reduced health-related quality of life, high utilization of services, and excess mortality associated with BPD, this disorder is not included in the Global Burden of Disease Study. Thus, the public health significance of BPD is less fully appreciated. Finally, there is evidence that the level of funding for research from the National Institutes of Health is not commensurate with the level of psychosocial morbidity, mortality, and health expenditures associated with the disorder.⁹ Thus, the stigma toward BPD exists in both clinical and research communities.

Mark Zimmerman, MD
Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior
Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University
Rhode Island Hospital
Providence, Rhode Island

References

1. Cleary M, Siegfried N, Walter G. Experience, knowledge and attitudes of mental health staff regarding clients with a borderline personality disorder. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2002;11(3):186-191.
2. Gallop R, Lancee WJ, Garfinkel P. How nursing staff respond to the label “borderline personality disorder.” Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1989;40(8):815-819.
3. Lewis G, Appleby L. Personality disorder: the patients psychiatrists dislike. Br J Psychiatry. 1988;153:44-49.
4. Black DW, Pfohl B, Blum N, et al. Attitudes toward borderline personality disorder: a survey of 706 mental health clinicians. CNS Spectr. 2011;16(3):67-74.
5. Markham D, Trower P. The effects of the psychiatric label ‘borderline personality disorder’ on nursing staff’s perceptions and causal attributions for challenging behaviours. Br J Clin Psychol. 2003;42(pt 3):243-256.
6. Fraser K, Gallop R. Nurses’ confirming/disconfirming responses to patients diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 1993;7(6):336-341.
7. Zimmerman M, Mattia JI. Differences between clinical and research practices in diagnosing borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(10):1570-1574.
8. Zimmerman M, Ruggero CJ, Chelminski I, et al. Is bipolar disorder overdiagnosed? J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(6):935-940.
9. Zimmerman M, Gazarian D. Is research on borderline personality disorder underfunded by the National Institute of Health? Psychiatry Res. 2014;220(3):941-944.

In response to Dr. Mark Zimmerman’s article, “Improving the recognition of borderline personality disorder” (Current Psychiatry. October 2017, p. 13-19), I think the topic of improving the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) requires us to examine our own biases and stigma toward this diagnosis. Let’s be honest: many psychiatrists don’t make the diagnosis because they don’t want to give their patient that diagnosis and they don’t want to treat a patient with that diagnosis. Evidence suggests that a great proportion of stigma aimed at BPD is initiated by mental health professionals.^1,2

Why all the stigma? Because mental health professionals don’t have complete information. The assumption used to be that BPD was “intractable” with no treatment. Even if this were true, it still would not be a reason to fail to disclose a diagnosis, because in other fields of medicine, the concept of “therapeutic privilege” fell by the wayside long ago. However, we now know that in many individuals with BPD, symptoms improve over time, and there are several effective treatments.

In DSM-II, published in 1968, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) was characterized as an “obsessive compulsive neurosis.” It was not reclassified as the current OCD diagnosis until DSM-III-R was published in 1987, after the FDA approved clomipramine. Why is this important? Because once people realized that there was a treatment, they started acknowledging OCD more often.

The first step in addressing the stigma toward BPD is that mental health professionals must recognize their own bias toward this diagnosis. We must be re-educated that this diagnosis carries hope, symptoms improve, and that there are effective treatments. This is how professionals will increase the recognition of BPD.

Michael Shapiro, MD, FAPA
Assistant Professor and Compliance Officer
Department of Psychiatry
University of Florida
Clinic Director
UF Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic at Springhill Health Center
Gainesville, Florida

References

1. Unruh BT, Gunderson JG. “Good enough” psychiatric residency training in borderline personality disorder: challenges, choice points, and a model generalist curriculum. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2016;24(5):367-377.
2. Sheehan L, Nieweglowski K, Corrigan P. The stigma of personality disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016;18(1):11.

Continue to: The author responds

The author responds

I agree with Dr. Shapiro that stigma by mental health clinicians contributes to the underdiagnosis of BPD. Mental health professions often hold a negative view of patients with personality disorders, particularly those with BPD, and see these patients as being more difficult to treat.^1-3 They are the patients that some clinicians are reluctant to treat.^3,4 Clinicians perceive patients with personality disorders as less mentally ill, more manipulative, and more able to control their behavior than patients with other psychiatric disorders.^3,5 Consistent with this, clinicians have less sympathetic attitudes and behave less empathically toward patients with BPD.^5,6 The term “borderline” also is sometimes used pejoratively to describe patients.¹

As I described in my article, there are several possible reasons BPD is under­diagnosed. Foremost is that mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders are common in patients with BPD, and the symptoms of these other disorders are typically patients’ chief concerns when they present for treatment. Patients with BPD do not usually report the features of BPD—such as abandonment fears, chronic feelings of emptiness, or an identity disturbance—as their chief concerns. If they did, BPD would likely be easier to recognize. On a related note, clinicians do not have the time, or do not take the time, to conduct a thorough enough evaluation to diagnose BPD when it occurs in a patient who presents for treatment of a mood disorder, anxiety disorder, or substance use disorder. Our clinical research group found that when psychiatrists are presented with the results of a semi-structured interview, BPD is much more frequently diagnosed.⁷ Such a finding would not be expected if stigma was the primary or sole reason for underdiagnosis.

Dr. Shapiro highlights the clinical consequence of underrecognition and underdiagnosis: the underutilization of empirically supported psychotherapies for BPD. A corollary of underdiagnosing BPD is overdiagnosis of bipolar disorder and overprescription of medication.⁸

There are other consequences of bias and stigma toward BPD. Despite the high levels of psychosocial morbidity, reduced health-related quality of life, high utilization of services, and excess mortality associated with BPD, this disorder is not included in the Global Burden of Disease Study. Thus, the public health significance of BPD is less fully appreciated. Finally, there is evidence that the level of funding for research from the National Institutes of Health is not commensurate with the level of psychosocial morbidity, mortality, and health expenditures associated with the disorder.⁹ Thus, the stigma toward BPD exists in both clinical and research communities.

Mark Zimmerman, MD
Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior
Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University
Rhode Island Hospital
Providence, Rhode Island

References

1. Cleary M, Siegfried N, Walter G. Experience, knowledge and attitudes of mental health staff regarding clients with a borderline personality disorder. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2002;11(3):186-191.
2. Gallop R, Lancee WJ, Garfinkel P. How nursing staff respond to the label “borderline personality disorder.” Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1989;40(8):815-819.
3. Lewis G, Appleby L. Personality disorder: the patients psychiatrists dislike. Br J Psychiatry. 1988;153:44-49.
4. Black DW, Pfohl B, Blum N, et al. Attitudes toward borderline personality disorder: a survey of 706 mental health clinicians. CNS Spectr. 2011;16(3):67-74.
5. Markham D, Trower P. The effects of the psychiatric label ‘borderline personality disorder’ on nursing staff’s perceptions and causal attributions for challenging behaviours. Br J Clin Psychol. 2003;42(pt 3):243-256.
6. Fraser K, Gallop R. Nurses’ confirming/disconfirming responses to patients diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 1993;7(6):336-341.
7. Zimmerman M, Mattia JI. Differences between clinical and research practices in diagnosing borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(10):1570-1574.
8. Zimmerman M, Ruggero CJ, Chelminski I, et al. Is bipolar disorder overdiagnosed? J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(6):935-940.
9. Zimmerman M, Gazarian D. Is research on borderline personality disorder underfunded by the National Institute of Health? Psychiatry Res. 2014;220(3):941-944.

Two weeks ago, I saw a man with a swollen left leg in the office. It took me 2 days to get a Doppler study completed in my busy health care system. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) would have been invaluable for this gentleman. As we know, though, POCUS has been “slow to grow” in primary care. However, as this month’s cover story suggests, things are changing.

Since the 1970s, ultrasound has been a standard diagnostic tool for many conditions. Initially considered the domain of radiologists and cardiologists with extensive training, technologic advances now allow accurate interpretation of ultrasound images by generalist physicians with a modest amount of training.

Hopefully point-of-care ultrasound will become a standard part of family medicine training and practice sooner, rather than later.

One of the first references to POCUS in general practice in the United States was published in 1988.¹ Use of ultrasound in family medicine has developed slowly over the past 30 years, due to the high cost of equipment, a lack of training as a formal component of family medicine residency curricula, and a lack of evidence of its effectiveness in office practice. Only 6% of practicing family physicians (FPs) reported using non-obstetric POCUS in their practices in 2016, and only 2% of family medicine residency programs had established POCUS curricula in 2015.^2,3

Ready for prime time. Although I had considered POCUS to be a relatively new and untested technology for primary care settings, my reading of the POCUS article has convinced me that POCUS is now ready for widespread deployment in family medicine office practice. Bornemann and colleagues review the evidence for the use of POCUS in 4 areas: the heart, the lung, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. They provide more than 30 references that support the accuracy and effectiveness of the use of POCUS by FPs for these areas. The equipment is affordable, there is ample evidence of accuracy and effectiveness, and, as they note, a curriculum for FP training has been published.

I certainly hope that POCUS continues to make its way into FPs’ offices. It would certainly help patients like the one I saw 2 weeks ago, and it would help us to screen for AAA in older male smokers, as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force.

I am delighted to see FP pioneers working to advance the use of POCUS in family medicine. Hopefully, it will become a standard part of family medicine training and practice sooner, rather than later.

Two weeks ago, I saw a man with a swollen left leg in the office. It took me 2 days to get a Doppler study completed in my busy health care system. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) would have been invaluable for this gentleman. As we know, though, POCUS has been “slow to grow” in primary care. However, as this month’s cover story suggests, things are changing.

Since the 1970s, ultrasound has been a standard diagnostic tool for many conditions. Initially considered the domain of radiologists and cardiologists with extensive training, technologic advances now allow accurate interpretation of ultrasound images by generalist physicians with a modest amount of training.

Hopefully point-of-care ultrasound will become a standard part of family medicine training and practice sooner, rather than later.

