The Journal of Family Practice

Evidence summary

Early evidence suggested benefit from IM progesterone

A 2003 RCT compared weekly IM progesterone (n = 310) and placebo (n = 153) injections in women with a history of spontaneous preterm delivery. Participants were at 15w0d to 20w3d of a singleton pregnancy with no fetal abnormality. The 17-OHP group, compared to the placebo group, had significantly fewer deliveries at < 37 weeks (36.3% vs 54.9%; relative risk [RR] = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.81; number needed to treat [NNT] = 6), at < 35 weeks (20.6% vs 30.7%; RR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.93; NNT = 10), and at < 32 weeks (11.4% vs 19.6%; RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.91; NNT = 13).¹ There were significantly lower rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, and need for supplemental oxygen in infants of women in the treatment group.¹ The study was underpowered to detect neonatal morbidity.

A 2013 Cochrane Review (5 studies including the 2003 RCT; 602 women) found that 17-OHP led to a decreased risk of birth at < 34 weeks (RR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14-0.69). It also led to a significant reduction in perinatal and neonatal mortality, birth at < 37 weeks, birthweight < 2500 g, use of assisted ventilation, incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis, and admission to the neonatal ICU.²

In a large follow-up study, progesterone did not demonstrate benefit

The PROLONG study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled international RCT of women with a previous singleton spontaneous preterm birth. The study involved 93 clinical centers in 9 countries: 41 in the United States and 52 outside the United States. The ­PROLONG study was much larger than the 2003 study: 1139 active treatment (vs 310) and 578 placebo (vs 153) participants. Women were randomized 2:1 to receive either 250 mg 17-OHP or inert oil placebo weekly from 16w0d-20w6d until 36 weeks. The outcome measures were: (1) delivery at < 35 weeks and (2) a neonatal morbidity composite index. This composite index included any of the following: neonatal death, grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, and proven sepsis.³

Our best evidence does not support routine IM progesterone use to prevent preterm delivery.

Progesterone did not improve any of the studied outcomes: there were no significant differences in the frequency of birth at < 35 weeks (17-OHP 11% vs placebo 11.5%; RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26), in neonatal morbidity index (17-OHP 5.6% vs placebo 5%; RR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.61), and in frequency of fetal/early infant death (17-OHP 1.7% vs placebo 1.9%; RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.4-1.81).³ In the United States subgroup (n = 391; 23% of all patients), there was no significant difference in rate of birth at < 35 weeks (17-OHP 15.6% vs placebo 17.6%; RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55-1.40).³

However, PROLONG had some limitations. Importantly, the 2003 RCT included 183 (59%) non-Hispanic Black women in the experimental group and 90 (58.5%) in the control group, whereas the 2020 PROLONG study had only 6.6% non-Hispanic Black participants. The neonatal outcome data for the PROLONG study only included 6 Black women in the experimental arm and 3 in the control arm.^3,4 Black women have prematurity rates that are 2 to 3 times higher than those in White women.⁵

Additionally, the PROLONG study had fewer smokers and more women who were married/living with a partner. Compared with prior studies, the PROLONG study had a lower proportion of women with > 1 spontaneous preterm birth and fewer with a shortened cervix (< 2%).³ As a result of having lower risk participants, PROLONG may have been underpowered to detect improvements in outcome.³

A subsequent meta-analysis suggests some benefit for high-risk women

The 2021 Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC) meta-analysis of individual data from 31 RCTs—involving 11,644 women and 16,185 babies—found that, compared with placebo, 17-OHP for women with a history of preterm delivery or short cervix did not significantly decrease the number of babies born before 34 weeks (5 trials [including the 2003 RCT and PROLONG studies]; 3053 women; RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68–1.01).⁶ However, it found that vaginal progesterone significantly decreased birth prior to 34 weeks (9 trials; 3769 women; RR = 0.78, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).⁶ The authors concluded that both IM and vaginal progesterone decreased preterm delivery in high-risk women. The effect was stronger for women with a short cervix than for women with a history of preterm delivery.⁶

Continue to: Recommendations from others

In 2008, a joint ACOG/SMFM statement said, “Progesterone supplementation for the prevention of recurrent preterm birth should be offered to women with a singleton pregnancy and prior spontaneous preterm birth.”⁷ A 2012 ACOG Practice Bulletin stated that, “A woman with a singleton gestation and a prior spontaneous preterm singleton birth should be offered progesterone supplementation starting at 16 to 24 weeks of gestation, regardless of transvaginal ultrasound cervical length, to reduce the risk of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth.”⁸

In 2011, Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection) received accelerated approval from the FDA. In October 2020, the FDA Advisory Committee recommended that Makena be withdrawn from the market (9 to 7 vote).⁹ On October 5, 2020, the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) proposed that Makena be withdrawn from the market “because the required postmarket study failed to verify clinical benefit and we have concluded that the available evidence does not show Makena is effective for its approved use.”¹⁰ A subgroup analysis by CDER did not find benefit for any subgroup, including high-risk women.¹⁰ However, Makena will remain on the market unless its manufacturer withdraws it or the FDA Commissioner mandates its removal.

In response to the FDA’s proposal, both ACOG and SMFM recommended that “obstetric health care professionals discuss Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients”¹¹ as part of “a shared ­decision-making approach, taking into account the lack of short-term safety concerns but uncertainty regarding benefit.”¹² Both organizations reiterated their position on shared decision-making after the EPPPIC meta-analysis was published.¹³

Studies comparing the 2 routes of administration (vaginal and IM) are underway.¹³

Editor’s takeaway

Our best evidence does not support routine IM progesterone use to prevent preterm delivery. However, therapeutic inertia, uncertainty, and defensive medicine may slow down adoption of this newer evidence. Shared decision-making can assist treatment decisions, but it is not a substitute for following the best evidence.

Evidence summary

Early evidence suggested benefit from IM progesterone

A 2003 RCT compared weekly IM progesterone (n = 310) and placebo (n = 153) injections in women with a history of spontaneous preterm delivery. Participants were at 15w0d to 20w3d of a singleton pregnancy with no fetal abnormality. The 17-OHP group, compared to the placebo group, had significantly fewer deliveries at < 37 weeks (36.3% vs 54.9%; relative risk [RR] = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.81; number needed to treat [NNT] = 6), at < 35 weeks (20.6% vs 30.7%; RR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.93; NNT = 10), and at < 32 weeks (11.4% vs 19.6%; RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.91; NNT = 13).¹ There were significantly lower rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, and need for supplemental oxygen in infants of women in the treatment group.¹ The study was underpowered to detect neonatal morbidity.

A 2013 Cochrane Review (5 studies including the 2003 RCT; 602 women) found that 17-OHP led to a decreased risk of birth at < 34 weeks (RR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14-0.69). It also led to a significant reduction in perinatal and neonatal mortality, birth at < 37 weeks, birthweight < 2500 g, use of assisted ventilation, incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis, and admission to the neonatal ICU.²

In a large follow-up study, progesterone did not demonstrate benefit

The PROLONG study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled international RCT of women with a previous singleton spontaneous preterm birth. The study involved 93 clinical centers in 9 countries: 41 in the United States and 52 outside the United States. The ­PROLONG study was much larger than the 2003 study: 1139 active treatment (vs 310) and 578 placebo (vs 153) participants. Women were randomized 2:1 to receive either 250 mg 17-OHP or inert oil placebo weekly from 16w0d-20w6d until 36 weeks. The outcome measures were: (1) delivery at < 35 weeks and (2) a neonatal morbidity composite index. This composite index included any of the following: neonatal death, grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, and proven sepsis.³

Our best evidence does not support routine IM progesterone use to prevent preterm delivery.