One of the first references to POCUS in general practice in the United States was published in 1988.¹ Use of ultrasound in family medicine has developed slowly over the past 30 years, due to the high cost of equipment, a lack of training as a formal component of family medicine residency curricula, and a lack of evidence of its effectiveness in office practice. Only 6% of practicing family physicians (FPs) reported using non-obstetric POCUS in their practices in 2016, and only 2% of family medicine residency programs had established POCUS curricula in 2015.^2,3

Ready for prime time. Although I had considered POCUS to be a relatively new and untested technology for primary care settings, my reading of the POCUS article has convinced me that POCUS is now ready for widespread deployment in family medicine office practice. Bornemann and colleagues review the evidence for the use of POCUS in 4 areas: the heart, the lung, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. They provide more than 30 references that support the accuracy and effectiveness of the use of POCUS by FPs for these areas. The equipment is affordable, there is ample evidence of accuracy and effectiveness, and, as they note, a curriculum for FP training has been published.

I certainly hope that POCUS continues to make its way into FPs’ offices. It would certainly help patients like the one I saw 2 weeks ago, and it would help us to screen for AAA in older male smokers, as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force.

I am delighted to see FP pioneers working to advance the use of POCUS in family medicine. Hopefully, it will become a standard part of family medicine training and practice sooner, rather than later.

Two weeks ago, I saw a man with a swollen left leg in the office. It took me 2 days to get a Doppler study completed in my busy health care system. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) would have been invaluable for this gentleman. As we know, though, POCUS has been “slow to grow” in primary care. However, as this month’s cover story suggests, things are changing.

Since the 1970s, ultrasound has been a standard diagnostic tool for many conditions. Initially considered the domain of radiologists and cardiologists with extensive training, technologic advances now allow accurate interpretation of ultrasound images by generalist physicians with a modest amount of training.

Hopefully point-of-care ultrasound will become a standard part of family medicine training and practice sooner, rather than later.

One of the first references to POCUS in general practice in the United States was published in 1988.¹ Use of ultrasound in family medicine has developed slowly over the past 30 years, due to the high cost of equipment, a lack of training as a formal component of family medicine residency curricula, and a lack of evidence of its effectiveness in office practice. Only 6% of practicing family physicians (FPs) reported using non-obstetric POCUS in their practices in 2016, and only 2% of family medicine residency programs had established POCUS curricula in 2015.^2,3

Ready for prime time. Although I had considered POCUS to be a relatively new and untested technology for primary care settings, my reading of the POCUS article has convinced me that POCUS is now ready for widespread deployment in family medicine office practice. Bornemann and colleagues review the evidence for the use of POCUS in 4 areas: the heart, the lung, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. They provide more than 30 references that support the accuracy and effectiveness of the use of POCUS by FPs for these areas. The equipment is affordable, there is ample evidence of accuracy and effectiveness, and, as they note, a curriculum for FP training has been published.

I certainly hope that POCUS continues to make its way into FPs’ offices. It would certainly help patients like the one I saw 2 weeks ago, and it would help us to screen for AAA in older male smokers, as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force.

I am delighted to see FP pioneers working to advance the use of POCUS in family medicine. Hopefully, it will become a standard part of family medicine training and practice sooner, rather than later.

As physicians, we find that preventive health is, frankly, really difficult. It requires thinking about a changing list of recommendations unprompted by the symptoms for which patients present. Compounding that challenge is that, in doing preventive health well, we need to have personalized discussions with our patients and this requires they come into the office, which doesn’t always happen on a regular basis. Furthermore, when patients do come in, they usually are presenting for an acute care visit, so there is little time set aside to discuss preventive health.

For all these reasons and many others, the data suggest that we are not particularly good at performing preventive health maintenance. We are much better at figuring out diagnostic dilemmas and choosing among competing medications or procedures to most effectively address acute and chronic medical problems. Let’s examine the data to see if there is a shred of truth in what we are saying; then let’s look at a potential solution to the dilemma of preventive health that we all believe in and that we carry out less frequently than any of us would like.

First, let’s look at recent data on cancer screening reported by the CDC¹:

• Mammography: 72% of women aged 50–74 years reported having had a mammogram within the past 2 years.
• Pap test: 83% of women reported being up to date with cervical cancer screening.
• Colorectal cancer screening: 62% of men and women reported colorectal cancer screening test use consistent with USPSTF recommendations.

Of note, colorectal cancer screening has improved dramatically over he last 15 years, while screening for breast and cervical cancer has largely plateaued.¹

Our success with cancer screening – or lack thereof depending upon one’s perspective – looks quite good next to national vaccination rates for adults. The immunization rate for commonly recommended vaccines are as follows²:

• The Tdap vaccination rate is 20%.
• The tetanus-diphtheria vaccination rate is 62%.
• The herpes zoster vaccination rate is 28%.
• The influenza vaccination rate is 43%.
• The pneumococcal vaccination rate among high-risk persons aged 19-64 years is 20% and among adults aged greater than or equal to 65 years is 61%.

Of adults who had health insurance and at least 10 physician contacts within the past year, 23.8%-88.8% reported not having received vaccinations that were recommended.

In the business literature there is a great deal of disagreement about the value of the “middleman.” The term middleman describes someone who brings the product from the producer, or factory, to the consumer. On the one hand, if the factory can sell the product directly to the consumer, the consumer can save money and the factory can make more money. On the other hand, if the middleman can help the consumer make a better choice among the variety of products available, then the middleman provides value and the consumer benefits.³

Traditionally, clinicians have served the role of the middleman for preventive health activities, knowing what to recommend to patients and informing them of the correct preventive health choices that fit their needs. The problem with this concept is that preventive health recommendations are largely demographically based, are tied to population-based risk assessment, and usually require very little individual judgment.

We as physicians are good at – and I believe truly enjoy – exercising judgment. We love thinking things through and helping the person in front of us. We are not as good at remembering unprompted information in the middle of busy visits that are often made for unrelated reasons. Most of the people who have not had a colonoscopy or pneumococcal vaccine have not decided against the procedure after a detailed discussion with their physician. On the contrary, the service was never recommended, or it was recommended, but the patient did not follow up to have the procedure performed.

Let’s now imagine another approach. You’re a patient and once a year you click on an email that shows up in your inbox from your doctor with the words “Preventive Health” in the subject line. The EHR – based on your gender, age, and a query of what has been documented in your chart – has determined the preventive health activities that are recommended for you. You can choose to pursue, opt out, or get more information for each of the recommended preventive services as you read through them.

If you choose to have more information, it is provided in a structured format that allows you to drill down to the level of detail that you desire. In all probability, you will find a greater level of detail and accuracy of information about each preventive service than could possibly be provided during a routine office visit. Specifics about the risks and benefits of the procedure will also be more extensive, as it is unlikely your care providers are able to keep all of the details and risk ratios in their heads. If desired, you as a patient can take your time to read and digest the information, sleep on it, and come back to it to make an informed decision. This is not something you can do during a routine office visit.

If you choose to opt out of the procedure, just click the “declined” box. Otherwise, when you’ve made all of your decisions and indicate that you’re done, the necessary prescriptions for blood work and x-rays, as well as referrals to the appropriate specialists, will print out. An entry will also be made in the electronic record showing you’ve been provided preventive health recommendations that are appropriate for your age and sex and made your preferred choices. At any point, if you feel you’d like further discussion with your physician, you can make an appointment electronically through the interface.

The hurdles for implementing such a system are real, but they are solvable, and the development of such an approach is inevitable, enviable, and will ultimately be good for both patients and their providers. Patients will get more predictable and complete recommendations for preventive care and providers will have more time to do what we enjoy and are most skilled at – talking with patients to clarify diagnoses, decide upon treatment, and clarify questions that come up about preventive health recommendations.
 

Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.

References

1. White A et al. Cancer screening test use – United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 Mar 3;66(8):201-6.

2. Williams WW et al. Surveillance of vaccination coverage among adult populations – United States, 2014. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2016 Feb 5;65(1):1-36.

3. Conerly B. Don’t eliminate the middleman – He’s much too valuable. Forbes. Oct 28, 2015.
 

As physicians, we find that preventive health is, frankly, really difficult. It requires thinking about a changing list of recommendations unprompted by the symptoms for which patients present. Compounding that challenge is that, in doing preventive health well, we need to have personalized discussions with our patients and this requires they come into the office, which doesn’t always happen on a regular basis. Furthermore, when patients do come in, they usually are presenting for an acute care visit, so there is little time set aside to discuss preventive health.

For all these reasons and many others, the data suggest that we are not particularly good at performing preventive health maintenance. We are much better at figuring out diagnostic dilemmas and choosing among competing medications or procedures to most effectively address acute and chronic medical problems. Let’s examine the data to see if there is a shred of truth in what we are saying; then let’s look at a potential solution to the dilemma of preventive health that we all believe in and that we carry out less frequently than any of us would like.

First, let’s look at recent data on cancer screening reported by the CDC¹:

• Mammography: 72% of women aged 50–74 years reported having had a mammogram within the past 2 years.
• Pap test: 83% of women reported being up to date with cervical cancer screening.
• Colorectal cancer screening: 62% of men and women reported colorectal cancer screening test use consistent with USPSTF recommendations.

Of note, colorectal cancer screening has improved dramatically over he last 15 years, while screening for breast and cervical cancer has largely plateaued.¹

Our success with cancer screening – or lack thereof depending upon one’s perspective – looks quite good next to national vaccination rates for adults. The immunization rate for commonly recommended vaccines are as follows²:

• The Tdap vaccination rate is 20%.
• The tetanus-diphtheria vaccination rate is 62%.
• The herpes zoster vaccination rate is 28%.
• The influenza vaccination rate is 43%.
• The pneumococcal vaccination rate among high-risk persons aged 19-64 years is 20% and among adults aged greater than or equal to 65 years is 61%.

Of adults who had health insurance and at least 10 physician contacts within the past year, 23.8%-88.8% reported not having received vaccinations that were recommended.

In the business literature there is a great deal of disagreement about the value of the “middleman.” The term middleman describes someone who brings the product from the producer, or factory, to the consumer. On the one hand, if the factory can sell the product directly to the consumer, the consumer can save money and the factory can make more money. On the other hand, if the middleman can help the consumer make a better choice among the variety of products available, then the middleman provides value and the consumer benefits.³

Traditionally, clinicians have served the role of the middleman for preventive health activities, knowing what to recommend to patients and informing them of the correct preventive health choices that fit their needs. The problem with this concept is that preventive health recommendations are largely demographically based, are tied to population-based risk assessment, and usually require very little individual judgment.

We as physicians are good at – and I believe truly enjoy – exercising judgment. We love thinking things through and helping the person in front of us. We are not as good at remembering unprompted information in the middle of busy visits that are often made for unrelated reasons. Most of the people who have not had a colonoscopy or pneumococcal vaccine have not decided against the procedure after a detailed discussion with their physician. On the contrary, the service was never recommended, or it was recommended, but the patient did not follow up to have the procedure performed.

Let’s now imagine another approach. You’re a patient and once a year you click on an email that shows up in your inbox from your doctor with the words “Preventive Health” in the subject line. The EHR – based on your gender, age, and a query of what has been documented in your chart – has determined the preventive health activities that are recommended for you. You can choose to pursue, opt out, or get more information for each of the recommended preventive services as you read through them.

If you choose to have more information, it is provided in a structured format that allows you to drill down to the level of detail that you desire. In all probability, you will find a greater level of detail and accuracy of information about each preventive service than could possibly be provided during a routine office visit. Specifics about the risks and benefits of the procedure will also be more extensive, as it is unlikely your care providers are able to keep all of the details and risk ratios in their heads. If desired, you as a patient can take your time to read and digest the information, sleep on it, and come back to it to make an informed decision. This is not something you can do during a routine office visit.

If you choose to opt out of the procedure, just click the “declined” box. Otherwise, when you’ve made all of your decisions and indicate that you’re done, the necessary prescriptions for blood work and x-rays, as well as referrals to the appropriate specialists, will print out. An entry will also be made in the electronic record showing you’ve been provided preventive health recommendations that are appropriate for your age and sex and made your preferred choices. At any point, if you feel you’d like further discussion with your physician, you can make an appointment electronically through the interface.

The hurdles for implementing such a system are real, but they are solvable, and the development of such an approach is inevitable, enviable, and will ultimately be good for both patients and their providers. Patients will get more predictable and complete recommendations for preventive care and providers will have more time to do what we enjoy and are most skilled at – talking with patients to clarify diagnoses, decide upon treatment, and clarify questions that come up about preventive health recommendations.
 

Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.

References

1. White A et al. Cancer screening test use – United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 Mar 3;66(8):201-6.

2. Williams WW et al. Surveillance of vaccination coverage among adult populations – United States, 2014. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2016 Feb 5;65(1):1-36.

3. Conerly B. Don’t eliminate the middleman – He’s much too valuable. Forbes. Oct 28, 2015.
 

As physicians, we find that preventive health is, frankly, really difficult. It requires thinking about a changing list of recommendations unprompted by the symptoms for which patients present. Compounding that challenge is that, in doing preventive health well, we need to have personalized discussions with our patients and this requires they come into the office, which doesn’t always happen on a regular basis. Furthermore, when patients do come in, they usually are presenting for an acute care visit, so there is little time set aside to discuss preventive health.

For all these reasons and many others, the data suggest that we are not particularly good at performing preventive health maintenance. We are much better at figuring out diagnostic dilemmas and choosing among competing medications or procedures to most effectively address acute and chronic medical problems. Let’s examine the data to see if there is a shred of truth in what we are saying; then let’s look at a potential solution to the dilemma of preventive health that we all believe in and that we carry out less frequently than any of us would like.

First, let’s look at recent data on cancer screening reported by the CDC¹:

• Mammography: 72% of women aged 50–74 years reported having had a mammogram within the past 2 years.
• Pap test: 83% of women reported being up to date with cervical cancer screening.
• Colorectal cancer screening: 62% of men and women reported colorectal cancer screening test use consistent with USPSTF recommendations.

Of note, colorectal cancer screening has improved dramatically over he last 15 years, while screening for breast and cervical cancer has largely plateaued.¹

Our success with cancer screening – or lack thereof depending upon one’s perspective – looks quite good next to national vaccination rates for adults. The immunization rate for commonly recommended vaccines are as follows²:

• The Tdap vaccination rate is 20%.
• The tetanus-diphtheria vaccination rate is 62%.
• The herpes zoster vaccination rate is 28%.
• The influenza vaccination rate is 43%.
• The pneumococcal vaccination rate among high-risk persons aged 19-64 years is 20% and among adults aged greater than or equal to 65 years is 61%.

Of adults who had health insurance and at least 10 physician contacts within the past year, 23.8%-88.8% reported not having received vaccinations that were recommended.

In the business literature there is a great deal of disagreement about the value of the “middleman.” The term middleman describes someone who brings the product from the producer, or factory, to the consumer. On the one hand, if the factory can sell the product directly to the consumer, the consumer can save money and the factory can make more money. On the other hand, if the middleman can help the consumer make a better choice among the variety of products available, then the middleman provides value and the consumer benefits.³

Traditionally, clinicians have served the role of the middleman for preventive health activities, knowing what to recommend to patients and informing them of the correct preventive health choices that fit their needs. The problem with this concept is that preventive health recommendations are largely demographically based, are tied to population-based risk assessment, and usually require very little individual judgment.

We as physicians are good at – and I believe truly enjoy – exercising judgment. We love thinking things through and helping the person in front of us. We are not as good at remembering unprompted information in the middle of busy visits that are often made for unrelated reasons. Most of the people who have not had a colonoscopy or pneumococcal vaccine have not decided against the procedure after a detailed discussion with their physician. On the contrary, the service was never recommended, or it was recommended, but the patient did not follow up to have the procedure performed.

Let’s now imagine another approach. You’re a patient and once a year you click on an email that shows up in your inbox from your doctor with the words “Preventive Health” in the subject line. The EHR – based on your gender, age, and a query of what has been documented in your chart – has determined the preventive health activities that are recommended for you. You can choose to pursue, opt out, or get more information for each of the recommended preventive services as you read through them.

If you choose to have more information, it is provided in a structured format that allows you to drill down to the level of detail that you desire. In all probability, you will find a greater level of detail and accuracy of information about each preventive service than could possibly be provided during a routine office visit. Specifics about the risks and benefits of the procedure will also be more extensive, as it is unlikely your care providers are able to keep all of the details and risk ratios in their heads. If desired, you as a patient can take your time to read and digest the information, sleep on it, and come back to it to make an informed decision. This is not something you can do during a routine office visit.

If you choose to opt out of the procedure, just click the “declined” box. Otherwise, when you’ve made all of your decisions and indicate that you’re done, the necessary prescriptions for blood work and x-rays, as well as referrals to the appropriate specialists, will print out. An entry will also be made in the electronic record showing you’ve been provided preventive health recommendations that are appropriate for your age and sex and made your preferred choices. At any point, if you feel you’d like further discussion with your physician, you can make an appointment electronically through the interface.

The hurdles for implementing such a system are real, but they are solvable, and the development of such an approach is inevitable, enviable, and will ultimately be good for both patients and their providers. Patients will get more predictable and complete recommendations for preventive care and providers will have more time to do what we enjoy and are most skilled at – talking with patients to clarify diagnoses, decide upon treatment, and clarify questions that come up about preventive health recommendations.
 

Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records.

References

1. White A et al. Cancer screening test use – United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 Mar 3;66(8):201-6.

2. Williams WW et al. Surveillance of vaccination coverage among adult populations – United States, 2014. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2016 Feb 5;65(1):1-36.

3. Conerly B. Don’t eliminate the middleman – He’s much too valuable. Forbes. Oct 28, 2015.
 

Let face it, it’s hard enough to get a teen girl to look up long enough to answer basic questions during an exam, let alone start a completely uncomfortable conversation about vaginal hygiene. Realistically, though, if we don’t have the conversation, who will? Sure, moms give some instructions on how to wipe properly and remind teens to change their pads frequently, but are they giving the correct advice? Are many women just suffering in silence, assuming it’s just something women deal with? Or are they continuing harmful practices that have been passed down through the generations?

Rawpixel/Thinkstock

Bacterial vaginosis

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a polymicrobial syndrome characterized by an imbalance of resident bacteria flora in the vagina.¹ The normal flora is predominantly lactobacilli and produces hydrogen peroxide, which keeps the vaginal pH around 4.5. When normal flora is disrupted, other bacteria such as Gardnerella vaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis, and Prevotella bacteroides, to name just a few, can take over, resulting in an unpleasant odor, a watery discharge, and a lower pH. Although originally thought to be sexually transmitted, BV can occur at any age and without having intercourse.²

The incidence of BV varies among races, among socioeconomic classes, and with age. Cultural practices and resources play more of a role than physiologic differences.² For example, African American women, particularly Caribbean blacks, have higher rates than white women, but douching also is more common among African American and Caribbean blacks than whites. Washing with harsh antiseptics or perfumed soaps also can increase risk, and BV can be sexually transmitted, so the number of partners a woman has can increase that risk.

The presence of BV also has significant social, interpersonal, and work effects and, for some women, is the source of extreme anxiety and distress, which is why many women turn to extreme measures such as douching to control it.<sup>3,5

Furthermore,</sup> BV is associated with preterm labor and low birth weight infants. Studies have shown that women who are culture positive in their second trimester are at greater risk for adverse outcomes.⁶

Douching

Douching began in the mid-1800s with the advent of the Eguisier irrigator, which was sold in French pharmacies and consisted of a plunger and a nozzle and was used to prevent pregnancy. Then, in the 1920’s, Lysol was used as the antiseptic, with claims that it acted as a spermicide. Rinsing out the vagina after coitus was believed to kill any sperm in the body and prevent pregnancy. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the ill effects of Lysol on the vagina were acknowledged and the practice was discontinued.⁴

Although, generally, douching has fallen out of favor and most authorities advise against it,studies have shown that there can be a benefit when used for vaginosis or vaginitis in relieving symptoms.^5,2 Those benefits do not outweigh the possible adverse effects. The process of douching allows for a pressurized solution to be injected into the vagina, thereby flushing bacteria throughout the vagina and into the uterus. In adolescence, the endothelial lining is more prone to adherence of the bacteria, so contracting a sexually transmitted infection is more likely and can increase the risk for ectopic pregnancy.² The mucus lining of the vagina also tends to be thick; using harsh soaps thins the mucosa, again increasing the likelihood of infections. Furthermore, studies have confirmed that there also is a higher transmission rate of HIV and chlamydia when BV is present.²
 

Treating and preventing BV

The treatment of choice for BV is metronidazole taken orally or introduced vaginally. Studies have shown that recolonization of the lactobacilli can be slow, so the addition of lactic acid can be helpful. Clindamycin orally or vaginally also is a reasonable choice. Given that most of the bacteria causing BV have beta-lactamase, penicillin is not effective.⁷

Probiotics taken orally have a natural migration to the vaginal area and promote recolonization.⁷ Taking 250 mg of vitamin C 6 days/month for 6 months also has been shown to be helpful in recolonization and prevention of recurrence.⁸

A discussion of proper vaginal hygiene is important for adolescents and teens. Poor hygiene can significantly affect their social and interpersonal relationships, as well as their self-esteem. It puts them at greater risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections, and if they become pregnant, of having an adverse outcome.