Progesterone did not improve any of the studied outcomes: there were no significant differences in the frequency of birth at < 35 weeks (17-OHP 11% vs placebo 11.5%; RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26), in neonatal morbidity index (17-OHP 5.6% vs placebo 5%; RR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.61), and in frequency of fetal/early infant death (17-OHP 1.7% vs placebo 1.9%; RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.4-1.81).³ In the United States subgroup (n = 391; 23% of all patients), there was no significant difference in rate of birth at < 35 weeks (17-OHP 15.6% vs placebo 17.6%; RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55-1.40).³

However, PROLONG had some limitations. Importantly, the 2003 RCT included 183 (59%) non-Hispanic Black women in the experimental group and 90 (58.5%) in the control group, whereas the 2020 PROLONG study had only 6.6% non-Hispanic Black participants. The neonatal outcome data for the PROLONG study only included 6 Black women in the experimental arm and 3 in the control arm.^3,4 Black women have prematurity rates that are 2 to 3 times higher than those in White women.⁵

Additionally, the PROLONG study had fewer smokers and more women who were married/living with a partner. Compared with prior studies, the PROLONG study had a lower proportion of women with > 1 spontaneous preterm birth and fewer with a shortened cervix (< 2%).³ As a result of having lower risk participants, PROLONG may have been underpowered to detect improvements in outcome.³

A subsequent meta-analysis suggests some benefit for high-risk women

The 2021 Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC) meta-analysis of individual data from 31 RCTs—involving 11,644 women and 16,185 babies—found that, compared with placebo, 17-OHP for women with a history of preterm delivery or short cervix did not significantly decrease the number of babies born before 34 weeks (5 trials [including the 2003 RCT and PROLONG studies]; 3053 women; RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68–1.01).⁶ However, it found that vaginal progesterone significantly decreased birth prior to 34 weeks (9 trials; 3769 women; RR = 0.78, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).⁶ The authors concluded that both IM and vaginal progesterone decreased preterm delivery in high-risk women. The effect was stronger for women with a short cervix than for women with a history of preterm delivery.⁶

Continue to: Recommendations from others

In 2008, a joint ACOG/SMFM statement said, “Progesterone supplementation for the prevention of recurrent preterm birth should be offered to women with a singleton pregnancy and prior spontaneous preterm birth.”⁷ A 2012 ACOG Practice Bulletin stated that, “A woman with a singleton gestation and a prior spontaneous preterm singleton birth should be offered progesterone supplementation starting at 16 to 24 weeks of gestation, regardless of transvaginal ultrasound cervical length, to reduce the risk of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth.”⁸

In 2011, Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection) received accelerated approval from the FDA. In October 2020, the FDA Advisory Committee recommended that Makena be withdrawn from the market (9 to 7 vote).⁹ On October 5, 2020, the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) proposed that Makena be withdrawn from the market “because the required postmarket study failed to verify clinical benefit and we have concluded that the available evidence does not show Makena is effective for its approved use.”¹⁰ A subgroup analysis by CDER did not find benefit for any subgroup, including high-risk women.¹⁰ However, Makena will remain on the market unless its manufacturer withdraws it or the FDA Commissioner mandates its removal.

In response to the FDA’s proposal, both ACOG and SMFM recommended that “obstetric health care professionals discuss Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients”¹¹ as part of “a shared ­decision-making approach, taking into account the lack of short-term safety concerns but uncertainty regarding benefit.”¹² Both organizations reiterated their position on shared decision-making after the EPPPIC meta-analysis was published.¹³

Studies comparing the 2 routes of administration (vaginal and IM) are underway.¹³

Editor’s takeaway

Our best evidence does not support routine IM progesterone use to prevent preterm delivery. However, therapeutic inertia, uncertainty, and defensive medicine may slow down adoption of this newer evidence. Shared decision-making can assist treatment decisions, but it is not a substitute for following the best evidence.

Evidence summary

Early evidence suggested benefit from IM progesterone

A 2003 RCT compared weekly IM progesterone (n = 310) and placebo (n = 153) injections in women with a history of spontaneous preterm delivery. Participants were at 15w0d to 20w3d of a singleton pregnancy with no fetal abnormality. The 17-OHP group, compared to the placebo group, had significantly fewer deliveries at < 37 weeks (36.3% vs 54.9%; relative risk [RR] = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.81; number needed to treat [NNT] = 6), at < 35 weeks (20.6% vs 30.7%; RR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.93; NNT = 10), and at < 32 weeks (11.4% vs 19.6%; RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.91; NNT = 13).¹ There were significantly lower rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, and need for supplemental oxygen in infants of women in the treatment group.¹ The study was underpowered to detect neonatal morbidity.

A 2013 Cochrane Review (5 studies including the 2003 RCT; 602 women) found that 17-OHP led to a decreased risk of birth at < 34 weeks (RR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14-0.69). It also led to a significant reduction in perinatal and neonatal mortality, birth at < 37 weeks, birthweight < 2500 g, use of assisted ventilation, incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis, and admission to the neonatal ICU.²

In a large follow-up study, progesterone did not demonstrate benefit

The PROLONG study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled international RCT of women with a previous singleton spontaneous preterm birth. The study involved 93 clinical centers in 9 countries: 41 in the United States and 52 outside the United States. The ­PROLONG study was much larger than the 2003 study: 1139 active treatment (vs 310) and 578 placebo (vs 153) participants. Women were randomized 2:1 to receive either 250 mg 17-OHP or inert oil placebo weekly from 16w0d-20w6d until 36 weeks. The outcome measures were: (1) delivery at < 35 weeks and (2) a neonatal morbidity composite index. This composite index included any of the following: neonatal death, grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, and proven sepsis.³

Our best evidence does not support routine IM progesterone use to prevent preterm delivery.

Progesterone did not improve any of the studied outcomes: there were no significant differences in the frequency of birth at < 35 weeks (17-OHP 11% vs placebo 11.5%; RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26), in neonatal morbidity index (17-OHP 5.6% vs placebo 5%; RR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.61), and in frequency of fetal/early infant death (17-OHP 1.7% vs placebo 1.9%; RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.4-1.81).³ In the United States subgroup (n = 391; 23% of all patients), there was no significant difference in rate of birth at < 35 weeks (17-OHP 15.6% vs placebo 17.6%; RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55-1.40).³

However, PROLONG had some limitations. Importantly, the 2003 RCT included 183 (59%) non-Hispanic Black women in the experimental group and 90 (58.5%) in the control group, whereas the 2020 PROLONG study had only 6.6% non-Hispanic Black participants. The neonatal outcome data for the PROLONG study only included 6 Black women in the experimental arm and 3 in the control arm.^3,4 Black women have prematurity rates that are 2 to 3 times higher than those in White women.⁵

Additionally, the PROLONG study had fewer smokers and more women who were married/living with a partner. Compared with prior studies, the PROLONG study had a lower proportion of women with > 1 spontaneous preterm birth and fewer with a shortened cervix (< 2%).³ As a result of having lower risk participants, PROLONG may have been underpowered to detect improvements in outcome.³

A subsequent meta-analysis suggests some benefit for high-risk women

The 2021 Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC) meta-analysis of individual data from 31 RCTs—involving 11,644 women and 16,185 babies—found that, compared with placebo, 17-OHP for women with a history of preterm delivery or short cervix did not significantly decrease the number of babies born before 34 weeks (5 trials [including the 2003 RCT and PROLONG studies]; 3053 women; RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68–1.01).⁶ However, it found that vaginal progesterone significantly decreased birth prior to 34 weeks (9 trials; 3769 women; RR = 0.78, 95% CI, 0.68-0.90).⁶ The authors concluded that both IM and vaginal progesterone decreased preterm delivery in high-risk women. The effect was stronger for women with a short cervix than for women with a history of preterm delivery.⁶

Continue to: Recommendations from others

In 2008, a joint ACOG/SMFM statement said, “Progesterone supplementation for the prevention of recurrent preterm birth should be offered to women with a singleton pregnancy and prior spontaneous preterm birth.”⁷ A 2012 ACOG Practice Bulletin stated that, “A woman with a singleton gestation and a prior spontaneous preterm singleton birth should be offered progesterone supplementation starting at 16 to 24 weeks of gestation, regardless of transvaginal ultrasound cervical length, to reduce the risk of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth.”⁸

In 2011, Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection) received accelerated approval from the FDA. In October 2020, the FDA Advisory Committee recommended that Makena be withdrawn from the market (9 to 7 vote).⁹ On October 5, 2020, the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) proposed that Makena be withdrawn from the market “because the required postmarket study failed to verify clinical benefit and we have concluded that the available evidence does not show Makena is effective for its approved use.”¹⁰ A subgroup analysis by CDER did not find benefit for any subgroup, including high-risk women.¹⁰ However, Makena will remain on the market unless its manufacturer withdraws it or the FDA Commissioner mandates its removal.

In response to the FDA’s proposal, both ACOG and SMFM recommended that “obstetric health care professionals discuss Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients”¹¹ as part of “a shared ­decision-making approach, taking into account the lack of short-term safety concerns but uncertainty regarding benefit.”¹² Both organizations reiterated their position on shared decision-making after the EPPPIC meta-analysis was published.¹³

Studies comparing the 2 routes of administration (vaginal and IM) are underway.¹³

Editor’s takeaway

Our best evidence does not support routine IM progesterone use to prevent preterm delivery. However, therapeutic inertia, uncertainty, and defensive medicine may slow down adoption of this newer evidence. Shared decision-making can assist treatment decisions, but it is not a substitute for following the best evidence.

THE CASE

A 58-year-old African American man with a past medical history of prostate cancer, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease presented to our office to establish care with a new provider. He complained of bilateral shoulder pain, that was worse on the right side, for the past year. He denied any previous falls, trauma, or injury. He reported that lifting his grandkids was becoming increasingly difficult due to the pain but denied any weakness or neurologic symptoms. He had been using over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which provided minimal relief.

On physical examination, the overlying skin was normal and there was no tenderness to palpation. His shoulder range of motion was limited with complete flexion, but otherwise intact. Muscle strength was 5 out of 5 bilaterally, and neurovascular and sensory examinations were normal. On the right side, the Empty Can Test was positive, but the Neer and Apley tests were negative. All testing was negative on the left side.

The patient was referred for 10 sessions of physical therapy, which he completed. His pain persisted, and an x-ray of his right shoulder was performed. The x-ray indicated a high-riding humeral head, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder was recommended due to possible rotator cuff tendinopathy.

The MRI demonstrated a full-thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon along with “metastatic lesions” (FIGURE). As a result, a bone scan was obtained and revealed activity in the proximal right humerus; however, it was nonconclusive for osteoblastic metastasis. A positron emission tomography (PET) scan was ordered, which revealed findings suggestive of bony metastasis in the proximal left tibia, distal shaft of the right tibia, and the right and left humeral heads. The patient was then scheduled for a bone biopsy; a chest, abdomen, and pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan with IV and oral contrast was also ordered.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A bone biopsy of the left tibia indicated prominent non-necrotizing granulomatous inflammation and stains were negative for microorganisms. The CT scan demonstrated peribronchial vascular reticulonodular opacities in the upper lung zones compatible with sarcoidosis; no metastatic lesions were identified. Laboratory studies were obtained and demonstrated an elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level consistent with sarcoidosis. The cumulative test results pointed to a diagnosis of osseous sarcoidosis.

DISCUSSION

Osseous sarcoidosis is a rare manifestation of larger systemic disease. It is estimated that bony lesions occur in only 3% to 13% of patients with sarcoidosis.¹ Bone involvement is most common in African Americans and occurs primarily in the hands and feet.^1-3

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment. Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.

Osseous lesions are comprised of noncaseating granulomatous inflammation.^4,5 They are often asymptomatic but can be painful and associated with overlying skin disease and soft-tissue swelling.^1,4 Although it’s not typical, patients may present with symptoms such as pain, stiffness, or fractures. On CT imaging and MRI (as in this case), osseous lesions can be confused with metastatic bone disease, and biopsy may be required for diagnosis.⁴

Continue to: There are multiple patterns of bone involvement

There are multiple patterns of bone involvement in osseous sarcoidosis, ranging from large cystic lesions that can lead to stress fractures to “tunnels” or “lace-like” reticulated patterns found in the bones of the hands and feet. ^2,3,5,6 Long bone involvement is typically limited to the proximal and distal thirds of the bone.⁶ Sarcoidosis is also known to involve the axial skeleton, and less commonly, the cranial vault.⁶ Although multiple variations may manifest over time, skin changes usually precede bone lesions^3,6; however, that was not the case with this patient.

Treatment entails pain management

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment.^3,5 Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.^2,3,7

Low- to moderate-dose corticosteroids have been shown to relieve soft-tissue swelling and decrease pain.^2,3,7 A prolonged course of steroids is not recommended, due to the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, and does not normalize bone structure.^3,7

Other options. NSAIDs, such as colchicine and indomethacin, have also been found to be effective in pain management.⁷ Treatments such as methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine may be considered for those cases that are refractory to steroids.²

Given the extent of our patient’s disease, he was referred to multiple specialists to rule out further organ involvement. He was found to have neurosarcoidosis on brain imaging and was subsequently treated with prednisone 10 mg/d. The patient is being routinely monitored for active disease at various intervals or as symptoms arise.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consideration for systemic diseases (eg, sarcoidosis) should be given to patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints without a significant history of trauma or injury. In those with risk factors associated with a higher incidence of sarcoidosis, such as age and race, a work-up should include imaging and biopsy. Treatment (eg, corticosteroids, NSAIDs) is provided to those patients who are symptomatic, with the goal of symptom relief.³

THE CASE

A 58-year-old African American man with a past medical history of prostate cancer, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease presented to our office to establish care with a new provider. He complained of bilateral shoulder pain, that was worse on the right side, for the past year. He denied any previous falls, trauma, or injury. He reported that lifting his grandkids was becoming increasingly difficult due to the pain but denied any weakness or neurologic symptoms. He had been using over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which provided minimal relief.

On physical examination, the overlying skin was normal and there was no tenderness to palpation. His shoulder range of motion was limited with complete flexion, but otherwise intact. Muscle strength was 5 out of 5 bilaterally, and neurovascular and sensory examinations were normal. On the right side, the Empty Can Test was positive, but the Neer and Apley tests were negative. All testing was negative on the left side.

The patient was referred for 10 sessions of physical therapy, which he completed. His pain persisted, and an x-ray of his right shoulder was performed. The x-ray indicated a high-riding humeral head, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder was recommended due to possible rotator cuff tendinopathy.

The MRI demonstrated a full-thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon along with “metastatic lesions” (FIGURE). As a result, a bone scan was obtained and revealed activity in the proximal right humerus; however, it was nonconclusive for osteoblastic metastasis. A positron emission tomography (PET) scan was ordered, which revealed findings suggestive of bony metastasis in the proximal left tibia, distal shaft of the right tibia, and the right and left humeral heads. The patient was then scheduled for a bone biopsy; a chest, abdomen, and pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan with IV and oral contrast was also ordered.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A bone biopsy of the left tibia indicated prominent non-necrotizing granulomatous inflammation and stains were negative for microorganisms. The CT scan demonstrated peribronchial vascular reticulonodular opacities in the upper lung zones compatible with sarcoidosis; no metastatic lesions were identified. Laboratory studies were obtained and demonstrated an elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level consistent with sarcoidosis. The cumulative test results pointed to a diagnosis of osseous sarcoidosis.

DISCUSSION

Osseous sarcoidosis is a rare manifestation of larger systemic disease. It is estimated that bony lesions occur in only 3% to 13% of patients with sarcoidosis.¹ Bone involvement is most common in African Americans and occurs primarily in the hands and feet.^1-3

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment. Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.

Osseous lesions are comprised of noncaseating granulomatous inflammation.^4,5 They are often asymptomatic but can be painful and associated with overlying skin disease and soft-tissue swelling.^1,4 Although it’s not typical, patients may present with symptoms such as pain, stiffness, or fractures. On CT imaging and MRI (as in this case), osseous lesions can be confused with metastatic bone disease, and biopsy may be required for diagnosis.⁴

Continue to: There are multiple patterns of bone involvement

There are multiple patterns of bone involvement in osseous sarcoidosis, ranging from large cystic lesions that can lead to stress fractures to “tunnels” or “lace-like” reticulated patterns found in the bones of the hands and feet. ^2,3,5,6 Long bone involvement is typically limited to the proximal and distal thirds of the bone.⁶ Sarcoidosis is also known to involve the axial skeleton, and less commonly, the cranial vault.⁶ Although multiple variations may manifest over time, skin changes usually precede bone lesions^3,6; however, that was not the case with this patient.

Treatment entails pain management

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment.^3,5 Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.^2,3,7

Low- to moderate-dose corticosteroids have been shown to relieve soft-tissue swelling and decrease pain.^2,3,7 A prolonged course of steroids is not recommended, due to the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, and does not normalize bone structure.^3,7

Other options. NSAIDs, such as colchicine and indomethacin, have also been found to be effective in pain management.⁷ Treatments such as methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine may be considered for those cases that are refractory to steroids.²

Given the extent of our patient’s disease, he was referred to multiple specialists to rule out further organ involvement. He was found to have neurosarcoidosis on brain imaging and was subsequently treated with prednisone 10 mg/d. The patient is being routinely monitored for active disease at various intervals or as symptoms arise.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consideration for systemic diseases (eg, sarcoidosis) should be given to patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints without a significant history of trauma or injury. In those with risk factors associated with a higher incidence of sarcoidosis, such as age and race, a work-up should include imaging and biopsy. Treatment (eg, corticosteroids, NSAIDs) is provided to those patients who are symptomatic, with the goal of symptom relief.³

THE CASE

A 58-year-old African American man with a past medical history of prostate cancer, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease presented to our office to establish care with a new provider. He complained of bilateral shoulder pain, that was worse on the right side, for the past year. He denied any previous falls, trauma, or injury. He reported that lifting his grandkids was becoming increasingly difficult due to the pain but denied any weakness or neurologic symptoms. He had been using over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which provided minimal relief.