Make teens aware that any vaginal odor is abnormal, and explain the different types of discharge and which require a doctor visit. In addition, inform them that douching with harsh or perfumed soaps changes the pH of the vagina, which can lead to bacterial overgrowth, so douching should be avoided. Advise them to change pads used during the menstrual cycle every 4-6 hours, and that cotton underwear and loose-fitting clothes also can reduce vaginal irritation. Lastly, advise teens to drink lots of fluids, eat yogurt, and take vitamin C and probiotics to reduce the risk of recurrence.

Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Das P et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 30;10(6):e0130777.

2. Martino JL et al. Epidemiologic reviews. 2002;24(2):109-24.

3. Bilardi JE et al. PLoS ONE 2013;8(9):e74378.

4. www.Timeline.com/sexist-history-douching-bcc39f3d216c. 2016 Aug 14.

5. Fashemi B et al. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2013 Feb 25. doi: 10.3402/mehd.v24i0.19703.

6. Hillier SL et al. N Engl J Med. 1995 Dec 28;333(26):1737-42.

7. Kumar N et al. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011 Oct;3(4):496-503.

8. Krasnopolsky VN et al. J Clin Med Res. 2013 Aug;5(4):309-15..


 

Let face it, it’s hard enough to get a teen girl to look up long enough to answer basic questions during an exam, let alone start a completely uncomfortable conversation about vaginal hygiene. Realistically, though, if we don’t have the conversation, who will? Sure, moms give some instructions on how to wipe properly and remind teens to change their pads frequently, but are they giving the correct advice? Are many women just suffering in silence, assuming it’s just something women deal with? Or are they continuing harmful practices that have been passed down through the generations?

Rawpixel/Thinkstock

Bacterial vaginosis

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a polymicrobial syndrome characterized by an imbalance of resident bacteria flora in the vagina.¹ The normal flora is predominantly lactobacilli and produces hydrogen peroxide, which keeps the vaginal pH around 4.5. When normal flora is disrupted, other bacteria such as Gardnerella vaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis, and Prevotella bacteroides, to name just a few, can take over, resulting in an unpleasant odor, a watery discharge, and a lower pH. Although originally thought to be sexually transmitted, BV can occur at any age and without having intercourse.²

The incidence of BV varies among races, among socioeconomic classes, and with age. Cultural practices and resources play more of a role than physiologic differences.² For example, African American women, particularly Caribbean blacks, have higher rates than white women, but douching also is more common among African American and Caribbean blacks than whites. Washing with harsh antiseptics or perfumed soaps also can increase risk, and BV can be sexually transmitted, so the number of partners a woman has can increase that risk.

The presence of BV also has significant social, interpersonal, and work effects and, for some women, is the source of extreme anxiety and distress, which is why many women turn to extreme measures such as douching to control it.<sup>3,5

Furthermore,</sup> BV is associated with preterm labor and low birth weight infants. Studies have shown that women who are culture positive in their second trimester are at greater risk for adverse outcomes.⁶

Douching

Douching began in the mid-1800s with the advent of the Eguisier irrigator, which was sold in French pharmacies and consisted of a plunger and a nozzle and was used to prevent pregnancy. Then, in the 1920’s, Lysol was used as the antiseptic, with claims that it acted as a spermicide. Rinsing out the vagina after coitus was believed to kill any sperm in the body and prevent pregnancy. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the ill effects of Lysol on the vagina were acknowledged and the practice was discontinued.⁴

Although, generally, douching has fallen out of favor and most authorities advise against it,studies have shown that there can be a benefit when used for vaginosis or vaginitis in relieving symptoms.^5,2 Those benefits do not outweigh the possible adverse effects. The process of douching allows for a pressurized solution to be injected into the vagina, thereby flushing bacteria throughout the vagina and into the uterus. In adolescence, the endothelial lining is more prone to adherence of the bacteria, so contracting a sexually transmitted infection is more likely and can increase the risk for ectopic pregnancy.² The mucus lining of the vagina also tends to be thick; using harsh soaps thins the mucosa, again increasing the likelihood of infections. Furthermore, studies have confirmed that there also is a higher transmission rate of HIV and chlamydia when BV is present.²
 

Treating and preventing BV

The treatment of choice for BV is metronidazole taken orally or introduced vaginally. Studies have shown that recolonization of the lactobacilli can be slow, so the addition of lactic acid can be helpful. Clindamycin orally or vaginally also is a reasonable choice. Given that most of the bacteria causing BV have beta-lactamase, penicillin is not effective.⁷

Probiotics taken orally have a natural migration to the vaginal area and promote recolonization.⁷ Taking 250 mg of vitamin C 6 days/month for 6 months also has been shown to be helpful in recolonization and prevention of recurrence.⁸

A discussion of proper vaginal hygiene is important for adolescents and teens. Poor hygiene can significantly affect their social and interpersonal relationships, as well as their self-esteem. It puts them at greater risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections, and if they become pregnant, of having an adverse outcome.

Make teens aware that any vaginal odor is abnormal, and explain the different types of discharge and which require a doctor visit. In addition, inform them that douching with harsh or perfumed soaps changes the pH of the vagina, which can lead to bacterial overgrowth, so douching should be avoided. Advise them to change pads used during the menstrual cycle every 4-6 hours, and that cotton underwear and loose-fitting clothes also can reduce vaginal irritation. Lastly, advise teens to drink lots of fluids, eat yogurt, and take vitamin C and probiotics to reduce the risk of recurrence.

Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Das P et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 30;10(6):e0130777.

2. Martino JL et al. Epidemiologic reviews. 2002;24(2):109-24.

3. Bilardi JE et al. PLoS ONE 2013;8(9):e74378.

4. www.Timeline.com/sexist-history-douching-bcc39f3d216c. 2016 Aug 14.

5. Fashemi B et al. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2013 Feb 25. doi: 10.3402/mehd.v24i0.19703.

6. Hillier SL et al. N Engl J Med. 1995 Dec 28;333(26):1737-42.

7. Kumar N et al. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011 Oct;3(4):496-503.

8. Krasnopolsky VN et al. J Clin Med Res. 2013 Aug;5(4):309-15..


 

Let face it, it’s hard enough to get a teen girl to look up long enough to answer basic questions during an exam, let alone start a completely uncomfortable conversation about vaginal hygiene. Realistically, though, if we don’t have the conversation, who will? Sure, moms give some instructions on how to wipe properly and remind teens to change their pads frequently, but are they giving the correct advice? Are many women just suffering in silence, assuming it’s just something women deal with? Or are they continuing harmful practices that have been passed down through the generations?

Rawpixel/Thinkstock

Bacterial vaginosis

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a polymicrobial syndrome characterized by an imbalance of resident bacteria flora in the vagina.¹ The normal flora is predominantly lactobacilli and produces hydrogen peroxide, which keeps the vaginal pH around 4.5. When normal flora is disrupted, other bacteria such as Gardnerella vaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis, and Prevotella bacteroides, to name just a few, can take over, resulting in an unpleasant odor, a watery discharge, and a lower pH. Although originally thought to be sexually transmitted, BV can occur at any age and without having intercourse.²

The incidence of BV varies among races, among socioeconomic classes, and with age. Cultural practices and resources play more of a role than physiologic differences.² For example, African American women, particularly Caribbean blacks, have higher rates than white women, but douching also is more common among African American and Caribbean blacks than whites. Washing with harsh antiseptics or perfumed soaps also can increase risk, and BV can be sexually transmitted, so the number of partners a woman has can increase that risk.

The presence of BV also has significant social, interpersonal, and work effects and, for some women, is the source of extreme anxiety and distress, which is why many women turn to extreme measures such as douching to control it.<sup>3,5

Furthermore,</sup> BV is associated with preterm labor and low birth weight infants. Studies have shown that women who are culture positive in their second trimester are at greater risk for adverse outcomes.⁶

Douching

Douching began in the mid-1800s with the advent of the Eguisier irrigator, which was sold in French pharmacies and consisted of a plunger and a nozzle and was used to prevent pregnancy. Then, in the 1920’s, Lysol was used as the antiseptic, with claims that it acted as a spermicide. Rinsing out the vagina after coitus was believed to kill any sperm in the body and prevent pregnancy. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the ill effects of Lysol on the vagina were acknowledged and the practice was discontinued.⁴

Although, generally, douching has fallen out of favor and most authorities advise against it,studies have shown that there can be a benefit when used for vaginosis or vaginitis in relieving symptoms.^5,2 Those benefits do not outweigh the possible adverse effects. The process of douching allows for a pressurized solution to be injected into the vagina, thereby flushing bacteria throughout the vagina and into the uterus. In adolescence, the endothelial lining is more prone to adherence of the bacteria, so contracting a sexually transmitted infection is more likely and can increase the risk for ectopic pregnancy.² The mucus lining of the vagina also tends to be thick; using harsh soaps thins the mucosa, again increasing the likelihood of infections. Furthermore, studies have confirmed that there also is a higher transmission rate of HIV and chlamydia when BV is present.²
 

Treating and preventing BV

The treatment of choice for BV is metronidazole taken orally or introduced vaginally. Studies have shown that recolonization of the lactobacilli can be slow, so the addition of lactic acid can be helpful. Clindamycin orally or vaginally also is a reasonable choice. Given that most of the bacteria causing BV have beta-lactamase, penicillin is not effective.⁷

Probiotics taken orally have a natural migration to the vaginal area and promote recolonization.⁷ Taking 250 mg of vitamin C 6 days/month for 6 months also has been shown to be helpful in recolonization and prevention of recurrence.⁸

A discussion of proper vaginal hygiene is important for adolescents and teens. Poor hygiene can significantly affect their social and interpersonal relationships, as well as their self-esteem. It puts them at greater risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections, and if they become pregnant, of having an adverse outcome.

Make teens aware that any vaginal odor is abnormal, and explain the different types of discharge and which require a doctor visit. In addition, inform them that douching with harsh or perfumed soaps changes the pH of the vagina, which can lead to bacterial overgrowth, so douching should be avoided. Advise them to change pads used during the menstrual cycle every 4-6 hours, and that cotton underwear and loose-fitting clothes also can reduce vaginal irritation. Lastly, advise teens to drink lots of fluids, eat yogurt, and take vitamin C and probiotics to reduce the risk of recurrence.

Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Das P et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 30;10(6):e0130777.

2. Martino JL et al. Epidemiologic reviews. 2002;24(2):109-24.

3. Bilardi JE et al. PLoS ONE 2013;8(9):e74378.

4. www.Timeline.com/sexist-history-douching-bcc39f3d216c. 2016 Aug 14.

5. Fashemi B et al. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2013 Feb 25. doi: 10.3402/mehd.v24i0.19703.

6. Hillier SL et al. N Engl J Med. 1995 Dec 28;333(26):1737-42.

7. Kumar N et al. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011 Oct;3(4):496-503.

8. Krasnopolsky VN et al. J Clin Med Res. 2013 Aug;5(4):309-15..


 

Over the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of shoulder arthroplasties performed around the world. This increase is the result of an aging and increasingly more active population, better implant technology, and the advent of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for rotator cuff arthropathy. Additionally, as the indications for RSA have expanded to include pathologies such as rotator cuff insufficiency, chronic instabilities, trauma, and tumors, the number of arthroplasties will continue to increase. Although the results of most arthroplasties are good and predictable, any glenoid and/or humeral bone deficiencies can have detrimental effects on the clinical outcomes of these procedures. Bone loss becomes more of a problem in revision cases, and, as the number of primary arthroplasties increases, it follows that the number of revision procedures will also increase.

Many of the disease- or procedure-specific processes indicated for shoulder arthroplasty have predictable patterns of bone loss, especially on the glenoid side. Walch and colleagues¹ and Bercik and colleagues² made us aware that many patients with primary osteoarthritis have significant glenoid bone deformity. Similarly, there have been a number of first- and second-generation classification systems for delineating glenoid deformity in rotator cuff tear arthropathy and in revision settings. In revision settings, both glenoid and humeral bone deficiencies can occur as a result of implant removal, iatrogenic fracture, and even infection. Each of these bone loss patterns must be recognized and treated appropriately for the best surgical outcome.

The articles in this month of The American Journal of Orthopedics address the most up-to-date concepts and solutions regarding both humeral and glenoid bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty of all types.

HUMERAL BONE LOSS

Humeral bone loss is typically encountered in proximal humerus fractures, in revision surgery necessitating humeral component removal, and, less commonly, in tumors and infection.

In many displaced proximal humeral fractures indicated for shoulder arthroplasty, the bone is comminuted with displacement of the lesser and greater tuberosities. In these situations, failure of tuberosity healing may result in loss of rotator cuff function with loss of elevation, rotation, and even instability. Humeral shortening can also occur as a result of bone loss and can compromise deltoid function by loss of proper muscle tension, leading to instability, dysfunction, or both. In addition to possible instability, humeral shortening with metaphyseal bone loss can adversely affect long-term fixation of the humeral component, leading to stem loosening or failure. Cuff and colleagues³ showed significantly more rotational micromotion in cases lacking metaphyseal support, leading to aseptic loosening of the humeral stem.

Humeral bone loss can also result from humeral stem component removal in revision shoulder arthroplasty for infection, component failure or loosening, and even periprosthetic fracture resulting from surgery or trauma.

For the surgeon, humeral bone loss can create a complex set of circumstances related to rotator cuff attachment failure, soft-tissue balancing effects, and component fixation issues. Any such issue must be recognized and addressed for best outcomes. Best results can be obtained with preoperative imaging, planning, use of bone graft techniques, proximal humeral allografts, and, more recently, modular and patient-specific implants. All of these issues are discussed comprehensively in the articles this month.

Continue to: GLENOID BONE LOSS

Proper glenoid component placement with durable fixation is crucial for success in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty and RSA. Glenoid bone deformity and loss can result from intrinsic deformity characteristics seen in primary osteoarthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, or glenoid component removal in revision situations and infection. These bone deformity complications can be extremely difficult to treat and in some cases lead to catastrophic failure of the index arthroplasty.

We are now aware that one key to success in the face of moderate to severe deformity is proper recognition. Newer imaging techniques, including 2-dimensional (2-D) computed tomography (CT) and 3-dimensional (3-D) modeling and surgical planning software tools, which are outlined in an upcoming article, have given surgeons important new instruments that can help in treating these difficult cases.

Glenoid bone deformity in primary osteoarthritis was well delineated in the 1999 seminal study of CT changes by Walch and colleagues.¹ The Walch classification system, which characterized glenoid morphology based on 2-D CT findings, was recently upgraded, based on 3-D imaging technology, to include Walch B3 and D patterns (Figure 1).² Recognition of certain primary deformities in osteoarthritis has led to increased use of RSA in some cases of Walch B2, B3, and C deformities with substantial glenoid retroversion and/or humeral head subluxation.⁴

In cases of rotator cuff tear arthropathy, glenoid bone deformities are well described with several classification systems based on degree and dimension of bone insufficiency. The Hamada classification system defines the degree of medial glenoid erosion and superior bone loss, as well as acetabularization of the acromion in 5 grades; ⁵ Rispoli and colleagues⁶ defined and graded the degree of medicalization of the glenohumeral joint based on degree of subchondral plate erosion; and Visotsky and colleagues⁷ based their classification system on wear patterns of bone loss, alignment, and concomitant soft-tissue insufficiencies leading to instability and rotation loss.

In severe glenoid bone deficiency after glenoid component removal, Antuna and colleagues⁸ described the classic findings related to medial bone loss, anterior and posterior wall failure, and combinations thereof.

Continue to: All these classification systems...

All these classification systems are based on the 2-D appearance of the glenoid and should be considered cautiously. The glenoid is a complex 3-D structure that can be affected by any number of disease processes, trauma, and surgical intervention. Using more modern CT techniques and 3-D imaging, we now know that many deformities previously classified as unidirectional are, instead, complex and multidirectional.

Frankle and colleagues⁹ developed a classification based more 3-D CT models which has further classified severe glenoid vault deformities in relation to direction and degree of bone loss (Figures 2A-2E). Using this system, they were better able to determine degree and direction of deformity than in previous 2-D evaluations, and they were able to determine the amount of glenoid vault bone available for baseplate fixation. Scalise and colleagues¹⁰ further defined the influence of such 3-D planning in total shoulder arthroplasty.

With knowledge of these classification systems and use of contemporary imaging systems, shoulder arthroplasty in cases of severe glenoid deficiency can be more successful. Potentially, we can improve outcomes even more in the more severe cases of bone loss with use of patient-specific planning tools, including the guides and patient-specific implants that are now readily available with many implant systems.¹¹

Preoperative planning tools, bone-grafting techniques, augmented and specialized glenoid and humeral implants, and patient-specific implants are discussed this month to give our readers a comprehensive review of the latest concepts in shoulder arthroplasty in cases of significant bone loss or deformity.

This month of The American Journal of Orthopedics presents the most current and cutting-edge solutions for humeral and glenoid bone deformities and deficiencies in contemporary shoulder arthroplasties.

Over the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of shoulder arthroplasties performed around the world. This increase is the result of an aging and increasingly more active population, better implant technology, and the advent of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for rotator cuff arthropathy. Additionally, as the indications for RSA have expanded to include pathologies such as rotator cuff insufficiency, chronic instabilities, trauma, and tumors, the number of arthroplasties will continue to increase. Although the results of most arthroplasties are good and predictable, any glenoid and/or humeral bone deficiencies can have detrimental effects on the clinical outcomes of these procedures. Bone loss becomes more of a problem in revision cases, and, as the number of primary arthroplasties increases, it follows that the number of revision procedures will also increase.

Many of the disease- or procedure-specific processes indicated for shoulder arthroplasty have predictable patterns of bone loss, especially on the glenoid side. Walch and colleagues¹ and Bercik and colleagues² made us aware that many patients with primary osteoarthritis have significant glenoid bone deformity. Similarly, there have been a number of first- and second-generation classification systems for delineating glenoid deformity in rotator cuff tear arthropathy and in revision settings. In revision settings, both glenoid and humeral bone deficiencies can occur as a result of implant removal, iatrogenic fracture, and even infection. Each of these bone loss patterns must be recognized and treated appropriately for the best surgical outcome.

The articles in this month of The American Journal of Orthopedics address the most up-to-date concepts and solutions regarding both humeral and glenoid bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty of all types.

HUMERAL BONE LOSS

Humeral bone loss is typically encountered in proximal humerus fractures, in revision surgery necessitating humeral component removal, and, less commonly, in tumors and infection.

In many displaced proximal humeral fractures indicated for shoulder arthroplasty, the bone is comminuted with displacement of the lesser and greater tuberosities. In these situations, failure of tuberosity healing may result in loss of rotator cuff function with loss of elevation, rotation, and even instability. Humeral shortening can also occur as a result of bone loss and can compromise deltoid function by loss of proper muscle tension, leading to instability, dysfunction, or both. In addition to possible instability, humeral shortening with metaphyseal bone loss can adversely affect long-term fixation of the humeral component, leading to stem loosening or failure. Cuff and colleagues³ showed significantly more rotational micromotion in cases lacking metaphyseal support, leading to aseptic loosening of the humeral stem.

Humeral bone loss can also result from humeral stem component removal in revision shoulder arthroplasty for infection, component failure or loosening, and even periprosthetic fracture resulting from surgery or trauma.

For the surgeon, humeral bone loss can create a complex set of circumstances related to rotator cuff attachment failure, soft-tissue balancing effects, and component fixation issues. Any such issue must be recognized and addressed for best outcomes. Best results can be obtained with preoperative imaging, planning, use of bone graft techniques, proximal humeral allografts, and, more recently, modular and patient-specific implants. All of these issues are discussed comprehensively in the articles this month.