On physical examination, the overlying skin was normal and there was no tenderness to palpation. His shoulder range of motion was limited with complete flexion, but otherwise intact. Muscle strength was 5 out of 5 bilaterally, and neurovascular and sensory examinations were normal. On the right side, the Empty Can Test was positive, but the Neer and Apley tests were negative. All testing was negative on the left side.

The patient was referred for 10 sessions of physical therapy, which he completed. His pain persisted, and an x-ray of his right shoulder was performed. The x-ray indicated a high-riding humeral head, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder was recommended due to possible rotator cuff tendinopathy.

The MRI demonstrated a full-thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon along with “metastatic lesions” (FIGURE). As a result, a bone scan was obtained and revealed activity in the proximal right humerus; however, it was nonconclusive for osteoblastic metastasis. A positron emission tomography (PET) scan was ordered, which revealed findings suggestive of bony metastasis in the proximal left tibia, distal shaft of the right tibia, and the right and left humeral heads. The patient was then scheduled for a bone biopsy; a chest, abdomen, and pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan with IV and oral contrast was also ordered.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A bone biopsy of the left tibia indicated prominent non-necrotizing granulomatous inflammation and stains were negative for microorganisms. The CT scan demonstrated peribronchial vascular reticulonodular opacities in the upper lung zones compatible with sarcoidosis; no metastatic lesions were identified. Laboratory studies were obtained and demonstrated an elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level consistent with sarcoidosis. The cumulative test results pointed to a diagnosis of osseous sarcoidosis.

DISCUSSION

Osseous sarcoidosis is a rare manifestation of larger systemic disease. It is estimated that bony lesions occur in only 3% to 13% of patients with sarcoidosis.¹ Bone involvement is most common in African Americans and occurs primarily in the hands and feet.^1-3

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment. Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.

Osseous lesions are comprised of noncaseating granulomatous inflammation.^4,5 They are often asymptomatic but can be painful and associated with overlying skin disease and soft-tissue swelling.^1,4 Although it’s not typical, patients may present with symptoms such as pain, stiffness, or fractures. On CT imaging and MRI (as in this case), osseous lesions can be confused with metastatic bone disease, and biopsy may be required for diagnosis.⁴

Continue to: There are multiple patterns of bone involvement

There are multiple patterns of bone involvement in osseous sarcoidosis, ranging from large cystic lesions that can lead to stress fractures to “tunnels” or “lace-like” reticulated patterns found in the bones of the hands and feet. ^2,3,5,6 Long bone involvement is typically limited to the proximal and distal thirds of the bone.⁶ Sarcoidosis is also known to involve the axial skeleton, and less commonly, the cranial vault.⁶ Although multiple variations may manifest over time, skin changes usually precede bone lesions^3,6; however, that was not the case with this patient.

Treatment entails pain management

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment.^3,5 Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.^2,3,7

Low- to moderate-dose corticosteroids have been shown to relieve soft-tissue swelling and decrease pain.^2,3,7 A prolonged course of steroids is not recommended, due to the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, and does not normalize bone structure.^3,7

Other options. NSAIDs, such as colchicine and indomethacin, have also been found to be effective in pain management.⁷ Treatments such as methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine may be considered for those cases that are refractory to steroids.²

Given the extent of our patient’s disease, he was referred to multiple specialists to rule out further organ involvement. He was found to have neurosarcoidosis on brain imaging and was subsequently treated with prednisone 10 mg/d. The patient is being routinely monitored for active disease at various intervals or as symptoms arise.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consideration for systemic diseases (eg, sarcoidosis) should be given to patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints without a significant history of trauma or injury. In those with risk factors associated with a higher incidence of sarcoidosis, such as age and race, a work-up should include imaging and biopsy. Treatment (eg, corticosteroids, NSAIDs) is provided to those patients who are symptomatic, with the goal of symptom relief.³

The number of people with dementia globally is expected to reach 74.7 million by 2030 and 131.5 million by 2050.¹ Because dementia is progressive, many patients will exhibit severe symptoms termed behavioral crises. Deteriorating interpersonal conduct and escalating antisocial acts result in an acquired sociopathy.² Increasing cognitive impairment causes these patients to misunderstand intimate care and perceive it as a threat, often resulting in outbursts of violence against their caregivers.³

Available studies (TABLE^4-17) make evident the incidence of interpersonal violence experienced by caregivers secondary to aggressive acts by patients with dementia. This violence ranges from verbal abuse, including racial slurs, to physical abuse—sometimes resulting in significant physical injury. Aggressive behavior by patients with dementia, resulting in violence towards their caregivers or partners, stems from progressive cognitive decline, which can make optimal care difficult. Such episodes may also impair the psychological and physical well-being of caregivers, increasing their risk of depression, anxiety, and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).¹⁸ The extent of the impact is also determined by the interpretation of the abuse by the caregivers themselves. One study suggested that the perception of aggressive or violent behavior as “normal” by a caregiver reduced the overall negative effect of the interactions.⁷Our review emphasizes the unintended burden that can fall to caregivers of patients with dementia. We also address the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in identifying these instances of violence and intervening appropriately by providing safety strategies, education, resources, and support.

CASE

A 67-year-old man with a medical history of PTSD with depression, type 2 diabetes, alcohol use disorder/dependence, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea was brought to his PCP by his wife. She said he had recently been unable to keep appointment times, pay bills, or take his usual medications, venlafaxine and bupropion. She also said his PTSD symptoms had worsened. He was sleeping 12 to 14 hours per day and was increasingly irritable. The patient denied any concerns or changes in his behavior.

Caregivers may refuse support due to personal beliefs or values, accessibility or affordability issues, or in deference to the patient’s wishes.

The PCP administered a Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) examination to screen for cognitive impairment.¹⁹ The patient scored 14/30 (less than 20 is indicative of dementia). He was unable to complete a simple math problem, recall any items from a list of 5, count in reverse, draw a clock correctly, or recall a full story. Throughout the exam, the patient demonstrated minimal effort and was often only able to complete a task after further prompting by the examiner.

A computed tomography scan of the head revealed no signs of hemorrhage or damage. Thyroid-stimulating hormone levels and vitamin B12 levels were normal. A rapid plasma reagin test result was negative. The patient was given a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. Donepezil was added to the patient’s medications, starting at 5 mg and then increased to 10 mg. His wife began to assist him with his tasks of daily living. His mood improved, and his wife noted he began to remember his appointments and take his medications with assistance.

However, the patient’s irritability continued to escalate. He grew paranoid and accused his wife of mismanaging their money. This pattern steadily worsened over the course of 6 months. The situation escalated until one day the patient’s wife called a mental health hotline reporting that her husband was holding her hostage and threatening to kill her with a gun. He told her, “I can do something to you, and they won’t even find a fingernail. It doesn’t have to be with a gun either.” She was counseled to try to stay calm to avoid aggravating the situation and to go to a safe place and stay there until help arrived.

His memory had worsened to the point that he could not recall any events from the previous 2 years. He was paranoid about anyone entering his home and would not allow his deteriorating roof to be repaired or his yard to be maintained. He did not shower for weeks at a time. He slept holding a rifle and accused his wife of embezzlement.

Continue to: The patient was evaluated...

The patient was evaluated by another specialist, who assessed his SLUMS score to be 18/30. He increased the patient’s donepezil dose, initiated a bupropion taper, and added sertraline to the regimen. The PCP spoke to the patient’s wife regarding options for her safety including leaving the home, hiding firearms, and calling the police in cases of interpersonal violence. The wife said she did not want to pursue these options. She expressed worry that he might be harmed if he was uncooperative with the police and said there was no one except her to take care of him.