Continue to: GLENOID BONE LOSS

Proper glenoid component placement with durable fixation is crucial for success in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty and RSA. Glenoid bone deformity and loss can result from intrinsic deformity characteristics seen in primary osteoarthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, or glenoid component removal in revision situations and infection. These bone deformity complications can be extremely difficult to treat and in some cases lead to catastrophic failure of the index arthroplasty.

We are now aware that one key to success in the face of moderate to severe deformity is proper recognition. Newer imaging techniques, including 2-dimensional (2-D) computed tomography (CT) and 3-dimensional (3-D) modeling and surgical planning software tools, which are outlined in an upcoming article, have given surgeons important new instruments that can help in treating these difficult cases.

Glenoid bone deformity in primary osteoarthritis was well delineated in the 1999 seminal study of CT changes by Walch and colleagues.¹ The Walch classification system, which characterized glenoid morphology based on 2-D CT findings, was recently upgraded, based on 3-D imaging technology, to include Walch B3 and D patterns (Figure 1).² Recognition of certain primary deformities in osteoarthritis has led to increased use of RSA in some cases of Walch B2, B3, and C deformities with substantial glenoid retroversion and/or humeral head subluxation.⁴

In cases of rotator cuff tear arthropathy, glenoid bone deformities are well described with several classification systems based on degree and dimension of bone insufficiency. The Hamada classification system defines the degree of medial glenoid erosion and superior bone loss, as well as acetabularization of the acromion in 5 grades; ⁵ Rispoli and colleagues⁶ defined and graded the degree of medicalization of the glenohumeral joint based on degree of subchondral plate erosion; and Visotsky and colleagues⁷ based their classification system on wear patterns of bone loss, alignment, and concomitant soft-tissue insufficiencies leading to instability and rotation loss.

In severe glenoid bone deficiency after glenoid component removal, Antuna and colleagues⁸ described the classic findings related to medial bone loss, anterior and posterior wall failure, and combinations thereof.

Continue to: All these classification systems...

All these classification systems are based on the 2-D appearance of the glenoid and should be considered cautiously. The glenoid is a complex 3-D structure that can be affected by any number of disease processes, trauma, and surgical intervention. Using more modern CT techniques and 3-D imaging, we now know that many deformities previously classified as unidirectional are, instead, complex and multidirectional.

Frankle and colleagues⁹ developed a classification based more 3-D CT models which has further classified severe glenoid vault deformities in relation to direction and degree of bone loss (Figures 2A-2E). Using this system, they were better able to determine degree and direction of deformity than in previous 2-D evaluations, and they were able to determine the amount of glenoid vault bone available for baseplate fixation. Scalise and colleagues¹⁰ further defined the influence of such 3-D planning in total shoulder arthroplasty.

With knowledge of these classification systems and use of contemporary imaging systems, shoulder arthroplasty in cases of severe glenoid deficiency can be more successful. Potentially, we can improve outcomes even more in the more severe cases of bone loss with use of patient-specific planning tools, including the guides and patient-specific implants that are now readily available with many implant systems.¹¹

Preoperative planning tools, bone-grafting techniques, augmented and specialized glenoid and humeral implants, and patient-specific implants are discussed this month to give our readers a comprehensive review of the latest concepts in shoulder arthroplasty in cases of significant bone loss or deformity.

This month of The American Journal of Orthopedics presents the most current and cutting-edge solutions for humeral and glenoid bone deformities and deficiencies in contemporary shoulder arthroplasties.

Over the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of shoulder arthroplasties performed around the world. This increase is the result of an aging and increasingly more active population, better implant technology, and the advent of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for rotator cuff arthropathy. Additionally, as the indications for RSA have expanded to include pathologies such as rotator cuff insufficiency, chronic instabilities, trauma, and tumors, the number of arthroplasties will continue to increase. Although the results of most arthroplasties are good and predictable, any glenoid and/or humeral bone deficiencies can have detrimental effects on the clinical outcomes of these procedures. Bone loss becomes more of a problem in revision cases, and, as the number of primary arthroplasties increases, it follows that the number of revision procedures will also increase.

Many of the disease- or procedure-specific processes indicated for shoulder arthroplasty have predictable patterns of bone loss, especially on the glenoid side. Walch and colleagues¹ and Bercik and colleagues² made us aware that many patients with primary osteoarthritis have significant glenoid bone deformity. Similarly, there have been a number of first- and second-generation classification systems for delineating glenoid deformity in rotator cuff tear arthropathy and in revision settings. In revision settings, both glenoid and humeral bone deficiencies can occur as a result of implant removal, iatrogenic fracture, and even infection. Each of these bone loss patterns must be recognized and treated appropriately for the best surgical outcome.

The articles in this month of The American Journal of Orthopedics address the most up-to-date concepts and solutions regarding both humeral and glenoid bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty of all types.

HUMERAL BONE LOSS

Humeral bone loss is typically encountered in proximal humerus fractures, in revision surgery necessitating humeral component removal, and, less commonly, in tumors and infection.

In many displaced proximal humeral fractures indicated for shoulder arthroplasty, the bone is comminuted with displacement of the lesser and greater tuberosities. In these situations, failure of tuberosity healing may result in loss of rotator cuff function with loss of elevation, rotation, and even instability. Humeral shortening can also occur as a result of bone loss and can compromise deltoid function by loss of proper muscle tension, leading to instability, dysfunction, or both. In addition to possible instability, humeral shortening with metaphyseal bone loss can adversely affect long-term fixation of the humeral component, leading to stem loosening or failure. Cuff and colleagues³ showed significantly more rotational micromotion in cases lacking metaphyseal support, leading to aseptic loosening of the humeral stem.

Humeral bone loss can also result from humeral stem component removal in revision shoulder arthroplasty for infection, component failure or loosening, and even periprosthetic fracture resulting from surgery or trauma.

For the surgeon, humeral bone loss can create a complex set of circumstances related to rotator cuff attachment failure, soft-tissue balancing effects, and component fixation issues. Any such issue must be recognized and addressed for best outcomes. Best results can be obtained with preoperative imaging, planning, use of bone graft techniques, proximal humeral allografts, and, more recently, modular and patient-specific implants. All of these issues are discussed comprehensively in the articles this month.

Continue to: GLENOID BONE LOSS

Proper glenoid component placement with durable fixation is crucial for success in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty and RSA. Glenoid bone deformity and loss can result from intrinsic deformity characteristics seen in primary osteoarthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, or glenoid component removal in revision situations and infection. These bone deformity complications can be extremely difficult to treat and in some cases lead to catastrophic failure of the index arthroplasty.

We are now aware that one key to success in the face of moderate to severe deformity is proper recognition. Newer imaging techniques, including 2-dimensional (2-D) computed tomography (CT) and 3-dimensional (3-D) modeling and surgical planning software tools, which are outlined in an upcoming article, have given surgeons important new instruments that can help in treating these difficult cases.

Glenoid bone deformity in primary osteoarthritis was well delineated in the 1999 seminal study of CT changes by Walch and colleagues.¹ The Walch classification system, which characterized glenoid morphology based on 2-D CT findings, was recently upgraded, based on 3-D imaging technology, to include Walch B3 and D patterns (Figure 1).² Recognition of certain primary deformities in osteoarthritis has led to increased use of RSA in some cases of Walch B2, B3, and C deformities with substantial glenoid retroversion and/or humeral head subluxation.⁴

In cases of rotator cuff tear arthropathy, glenoid bone deformities are well described with several classification systems based on degree and dimension of bone insufficiency. The Hamada classification system defines the degree of medial glenoid erosion and superior bone loss, as well as acetabularization of the acromion in 5 grades; ⁵ Rispoli and colleagues⁶ defined and graded the degree of medicalization of the glenohumeral joint based on degree of subchondral plate erosion; and Visotsky and colleagues⁷ based their classification system on wear patterns of bone loss, alignment, and concomitant soft-tissue insufficiencies leading to instability and rotation loss.

In severe glenoid bone deficiency after glenoid component removal, Antuna and colleagues⁸ described the classic findings related to medial bone loss, anterior and posterior wall failure, and combinations thereof.

Continue to: All these classification systems...

All these classification systems are based on the 2-D appearance of the glenoid and should be considered cautiously. The glenoid is a complex 3-D structure that can be affected by any number of disease processes, trauma, and surgical intervention. Using more modern CT techniques and 3-D imaging, we now know that many deformities previously classified as unidirectional are, instead, complex and multidirectional.

Frankle and colleagues⁹ developed a classification based more 3-D CT models which has further classified severe glenoid vault deformities in relation to direction and degree of bone loss (Figures 2A-2E). Using this system, they were better able to determine degree and direction of deformity than in previous 2-D evaluations, and they were able to determine the amount of glenoid vault bone available for baseplate fixation. Scalise and colleagues¹⁰ further defined the influence of such 3-D planning in total shoulder arthroplasty.

With knowledge of these classification systems and use of contemporary imaging systems, shoulder arthroplasty in cases of severe glenoid deficiency can be more successful. Potentially, we can improve outcomes even more in the more severe cases of bone loss with use of patient-specific planning tools, including the guides and patient-specific implants that are now readily available with many implant systems.¹¹

Preoperative planning tools, bone-grafting techniques, augmented and specialized glenoid and humeral implants, and patient-specific implants are discussed this month to give our readers a comprehensive review of the latest concepts in shoulder arthroplasty in cases of significant bone loss or deformity.

This month of The American Journal of Orthopedics presents the most current and cutting-edge solutions for humeral and glenoid bone deformities and deficiencies in contemporary shoulder arthroplasties.

Roughly 8 in 10 Americans routinely reach for over-the-counter (OTC) pain pills to relieve headaches, backaches, sore muscles, fevers, or colds, according to a national poll by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). Most are unaware that these medications, if used incorrectly, can be just as dangerous as prescription drugs.

In my GI practice, I often see cases of accidental OTC pain medicine overdose that have caused stomach bleeding, ulcers, liver damage, and even liver failure. And, I am not alone – the poll found that gastroenterologists see, on average, nearly two patients per week with complications from OTC pain pills.

As the nation’s attention is focused on the opioid crisis, and with good reason, we cannot forget about the risks associated with OTC pain medicines. While it may seem harmless to take more OTC medications than indicated, the body is not capable of absorbing higher doses of pain medicine ingredients at a faster rate.

According to the AGA’s survey, many people are confident they can manage symptoms on their own, without consulting a doctor. Yet, the same poll found that 39% of Americans knowingly took more than the recommended dosage. In most cases, they falsely believed that taking more OTC pain medicine than what was indicated on the label would help them “feel better faster.”

Dr. Wilcox is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a chair of AGA’s Gut Check: Know Your Medicine campaign.

Roughly 8 in 10 Americans routinely reach for over-the-counter (OTC) pain pills to relieve headaches, backaches, sore muscles, fevers, or colds, according to a national poll by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). Most are unaware that these medications, if used incorrectly, can be just as dangerous as prescription drugs.

In my GI practice, I often see cases of accidental OTC pain medicine overdose that have caused stomach bleeding, ulcers, liver damage, and even liver failure. And, I am not alone – the poll found that gastroenterologists see, on average, nearly two patients per week with complications from OTC pain pills.

As the nation’s attention is focused on the opioid crisis, and with good reason, we cannot forget about the risks associated with OTC pain medicines. While it may seem harmless to take more OTC medications than indicated, the body is not capable of absorbing higher doses of pain medicine ingredients at a faster rate.

According to the AGA’s survey, many people are confident they can manage symptoms on their own, without consulting a doctor. Yet, the same poll found that 39% of Americans knowingly took more than the recommended dosage. In most cases, they falsely believed that taking more OTC pain medicine than what was indicated on the label would help them “feel better faster.”

Dr. Wilcox is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a chair of AGA’s Gut Check: Know Your Medicine campaign.

Roughly 8 in 10 Americans routinely reach for over-the-counter (OTC) pain pills to relieve headaches, backaches, sore muscles, fevers, or colds, according to a national poll by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). Most are unaware that these medications, if used incorrectly, can be just as dangerous as prescription drugs.

In my GI practice, I often see cases of accidental OTC pain medicine overdose that have caused stomach bleeding, ulcers, liver damage, and even liver failure. And, I am not alone – the poll found that gastroenterologists see, on average, nearly two patients per week with complications from OTC pain pills.

As the nation’s attention is focused on the opioid crisis, and with good reason, we cannot forget about the risks associated with OTC pain medicines. While it may seem harmless to take more OTC medications than indicated, the body is not capable of absorbing higher doses of pain medicine ingredients at a faster rate.

According to the AGA’s survey, many people are confident they can manage symptoms on their own, without consulting a doctor. Yet, the same poll found that 39% of Americans knowingly took more than the recommended dosage. In most cases, they falsely believed that taking more OTC pain medicine than what was indicated on the label would help them “feel better faster.”

Dr. Wilcox is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a chair of AGA’s Gut Check: Know Your Medicine campaign.

Morphea, also known as localized scleroderma, is a rare fibrosing disorder of the skin and the underlying tissue that encompasses a variety of distinct subtypes classified by pattern and depth of lesion involvement. It may involve fat, fascia, muscle, and bone, and rarely, the central nervous system. Morphea is easily differentiated from systemic sclerosis by its primarily cutaneous involvement, although a minority of patients may have associated extracutaneous findings. Systemic sclerosis describes a well-defined disorder of skin sclerosis with a specific pattern of internal organ involvement.

Courtesy Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield

Diagnosis

Morphea is diagnosed clinically, based on the characteristic appearance of the lesions. A biopsy may be helpful if the presentation is atypical. Although patients with morphea have higher rates of autoantibody positivity, there are no specific laboratory tests that consistently or reliably offer diagnostic value.⁸ Imaging modalities such as MRI may be utilized to view depth of involvement. Other noninvasive measures, such as thermography and ultrasonography, may be used to determine disease activity.⁹

Treatment

Treatment for morphea often is multidisciplinary and depends on the severity of involvement and extent to which it impedes functionality and quality of life. Localized plaques that do not restrict movement may be treated with topical corticosteroids, calcipotriene, and tacrolimus. However, topical corticosteroids should be discontinued if there are no signs of improvement in 2-3 months.

For patients with deforming or functionally significant disease, systemic treatment is advised. Methotrexate with or without systemic corticosteroids has been frequently studied, and is the most commonly recommended systemic therapy.¹¹ Some experts have recommended treatment for at least 2-3 years, with at least 1 year of disease inactivity, before discontinuing treatment. Despite this duration of treatment, up to one-quarter of patients, especially those with linear morphea, will still experience recurrence of disease. Management of morphea may be aided by rheumatology and/or dermatology consultation.

Ms. Han is a medical student at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and a professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Ms. Han and Dr. Eichenfield had no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures.

References

1. Fett N et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Feb;64(2):217-28.

2. Condie D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Dec;66(12):3496-504.

3. Zulian F et al. J Pediatr. 2006 Aug;149(2):248-51.

4. Weibel L et al. Br J Dermatol. 2008 Jul;159(1):175-81.

5. Zulian F et al. Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Sep;52(9):2873-81.

6. Leitenberger JJ et al. Arch Dermatol. 2009 May;145(5):545-50.

7. Zulian F et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 May;45(5):614-20.

8. Dharamsi JW et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2013 Oct;149(10):1159-65.

9. Zulian F et al. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2013 Sep;25(5):643-50.

10. Pope E et al. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2014 Apr;61(2):309-19.

11. Strickland N et al. Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Apr; 72(4): 727-8.

12. Schoch JJ et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018. 35(1): 43-6.

Morphea, also known as localized scleroderma, is a rare fibrosing disorder of the skin and the underlying tissue that encompasses a variety of distinct subtypes classified by pattern and depth of lesion involvement. It may involve fat, fascia, muscle, and bone, and rarely, the central nervous system. Morphea is easily differentiated from systemic sclerosis by its primarily cutaneous involvement, although a minority of patients may have associated extracutaneous findings. Systemic sclerosis describes a well-defined disorder of skin sclerosis with a specific pattern of internal organ involvement.

Courtesy Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield

Diagnosis

Morphea is diagnosed clinically, based on the characteristic appearance of the lesions. A biopsy may be helpful if the presentation is atypical. Although patients with morphea have higher rates of autoantibody positivity, there are no specific laboratory tests that consistently or reliably offer diagnostic value.⁸ Imaging modalities such as MRI may be utilized to view depth of involvement. Other noninvasive measures, such as thermography and ultrasonography, may be used to determine disease activity.⁹

Treatment

Treatment for morphea often is multidisciplinary and depends on the severity of involvement and extent to which it impedes functionality and quality of life. Localized plaques that do not restrict movement may be treated with topical corticosteroids, calcipotriene, and tacrolimus. However, topical corticosteroids should be discontinued if there are no signs of improvement in 2-3 months.

For patients with deforming or functionally significant disease, systemic treatment is advised. Methotrexate with or without systemic corticosteroids has been frequently studied, and is the most commonly recommended systemic therapy.¹¹ Some experts have recommended treatment for at least 2-3 years, with at least 1 year of disease inactivity, before discontinuing treatment. Despite this duration of treatment, up to one-quarter of patients, especially those with linear morphea, will still experience recurrence of disease. Management of morphea may be aided by rheumatology and/or dermatology consultation.

Ms. Han is a medical student at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and a professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Ms. Han and Dr. Eichenfield had no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures.

References

1. Fett N et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Feb;64(2):217-28.

2. Condie D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Dec;66(12):3496-504.

3. Zulian F et al. J Pediatr. 2006 Aug;149(2):248-51.

4. Weibel L et al. Br J Dermatol. 2008 Jul;159(1):175-81.

5. Zulian F et al. Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Sep;52(9):2873-81.

6. Leitenberger JJ et al. Arch Dermatol. 2009 May;145(5):545-50.

7. Zulian F et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 May;45(5):614-20.

8. Dharamsi JW et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2013 Oct;149(10):1159-65.

9. Zulian F et al. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2013 Sep;25(5):643-50.

10. Pope E et al. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2014 Apr;61(2):309-19.

11. Strickland N et al. Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Apr; 72(4): 727-8.

12. Schoch JJ et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018. 35(1): 43-6.

Morphea, also known as localized scleroderma, is a rare fibrosing disorder of the skin and the underlying tissue that encompasses a variety of distinct subtypes classified by pattern and depth of lesion involvement. It may involve fat, fascia, muscle, and bone, and rarely, the central nervous system. Morphea is easily differentiated from systemic sclerosis by its primarily cutaneous involvement, although a minority of patients may have associated extracutaneous findings. Systemic sclerosis describes a well-defined disorder of skin sclerosis with a specific pattern of internal organ involvement.

Courtesy Dr. Lawrence F. Eichenfield

Diagnosis

Morphea is diagnosed clinically, based on the characteristic appearance of the lesions. A biopsy may be helpful if the presentation is atypical. Although patients with morphea have higher rates of autoantibody positivity, there are no specific laboratory tests that consistently or reliably offer diagnostic value.⁸ Imaging modalities such as MRI may be utilized to view depth of involvement. Other noninvasive measures, such as thermography and ultrasonography, may be used to determine disease activity.⁹

Treatment

Treatment for morphea often is multidisciplinary and depends on the severity of involvement and extent to which it impedes functionality and quality of life. Localized plaques that do not restrict movement may be treated with topical corticosteroids, calcipotriene, and tacrolimus. However, topical corticosteroids should be discontinued if there are no signs of improvement in 2-3 months.

For patients with deforming or functionally significant disease, systemic treatment is advised. Methotrexate with or without systemic corticosteroids has been frequently studied, and is the most commonly recommended systemic therapy.¹¹ Some experts have recommended treatment for at least 2-3 years, with at least 1 year of disease inactivity, before discontinuing treatment. Despite this duration of treatment, up to one-quarter of patients, especially those with linear morphea, will still experience recurrence of disease. Management of morphea may be aided by rheumatology and/or dermatology consultation.

Ms. Han is a medical student at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and a professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Ms. Han and Dr. Eichenfield had no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures.