Caregivers struggle to care for their loved ones

Instances of personal violence lead to shock, astonishment, heartbreak, and fear. Anticipation of a recurrence of violence causes many partners and caregivers to feel exhausted, because there is minimal hope for any chance of improvement. There are a few exceptions, however, as our case will show. In addition to emotional exhaustion, there is also a ­never-ending sense of self-doubt, leading many caregivers to question their ability to handle their family member.^20,21 Over time, this leads to caregiver burnout, leaving them unable to understand their family member’s aggression. The sudden loss of caregiver control in dealing with the patient may also result in the family member exhibiting behavioral changes reflecting emotional trauma. For caregivers who do not live with the patient, they may choose to make fewer or shorter visits—or not visit at all—because they fear being abused.^7,22

Caregivers of patients with dementia often feel helpless and powerless once abrupt and drastic changes in personality lead to some form of interpersonal violence. Additionally, caregivers with a poor health status are more likely to have lower physical function and experience greater caregiving stress overall.²³ Other factors increasing stress are longer years of caregiving and the severity of a patient’s dementia and functional impairment.²³

Interventions to reduce caregiver burden

Many studies have assessed the role of different interventions to reduce caregiver burden, such as teaching them problem-solving skills, increasing their knowledge of dementia, recommending social resources, providing emotional support, changing caregiver perceptions of the care situation, introducing coping strategies, relying on strengths and experiences in caregiving, help-seeking, and engaging in activity programs.^24-28 For Hispanic caregivers, a structured and self-paced online telenovela format has been effective in improving care and relieving caregiver stress.²⁹ Online positive emotion regulators helped in significantly improving quality of life and physical health in the caregivers.³⁰ In this last intervention, caregivers had 6 online sessions with a facilitator who taught them emotional regulation skills that included: noticing positive events, capitalizing on them, and feeling gratitude; practicing mindfulness; doing a positive reappraisal; acknowledging personal strengths and setting attainable goals; and performing acts of kindness. Empowerment programs have also shown significant improvement in the well-being of caregivers.³¹

Caregivers may reject support. Hindrances to caregivers accepting support can include personal factors (eg, attitude, beliefs, values), service-related issues (eg, accessibility, affordability), and relational factors (preferences of the patient).³² In the case of patients with dementia who had a higher functional status, caregivers tend to reject any form of support.³² PCPs, of course, are optimally suited to care for entire families, often having known their patients and family members for years.

Continue to: These practical tips can help

Based on our review of the literature, we recommend offering the following supports to caregivers:

• Counsel caregivers early on in a patient’s dementia that behavior changes are likely and may be unpredictable. Explain that dementia can involve changes to personality and behavior as well as memory difficulties.^33,34
• Describe resources for support, such as day programs for senior adults, insurance coverage for caregiver respite programs, and the Alzheimer’s Association (www.alz.org/). Encourage caregivers to seek general medical and mental health care for themselves. Caregivers should have opportunities and support to discuss their experiences and to be appropriately trained for the challenge of caring for a family member with dementia.³⁵
• Encourage disclosure about abrupt changes in the patient’s behavior. This invites families to discuss issues with you and may make them more comfortable with such conversations.
• Involve ancillary services (eg, social worker) to plan for a higher level of care well in advance of it becoming necessary.
• Discuss safety strategies for the caregiver, including when it is appropriate to alter a patient’s set routines such as bedtimes and mealtimes.^33,34
• Discuss when and how to involve law enforcement, if necessary.^33,34 Emphasize the importance of removing firearms from the home as a safety measure. Although federal laws do not explicitly prohibit possession of arms by patients with neurologic damage, a few states mention “organic brain syndrome” or “dementia” as conditions prohibiting use or possession of firearms.³⁶
• Suggest, as feasible, nonpharmacologic aids for the patient such as massage therapy, animal-assisted therapy, personalized interventions, music therapy, and light therapy.³⁷ Prescribe medications to the patient to aid in behavior modification when appropriate.
• Screen caregivers and family members for signs of interpersonal violence. Take notice of changes in caregiver behavior or irregularity in attending follow-up appointments.

CASE

Over the next month, the patient’s symptoms further deteriorated. His PCP recommended hospitalization, but the patient and his wife declined. Magnetic resonance imaging of the patient’s brain revealed severe confluent and patchy regions of white matter and T2 signal hyperintensity, consistent with chronic microvascular ischemic disease. An old, small, left parietal lobe infarct was also noted.

Screen caregivers and family members for signs of interpersonal violence. Take notice of changes in caregiver behavior or irregularity in attending follow-up appointments.

One month later, the patient presented to the emergency department. His symptoms were largely unchanged, but his wife indicated that she could no longer live at home due to burnout. The patient’s medications were adjusted, but he was not admitted for inpatient care. His wife said they needed help at home, but the patient opposed the idea any time that it was mentioned.

A few weeks later, the patient presented for outpatient follow-up. He was delusional, believing that the government was compelling citizens to take sertraline in order to harm their mental health. He had also begun viewing online pornography in front of his wife and attempting to remove all of his money from the bank. He was prescribed aripiprazole 15 mg, and his symptoms began to improve. Soon after, however, he threatened to kill his grandson, then took all his Lasix pills (a 7-day supply) simultaneously. The patient denied that this was a suicide attempt.

Over the course of the next month, the patient began to report hearing voices. A neuropsychological evaluation confirmed a diagnosis of dementia with psychiatric symptoms due to neurologic injury. The patient was referred to a geriatric psychiatrist and continued to be managed medically. He was assigned a multidisciplinary team comprising palliative care, social work, and care management to assist in his care and provide support to the family. His behavior improved.

Continue to: At the time of this publication...

An important step forward would be to develop an interprofessional team to aid in identifying and closely following high-risk patient– caregiver groups.

At the time of this publication, the patient’s irritability and paranoia had subsided and he had made no further threats to his family. He has allowed a home health aide into the house and has agreed to have his roof repaired. His wife still lives with him and assists him with activities of daily living.

Interprofessional teams are key

Caregiver burnout increases the risk of patient neglect or abuse, as individuals who have been the targets of aggressive behavior are more likely to leave demented patients unattended.^8,16,23 Although tools are available to screen caregivers for depression and burnout, an important step forward would be to develop an interprofessional team to aid in identifying and closely following high-risk patient–caregiver groups. This continual and varied assessment of psychosocial stressors could help prevent the development of violent interactions. These teams would allow integration with the primary health care system by frequent and effective shared communication of knowledge, development of goals, and shared decision-making.³⁸ Setting expectations, providing support, and discussing safety strategies can improve the health and welfare of caregivers and patients with dementia alike.

CORRESPONDENCE
Abu Baker Sheikh, MD, MSC 10-5550, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; absheikh@salud.unm.edu.

The number of people with dementia globally is expected to reach 74.7 million by 2030 and 131.5 million by 2050.¹ Because dementia is progressive, many patients will exhibit severe symptoms termed behavioral crises. Deteriorating interpersonal conduct and escalating antisocial acts result in an acquired sociopathy.² Increasing cognitive impairment causes these patients to misunderstand intimate care and perceive it as a threat, often resulting in outbursts of violence against their caregivers.³

Available studies (TABLE^4-17) make evident the incidence of interpersonal violence experienced by caregivers secondary to aggressive acts by patients with dementia. This violence ranges from verbal abuse, including racial slurs, to physical abuse—sometimes resulting in significant physical injury. Aggressive behavior by patients with dementia, resulting in violence towards their caregivers or partners, stems from progressive cognitive decline, which can make optimal care difficult. Such episodes may also impair the psychological and physical well-being of caregivers, increasing their risk of depression, anxiety, and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).¹⁸ The extent of the impact is also determined by the interpretation of the abuse by the caregivers themselves. One study suggested that the perception of aggressive or violent behavior as “normal” by a caregiver reduced the overall negative effect of the interactions.⁷Our review emphasizes the unintended burden that can fall to caregivers of patients with dementia. We also address the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in identifying these instances of violence and intervening appropriately by providing safety strategies, education, resources, and support.

CASE

A 67-year-old man with a medical history of PTSD with depression, type 2 diabetes, alcohol use disorder/dependence, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea was brought to his PCP by his wife. She said he had recently been unable to keep appointment times, pay bills, or take his usual medications, venlafaxine and bupropion. She also said his PTSD symptoms had worsened. He was sleeping 12 to 14 hours per day and was increasingly irritable. The patient denied any concerns or changes in his behavior.

Caregivers may refuse support due to personal beliefs or values, accessibility or affordability issues, or in deference to the patient’s wishes.

The PCP administered a Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) examination to screen for cognitive impairment.¹⁹ The patient scored 14/30 (less than 20 is indicative of dementia). He was unable to complete a simple math problem, recall any items from a list of 5, count in reverse, draw a clock correctly, or recall a full story. Throughout the exam, the patient demonstrated minimal effort and was often only able to complete a task after further prompting by the examiner.