References

1. Fett N et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Feb;64(2):217-28.

2. Condie D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Dec;66(12):3496-504.

3. Zulian F et al. J Pediatr. 2006 Aug;149(2):248-51.

4. Weibel L et al. Br J Dermatol. 2008 Jul;159(1):175-81.

5. Zulian F et al. Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Sep;52(9):2873-81.

6. Leitenberger JJ et al. Arch Dermatol. 2009 May;145(5):545-50.

7. Zulian F et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 May;45(5):614-20.

8. Dharamsi JW et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2013 Oct;149(10):1159-65.

9. Zulian F et al. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2013 Sep;25(5):643-50.

10. Pope E et al. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2014 Apr;61(2):309-19.

11. Strickland N et al. Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Apr; 72(4): 727-8.

12. Schoch JJ et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018. 35(1): 43-6.

It seems that every week there is a new headline about the rising rates of anxiety in today’s adolescents. Schools often are asked to address high levels of stress and anxiety in their students, and the pediatrician’s office is often the first place worried parents will call. We will try to help you differentiate between what is normal – even healthy – adolescent stress, and what might represent treatable psychiatric problems. And we will review how to approach stress management with your patients and their parents. For all adolescents, even those with psychiatric diagnoses, learning to manage stress and anxiety is critical to their healthiest development into capable, confident, resilient adults.

Stress is the mental or emotional strain resulting from demanding or adverse circumstances. Anxiety is a feeling of unease about an imminent event with an uncertain outcome. An anxiety disorder is a psychiatric illness characterized by a state of excessive unease leading to functional impairment. These distinctions are critical, as both stress and anxiety are normal-but-uncomfortable parts of the adolescent experience. When all of a teenager’s stress and anxiety is medicalized, it promotes avoidance, which in turn may worsen your patient’s functional impairment rather than improving it.

This is not to suggest that there are not real (and common) psychiatric illnesses that can affect the levels of anxiety in your patients. Anxiety disorders start the earliest, with separation anxiety disorder, specific phobia, and social phobia all having a mean onset before puberty. Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent psychiatric disorders in youth (30% of youth psychiatric illness), and anxiety also may be related to substance use disorders (25%), disruptive behavior disorders (20%), and mood disorders (17%). Despite the excited news coverage, there is no evidence of a statistically significant increase in the incidence of anxiety or mood disorders in young people over the past decade.

It is not difficult to imagine that the challenges facing adolescents are considerable. Of course, adolescence is a time of major change starting with puberty, in which young people actively develop independence, identity, and a rich array of deep relationships beyond their families. Typically, this is a 5- to 10-year process of risk-taking, new experiences, setbacks, delight, heartbreak, and triumphs all alongside growing autonomy.

pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

Are there family stressors or unrealistic expectations that can be addressed? Can they see their situation as a challenge and focus on what is within their control to do in response? Remind your patients that challenges are uncomfortable. Mastery comes with practice and, inevitably, some setbacks and failures. Have they identified personal goals or a transcendent purpose? This can improve motivation and keep a challenge in perspective. They might focus on learning about their coping style: Do they do better with a slow, steady, methodical approach or intense bursts of effort? Talk with them about self-care. Adequate sleep, regular exercise, putting effort into relaxation as well as work, and spending time with their actual (not just virtual) friends all are essential to keeping their batteries charged while doing the intense work of normal adolescence.

For those patients who do not meet criteria for depression or anxiety disorders, there are circumstances in which a referral for therapy can be helpful. If they are noticeably disconnected from their parents or their parents seem to be more reactive to the stress and pressures than they are, an outside therapist can be a meaningful support as they build skills. Those patients who are socially isolated and stressed, are using substances regularly, are withdrawing from other interests to manage their source of stress, or are having difficulty telling facts from feelings are at risk for failing to adequately manage their stress and for the development of psychiatric problems. Starting early, helping them to build autonomy as preadolescents, experiencing successes and failures, begins the cultivation of resilience and meaningful confidence they will need during adolescence. Your attention and guidance can help all of your adolescent patients improve their coping and lower both their stress and their anxiety.

[email protected].

It seems that every week there is a new headline about the rising rates of anxiety in today’s adolescents. Schools often are asked to address high levels of stress and anxiety in their students, and the pediatrician’s office is often the first place worried parents will call. We will try to help you differentiate between what is normal – even healthy – adolescent stress, and what might represent treatable psychiatric problems. And we will review how to approach stress management with your patients and their parents. For all adolescents, even those with psychiatric diagnoses, learning to manage stress and anxiety is critical to their healthiest development into capable, confident, resilient adults.

Stress is the mental or emotional strain resulting from demanding or adverse circumstances. Anxiety is a feeling of unease about an imminent event with an uncertain outcome. An anxiety disorder is a psychiatric illness characterized by a state of excessive unease leading to functional impairment. These distinctions are critical, as both stress and anxiety are normal-but-uncomfortable parts of the adolescent experience. When all of a teenager’s stress and anxiety is medicalized, it promotes avoidance, which in turn may worsen your patient’s functional impairment rather than improving it.

This is not to suggest that there are not real (and common) psychiatric illnesses that can affect the levels of anxiety in your patients. Anxiety disorders start the earliest, with separation anxiety disorder, specific phobia, and social phobia all having a mean onset before puberty. Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent psychiatric disorders in youth (30% of youth psychiatric illness), and anxiety also may be related to substance use disorders (25%), disruptive behavior disorders (20%), and mood disorders (17%). Despite the excited news coverage, there is no evidence of a statistically significant increase in the incidence of anxiety or mood disorders in young people over the past decade.

It is not difficult to imagine that the challenges facing adolescents are considerable. Of course, adolescence is a time of major change starting with puberty, in which young people actively develop independence, identity, and a rich array of deep relationships beyond their families. Typically, this is a 5- to 10-year process of risk-taking, new experiences, setbacks, delight, heartbreak, and triumphs all alongside growing autonomy.

pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

Are there family stressors or unrealistic expectations that can be addressed? Can they see their situation as a challenge and focus on what is within their control to do in response? Remind your patients that challenges are uncomfortable. Mastery comes with practice and, inevitably, some setbacks and failures. Have they identified personal goals or a transcendent purpose? This can improve motivation and keep a challenge in perspective. They might focus on learning about their coping style: Do they do better with a slow, steady, methodical approach or intense bursts of effort? Talk with them about self-care. Adequate sleep, regular exercise, putting effort into relaxation as well as work, and spending time with their actual (not just virtual) friends all are essential to keeping their batteries charged while doing the intense work of normal adolescence.

For those patients who do not meet criteria for depression or anxiety disorders, there are circumstances in which a referral for therapy can be helpful. If they are noticeably disconnected from their parents or their parents seem to be more reactive to the stress and pressures than they are, an outside therapist can be a meaningful support as they build skills. Those patients who are socially isolated and stressed, are using substances regularly, are withdrawing from other interests to manage their source of stress, or are having difficulty telling facts from feelings are at risk for failing to adequately manage their stress and for the development of psychiatric problems. Starting early, helping them to build autonomy as preadolescents, experiencing successes and failures, begins the cultivation of resilience and meaningful confidence they will need during adolescence. Your attention and guidance can help all of your adolescent patients improve their coping and lower both their stress and their anxiety.

[email protected].

It seems that every week there is a new headline about the rising rates of anxiety in today’s adolescents. Schools often are asked to address high levels of stress and anxiety in their students, and the pediatrician’s office is often the first place worried parents will call. We will try to help you differentiate between what is normal – even healthy – adolescent stress, and what might represent treatable psychiatric problems. And we will review how to approach stress management with your patients and their parents. For all adolescents, even those with psychiatric diagnoses, learning to manage stress and anxiety is critical to their healthiest development into capable, confident, resilient adults.

Stress is the mental or emotional strain resulting from demanding or adverse circumstances. Anxiety is a feeling of unease about an imminent event with an uncertain outcome. An anxiety disorder is a psychiatric illness characterized by a state of excessive unease leading to functional impairment. These distinctions are critical, as both stress and anxiety are normal-but-uncomfortable parts of the adolescent experience. When all of a teenager’s stress and anxiety is medicalized, it promotes avoidance, which in turn may worsen your patient’s functional impairment rather than improving it.

This is not to suggest that there are not real (and common) psychiatric illnesses that can affect the levels of anxiety in your patients. Anxiety disorders start the earliest, with separation anxiety disorder, specific phobia, and social phobia all having a mean onset before puberty. Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent psychiatric disorders in youth (30% of youth psychiatric illness), and anxiety also may be related to substance use disorders (25%), disruptive behavior disorders (20%), and mood disorders (17%). Despite the excited news coverage, there is no evidence of a statistically significant increase in the incidence of anxiety or mood disorders in young people over the past decade.

It is not difficult to imagine that the challenges facing adolescents are considerable. Of course, adolescence is a time of major change starting with puberty, in which young people actively develop independence, identity, and a rich array of deep relationships beyond their families. Typically, this is a 5- to 10-year process of risk-taking, new experiences, setbacks, delight, heartbreak, and triumphs all alongside growing autonomy.

pixelheadphoto/Thinkstock

Are there family stressors or unrealistic expectations that can be addressed? Can they see their situation as a challenge and focus on what is within their control to do in response? Remind your patients that challenges are uncomfortable. Mastery comes with practice and, inevitably, some setbacks and failures. Have they identified personal goals or a transcendent purpose? This can improve motivation and keep a challenge in perspective. They might focus on learning about their coping style: Do they do better with a slow, steady, methodical approach or intense bursts of effort? Talk with them about self-care. Adequate sleep, regular exercise, putting effort into relaxation as well as work, and spending time with their actual (not just virtual) friends all are essential to keeping their batteries charged while doing the intense work of normal adolescence.

For those patients who do not meet criteria for depression or anxiety disorders, there are circumstances in which a referral for therapy can be helpful. If they are noticeably disconnected from their parents or their parents seem to be more reactive to the stress and pressures than they are, an outside therapist can be a meaningful support as they build skills. Those patients who are socially isolated and stressed, are using substances regularly, are withdrawing from other interests to manage their source of stress, or are having difficulty telling facts from feelings are at risk for failing to adequately manage their stress and for the development of psychiatric problems. Starting early, helping them to build autonomy as preadolescents, experiencing successes and failures, begins the cultivation of resilience and meaningful confidence they will need during adolescence. Your attention and guidance can help all of your adolescent patients improve their coping and lower both their stress and their anxiety.

[email protected].