A computed tomography scan of the head revealed no signs of hemorrhage or damage. Thyroid-stimulating hormone levels and vitamin B12 levels were normal. A rapid plasma reagin test result was negative. The patient was given a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. Donepezil was added to the patient’s medications, starting at 5 mg and then increased to 10 mg. His wife began to assist him with his tasks of daily living. His mood improved, and his wife noted he began to remember his appointments and take his medications with assistance.

However, the patient’s irritability continued to escalate. He grew paranoid and accused his wife of mismanaging their money. This pattern steadily worsened over the course of 6 months. The situation escalated until one day the patient’s wife called a mental health hotline reporting that her husband was holding her hostage and threatening to kill her with a gun. He told her, “I can do something to you, and they won’t even find a fingernail. It doesn’t have to be with a gun either.” She was counseled to try to stay calm to avoid aggravating the situation and to go to a safe place and stay there until help arrived.

His memory had worsened to the point that he could not recall any events from the previous 2 years. He was paranoid about anyone entering his home and would not allow his deteriorating roof to be repaired or his yard to be maintained. He did not shower for weeks at a time. He slept holding a rifle and accused his wife of embezzlement.

Continue to: The patient was evaluated...

The patient was evaluated by another specialist, who assessed his SLUMS score to be 18/30. He increased the patient’s donepezil dose, initiated a bupropion taper, and added sertraline to the regimen. The PCP spoke to the patient’s wife regarding options for her safety including leaving the home, hiding firearms, and calling the police in cases of interpersonal violence. The wife said she did not want to pursue these options. She expressed worry that he might be harmed if he was uncooperative with the police and said there was no one except her to take care of him.

Caregivers struggle to care for their loved ones

Instances of personal violence lead to shock, astonishment, heartbreak, and fear. Anticipation of a recurrence of violence causes many partners and caregivers to feel exhausted, because there is minimal hope for any chance of improvement. There are a few exceptions, however, as our case will show. In addition to emotional exhaustion, there is also a ­never-ending sense of self-doubt, leading many caregivers to question their ability to handle their family member.^20,21 Over time, this leads to caregiver burnout, leaving them unable to understand their family member’s aggression. The sudden loss of caregiver control in dealing with the patient may also result in the family member exhibiting behavioral changes reflecting emotional trauma. For caregivers who do not live with the patient, they may choose to make fewer or shorter visits—or not visit at all—because they fear being abused.^7,22

Caregivers of patients with dementia often feel helpless and powerless once abrupt and drastic changes in personality lead to some form of interpersonal violence. Additionally, caregivers with a poor health status are more likely to have lower physical function and experience greater caregiving stress overall.²³ Other factors increasing stress are longer years of caregiving and the severity of a patient’s dementia and functional impairment.²³

Interventions to reduce caregiver burden

Many studies have assessed the role of different interventions to reduce caregiver burden, such as teaching them problem-solving skills, increasing their knowledge of dementia, recommending social resources, providing emotional support, changing caregiver perceptions of the care situation, introducing coping strategies, relying on strengths and experiences in caregiving, help-seeking, and engaging in activity programs.^24-28 For Hispanic caregivers, a structured and self-paced online telenovela format has been effective in improving care and relieving caregiver stress.²⁹ Online positive emotion regulators helped in significantly improving quality of life and physical health in the caregivers.³⁰ In this last intervention, caregivers had 6 online sessions with a facilitator who taught them emotional regulation skills that included: noticing positive events, capitalizing on them, and feeling gratitude; practicing mindfulness; doing a positive reappraisal; acknowledging personal strengths and setting attainable goals; and performing acts of kindness. Empowerment programs have also shown significant improvement in the well-being of caregivers.³¹

Caregivers may reject support. Hindrances to caregivers accepting support can include personal factors (eg, attitude, beliefs, values), service-related issues (eg, accessibility, affordability), and relational factors (preferences of the patient).³² In the case of patients with dementia who had a higher functional status, caregivers tend to reject any form of support.³² PCPs, of course, are optimally suited to care for entire families, often having known their patients and family members for years.

Continue to: These practical tips can help

Based on our review of the literature, we recommend offering the following supports to caregivers:

• Counsel caregivers early on in a patient’s dementia that behavior changes are likely and may be unpredictable. Explain that dementia can involve changes to personality and behavior as well as memory difficulties.^33,34
• Describe resources for support, such as day programs for senior adults, insurance coverage for caregiver respite programs, and the Alzheimer’s Association (www.alz.org/). Encourage caregivers to seek general medical and mental health care for themselves. Caregivers should have opportunities and support to discuss their experiences and to be appropriately trained for the challenge of caring for a family member with dementia.³⁵
• Encourage disclosure about abrupt changes in the patient’s behavior. This invites families to discuss issues with you and may make them more comfortable with such conversations.
• Involve ancillary services (eg, social worker) to plan for a higher level of care well in advance of it becoming necessary.
• Discuss safety strategies for the caregiver, including when it is appropriate to alter a patient’s set routines such as bedtimes and mealtimes.^33,34
• Discuss when and how to involve law enforcement, if necessary.^33,34 Emphasize the importance of removing firearms from the home as a safety measure. Although federal laws do not explicitly prohibit possession of arms by patients with neurologic damage, a few states mention “organic brain syndrome” or “dementia” as conditions prohibiting use or possession of firearms.³⁶
• Suggest, as feasible, nonpharmacologic aids for the patient such as massage therapy, animal-assisted therapy, personalized interventions, music therapy, and light therapy.³⁷ Prescribe medications to the patient to aid in behavior modification when appropriate.
• Screen caregivers and family members for signs of interpersonal violence. Take notice of changes in caregiver behavior or irregularity in attending follow-up appointments.

CASE

Over the next month, the patient’s symptoms further deteriorated. His PCP recommended hospitalization, but the patient and his wife declined. Magnetic resonance imaging of the patient’s brain revealed severe confluent and patchy regions of white matter and T2 signal hyperintensity, consistent with chronic microvascular ischemic disease. An old, small, left parietal lobe infarct was also noted.

Screen caregivers and family members for signs of interpersonal violence. Take notice of changes in caregiver behavior or irregularity in attending follow-up appointments.

One month later, the patient presented to the emergency department. His symptoms were largely unchanged, but his wife indicated that she could no longer live at home due to burnout. The patient’s medications were adjusted, but he was not admitted for inpatient care. His wife said they needed help at home, but the patient opposed the idea any time that it was mentioned.

A few weeks later, the patient presented for outpatient follow-up. He was delusional, believing that the government was compelling citizens to take sertraline in order to harm their mental health. He had also begun viewing online pornography in front of his wife and attempting to remove all of his money from the bank. He was prescribed aripiprazole 15 mg, and his symptoms began to improve. Soon after, however, he threatened to kill his grandson, then took all his Lasix pills (a 7-day supply) simultaneously. The patient denied that this was a suicide attempt.

Over the course of the next month, the patient began to report hearing voices. A neuropsychological evaluation confirmed a diagnosis of dementia with psychiatric symptoms due to neurologic injury. The patient was referred to a geriatric psychiatrist and continued to be managed medically. He was assigned a multidisciplinary team comprising palliative care, social work, and care management to assist in his care and provide support to the family. His behavior improved.

Continue to: At the time of this publication...

An important step forward would be to develop an interprofessional team to aid in identifying and closely following high-risk patient– caregiver groups.

At the time of this publication, the patient’s irritability and paranoia had subsided and he had made no further threats to his family. He has allowed a home health aide into the house and has agreed to have his roof repaired. His wife still lives with him and assists him with activities of daily living.

Interprofessional teams are key

Caregiver burnout increases the risk of patient neglect or abuse, as individuals who have been the targets of aggressive behavior are more likely to leave demented patients unattended.^8,16,23 Although tools are available to screen caregivers for depression and burnout, an important step forward would be to develop an interprofessional team to aid in identifying and closely following high-risk patient–caregiver groups. This continual and varied assessment of psychosocial stressors could help prevent the development of violent interactions. These teams would allow integration with the primary health care system by frequent and effective shared communication of knowledge, development of goals, and shared decision-making.³⁸ Setting expectations, providing support, and discussing safety strategies can improve the health and welfare of caregivers and patients with dementia alike.

CORRESPONDENCE
Abu Baker Sheikh, MD, MSC 10-5550, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; absheikh@salud.unm.edu.

The number of people with dementia globally is expected to reach 74.7 million by 2030 and 131.5 million by 2050.¹ Because dementia is progressive, many patients will exhibit severe symptoms termed behavioral crises. Deteriorating interpersonal conduct and escalating antisocial acts result in an acquired sociopathy.² Increasing cognitive impairment causes these patients to misunderstand intimate care and perceive it as a threat, often resulting in outbursts of violence against their caregivers.³

Available studies (TABLE^4-17) make evident the incidence of interpersonal violence experienced by caregivers secondary to aggressive acts by patients with dementia. This violence ranges from verbal abuse, including racial slurs, to physical abuse—sometimes resulting in significant physical injury. Aggressive behavior by patients with dementia, resulting in violence towards their caregivers or partners, stems from progressive cognitive decline, which can make optimal care difficult. Such episodes may also impair the psychological and physical well-being of caregivers, increasing their risk of depression, anxiety, and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).¹⁸ The extent of the impact is also determined by the interpretation of the abuse by the caregivers themselves. One study suggested that the perception of aggressive or violent behavior as “normal” by a caregiver reduced the overall negative effect of the interactions.⁷Our review emphasizes the unintended burden that can fall to caregivers of patients with dementia. We also address the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in identifying these instances of violence and intervening appropriately by providing safety strategies, education, resources, and support.

CASE

A 67-year-old man with a medical history of PTSD with depression, type 2 diabetes, alcohol use disorder/dependence, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea was brought to his PCP by his wife. She said he had recently been unable to keep appointment times, pay bills, or take his usual medications, venlafaxine and bupropion. She also said his PTSD symptoms had worsened. He was sleeping 12 to 14 hours per day and was increasingly irritable. The patient denied any concerns or changes in his behavior.

Caregivers may refuse support due to personal beliefs or values, accessibility or affordability issues, or in deference to the patient’s wishes.

The PCP administered a Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) examination to screen for cognitive impairment.¹⁹ The patient scored 14/30 (less than 20 is indicative of dementia). He was unable to complete a simple math problem, recall any items from a list of 5, count in reverse, draw a clock correctly, or recall a full story. Throughout the exam, the patient demonstrated minimal effort and was often only able to complete a task after further prompting by the examiner.

A computed tomography scan of the head revealed no signs of hemorrhage or damage. Thyroid-stimulating hormone levels and vitamin B12 levels were normal. A rapid plasma reagin test result was negative. The patient was given a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. Donepezil was added to the patient’s medications, starting at 5 mg and then increased to 10 mg. His wife began to assist him with his tasks of daily living. His mood improved, and his wife noted he began to remember his appointments and take his medications with assistance.

However, the patient’s irritability continued to escalate. He grew paranoid and accused his wife of mismanaging their money. This pattern steadily worsened over the course of 6 months. The situation escalated until one day the patient’s wife called a mental health hotline reporting that her husband was holding her hostage and threatening to kill her with a gun. He told her, “I can do something to you, and they won’t even find a fingernail. It doesn’t have to be with a gun either.” She was counseled to try to stay calm to avoid aggravating the situation and to go to a safe place and stay there until help arrived.

His memory had worsened to the point that he could not recall any events from the previous 2 years. He was paranoid about anyone entering his home and would not allow his deteriorating roof to be repaired or his yard to be maintained. He did not shower for weeks at a time. He slept holding a rifle and accused his wife of embezzlement.

Continue to: The patient was evaluated...

The patient was evaluated by another specialist, who assessed his SLUMS score to be 18/30. He increased the patient’s donepezil dose, initiated a bupropion taper, and added sertraline to the regimen. The PCP spoke to the patient’s wife regarding options for her safety including leaving the home, hiding firearms, and calling the police in cases of interpersonal violence. The wife said she did not want to pursue these options. She expressed worry that he might be harmed if he was uncooperative with the police and said there was no one except her to take care of him.

Caregivers struggle to care for their loved ones

Instances of personal violence lead to shock, astonishment, heartbreak, and fear. Anticipation of a recurrence of violence causes many partners and caregivers to feel exhausted, because there is minimal hope for any chance of improvement. There are a few exceptions, however, as our case will show. In addition to emotional exhaustion, there is also a ­never-ending sense of self-doubt, leading many caregivers to question their ability to handle their family member.^20,21 Over time, this leads to caregiver burnout, leaving them unable to understand their family member’s aggression. The sudden loss of caregiver control in dealing with the patient may also result in the family member exhibiting behavioral changes reflecting emotional trauma. For caregivers who do not live with the patient, they may choose to make fewer or shorter visits—or not visit at all—because they fear being abused.^7,22

Caregivers of patients with dementia often feel helpless and powerless once abrupt and drastic changes in personality lead to some form of interpersonal violence. Additionally, caregivers with a poor health status are more likely to have lower physical function and experience greater caregiving stress overall.²³ Other factors increasing stress are longer years of caregiving and the severity of a patient’s dementia and functional impairment.²³

Interventions to reduce caregiver burden

Many studies have assessed the role of different interventions to reduce caregiver burden, such as teaching them problem-solving skills, increasing their knowledge of dementia, recommending social resources, providing emotional support, changing caregiver perceptions of the care situation, introducing coping strategies, relying on strengths and experiences in caregiving, help-seeking, and engaging in activity programs.^24-28 For Hispanic caregivers, a structured and self-paced online telenovela format has been effective in improving care and relieving caregiver stress.²⁹ Online positive emotion regulators helped in significantly improving quality of life and physical health in the caregivers.³⁰ In this last intervention, caregivers had 6 online sessions with a facilitator who taught them emotional regulation skills that included: noticing positive events, capitalizing on them, and feeling gratitude; practicing mindfulness; doing a positive reappraisal; acknowledging personal strengths and setting attainable goals; and performing acts of kindness. Empowerment programs have also shown significant improvement in the well-being of caregivers.³¹

Caregivers may reject support. Hindrances to caregivers accepting support can include personal factors (eg, attitude, beliefs, values), service-related issues (eg, accessibility, affordability), and relational factors (preferences of the patient).³² In the case of patients with dementia who had a higher functional status, caregivers tend to reject any form of support.³² PCPs, of course, are optimally suited to care for entire families, often having known their patients and family members for years.

Continue to: These practical tips can help

Based on our review of the literature, we recommend offering the following supports to caregivers:

• Counsel caregivers early on in a patient’s dementia that behavior changes are likely and may be unpredictable. Explain that dementia can involve changes to personality and behavior as well as memory difficulties.^33,34
• Describe resources for support, such as day programs for senior adults, insurance coverage for caregiver respite programs, and the Alzheimer’s Association (www.alz.org/). Encourage caregivers to seek general medical and mental health care for themselves. Caregivers should have opportunities and support to discuss their experiences and to be appropriately trained for the challenge of caring for a family member with dementia.³⁵
• Encourage disclosure about abrupt changes in the patient’s behavior. This invites families to discuss issues with you and may make them more comfortable with such conversations.
• Involve ancillary services (eg, social worker) to plan for a higher level of care well in advance of it becoming necessary.
• Discuss safety strategies for the caregiver, including when it is appropriate to alter a patient’s set routines such as bedtimes and mealtimes.^33,34
• Discuss when and how to involve law enforcement, if necessary.^33,34 Emphasize the importance of removing firearms from the home as a safety measure. Although federal laws do not explicitly prohibit possession of arms by patients with neurologic damage, a few states mention “organic brain syndrome” or “dementia” as conditions prohibiting use or possession of firearms.³⁶
• Suggest, as feasible, nonpharmacologic aids for the patient such as massage therapy, animal-assisted therapy, personalized interventions, music therapy, and light therapy.³⁷ Prescribe medications to the patient to aid in behavior modification when appropriate.
• Screen caregivers and family members for signs of interpersonal violence. Take notice of changes in caregiver behavior or irregularity in attending follow-up appointments.

CASE

Over the next month, the patient’s symptoms further deteriorated. His PCP recommended hospitalization, but the patient and his wife declined. Magnetic resonance imaging of the patient’s brain revealed severe confluent and patchy regions of white matter and T2 signal hyperintensity, consistent with chronic microvascular ischemic disease. An old, small, left parietal lobe infarct was also noted.

Screen caregivers and family members for signs of interpersonal violence. Take notice of changes in caregiver behavior or irregularity in attending follow-up appointments.

One month later, the patient presented to the emergency department. His symptoms were largely unchanged, but his wife indicated that she could no longer live at home due to burnout. The patient’s medications were adjusted, but he was not admitted for inpatient care. His wife said they needed help at home, but the patient opposed the idea any time that it was mentioned.

A few weeks later, the patient presented for outpatient follow-up. He was delusional, believing that the government was compelling citizens to take sertraline in order to harm their mental health. He had also begun viewing online pornography in front of his wife and attempting to remove all of his money from the bank. He was prescribed aripiprazole 15 mg, and his symptoms began to improve. Soon after, however, he threatened to kill his grandson, then took all his Lasix pills (a 7-day supply) simultaneously. The patient denied that this was a suicide attempt.

Over the course of the next month, the patient began to report hearing voices. A neuropsychological evaluation confirmed a diagnosis of dementia with psychiatric symptoms due to neurologic injury. The patient was referred to a geriatric psychiatrist and continued to be managed medically. He was assigned a multidisciplinary team comprising palliative care, social work, and care management to assist in his care and provide support to the family. His behavior improved.

Continue to: At the time of this publication...

An important step forward would be to develop an interprofessional team to aid in identifying and closely following high-risk patient– caregiver groups.

At the time of this publication, the patient’s irritability and paranoia had subsided and he had made no further threats to his family. He has allowed a home health aide into the house and has agreed to have his roof repaired. His wife still lives with him and assists him with activities of daily living.

Interprofessional teams are key

Caregiver burnout increases the risk of patient neglect or abuse, as individuals who have been the targets of aggressive behavior are more likely to leave demented patients unattended.^8,16,23 Although tools are available to screen caregivers for depression and burnout, an important step forward would be to develop an interprofessional team to aid in identifying and closely following high-risk patient–caregiver groups. This continual and varied assessment of psychosocial stressors could help prevent the development of violent interactions. These teams would allow integration with the primary health care system by frequent and effective shared communication of knowledge, development of goals, and shared decision-making.³⁸ Setting expectations, providing support, and discussing safety strategies can improve the health and welfare of caregivers and patients with dementia alike.

CORRESPONDENCE
Abu Baker Sheikh, MD, MSC 10-5550, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; absheikh@salud.unm.edu.

Discussion of a common cause of dyspepsia was missing from your September article, “Dyspepsia: A stepwise approach to evaluation and management” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:320-325). After more than 25 years of practice, I have found that most people with dyspepsia have hypochlorhydria¹—a condition that results in the inability to produce adequate amounts of hydrochloric acid, or stomach acid. With lower amounts of stomach acid, food does not break down but ferments instead, producing gas and discomfort.

I use a simple test to diagnose patients with hypochlorhydria. The patient takes a capsule of hydrochloric acid directly after eating a meal; failure to experience epigastric burning within 30 minutes of ingesting the capsule indicates a need for additional stomach acid with a meal. If they do experience a burning sensation within 30 minutes, it indicates they do not need additional stomach acid. The burning sensation is relieved by drinking 2 teaspoons of baking soda in 4 oz of water to neutralize the excess acid.

In my experience, most people who take the test do not experience a sense of burning. I find that once these patients with hypochlorhydria start taking betaine hydrochloride with their meals, they no longer need the many over-the-counter or prescription antacids and their dyspepsia disappears. Many of my patients find that after a few months, they begin to experience burning and can discontinue the supplement, without facing a return of their dyspepsia.

Marianne Rothschild, MD
Mount Airy, MD

1. Iwai W, Abe Y, Iijima K, et al. Gastric hypochlorhydria is associated with an exacerbation of dyspeptic symptoms in female patients. J Gastoenterol. 2012;48:214-221. doi: 10.1007/s00535-012-0634-8

Editor’s note

After reading Dr. Rothschild’s letter, I decided to do a little digging to find out if there is any research evidence to support her approach to dyspepsia. I carefully searched PubMed and found only 2 observational studies showing an association between dyspepsia and hypochlorhydria. There are no randomized trials of dyspepsia treatment with hydrochloric acid to support her clinical observations. Placebo effect? Until there is a good, randomized trial, we will not know. But who would have guessed that H pylori causes peptic ulcers?

John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Family Practice

Discussion of a common cause of dyspepsia was missing from your September article, “Dyspepsia: A stepwise approach to evaluation and management” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:320-325). After more than 25 years of practice, I have found that most people with dyspepsia have hypochlorhydria¹—a condition that results in the inability to produce adequate amounts of hydrochloric acid, or stomach acid. With lower amounts of stomach acid, food does not break down but ferments instead, producing gas and discomfort.

I use a simple test to diagnose patients with hypochlorhydria. The patient takes a capsule of hydrochloric acid directly after eating a meal; failure to experience epigastric burning within 30 minutes of ingesting the capsule indicates a need for additional stomach acid with a meal. If they do experience a burning sensation within 30 minutes, it indicates they do not need additional stomach acid. The burning sensation is relieved by drinking 2 teaspoons of baking soda in 4 oz of water to neutralize the excess acid.

In my experience, most people who take the test do not experience a sense of burning. I find that once these patients with hypochlorhydria start taking betaine hydrochloride with their meals, they no longer need the many over-the-counter or prescription antacids and their dyspepsia disappears. Many of my patients find that after a few months, they begin to experience burning and can discontinue the supplement, without facing a return of their dyspepsia.

Marianne Rothschild, MD
Mount Airy, MD

1. Iwai W, Abe Y, Iijima K, et al. Gastric hypochlorhydria is associated with an exacerbation of dyspeptic symptoms in female patients. J Gastoenterol. 2012;48:214-221. doi: 10.1007/s00535-012-0634-8

Editor’s note

After reading Dr. Rothschild’s letter, I decided to do a little digging to find out if there is any research evidence to support her approach to dyspepsia. I carefully searched PubMed and found only 2 observational studies showing an association between dyspepsia and hypochlorhydria. There are no randomized trials of dyspepsia treatment with hydrochloric acid to support her clinical observations. Placebo effect? Until there is a good, randomized trial, we will not know. But who would have guessed that H pylori causes peptic ulcers?

John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Family Practice

Discussion of a common cause of dyspepsia was missing from your September article, “Dyspepsia: A stepwise approach to evaluation and management” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:320-325). After more than 25 years of practice, I have found that most people with dyspepsia have hypochlorhydria¹—a condition that results in the inability to produce adequate amounts of hydrochloric acid, or stomach acid. With lower amounts of stomach acid, food does not break down but ferments instead, producing gas and discomfort.

I use a simple test to diagnose patients with hypochlorhydria. The patient takes a capsule of hydrochloric acid directly after eating a meal; failure to experience epigastric burning within 30 minutes of ingesting the capsule indicates a need for additional stomach acid with a meal. If they do experience a burning sensation within 30 minutes, it indicates they do not need additional stomach acid. The burning sensation is relieved by drinking 2 teaspoons of baking soda in 4 oz of water to neutralize the excess acid.

In my experience, most people who take the test do not experience a sense of burning. I find that once these patients with hypochlorhydria start taking betaine hydrochloride with their meals, they no longer need the many over-the-counter or prescription antacids and their dyspepsia disappears. Many of my patients find that after a few months, they begin to experience burning and can discontinue the supplement, without facing a return of their dyspepsia.

Marianne Rothschild, MD
Mount Airy, MD

1. Iwai W, Abe Y, Iijima K, et al. Gastric hypochlorhydria is associated with an exacerbation of dyspeptic symptoms in female patients. J Gastoenterol. 2012;48:214-221. doi: 10.1007/s00535-012-0634-8

Editor’s note

After reading Dr. Rothschild’s letter, I decided to do a little digging to find out if there is any research evidence to support her approach to dyspepsia. I carefully searched PubMed and found only 2 observational studies showing an association between dyspepsia and hypochlorhydria. There are no randomized trials of dyspepsia treatment with hydrochloric acid to support her clinical observations. Placebo effect? Until there is a good, randomized trial, we will not know. But who would have guessed that H pylori causes peptic ulcers?

John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Family Practice

Considering the controversy surrounding functional medicine, you may be wondering why JFP published an article about it last month.¹ David Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS, a vocal critic of functional medicine, commented: “Functional medicine. It sounds so … scientific and reasonable. It’s anything but. In fact, functional medicine combines the worst features of conventional medicine with a heapin’ helpin’ of quackery.”² On its website, however, The Institute for Functional Medicine claims that “functional medicine determines how and why illness occurs and restores health by addressing the root causes of disease for each individual.”³

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

Does functional medicine combine “the worst features of conventional medicine with a heapin’ helpin’ of quackery”? Or is it still in its infancy and does it deserve a wait-and-see approach?

Because functional medicine has gained a certain degree of popularity, I felt it was important for family physicians and other primary care clinicians to know enough about this alternative healing method to discuss it with patients who express interest.

In their review article in JFP, Orlando and colleagues tell us there are 7 defining characteristics of functional medicine.¹ It is patient centered rather than disease centered, uses a “systems biology” approach, considers the dynamic balance of gene-environment interactions, is personalized based on biochemical individuality, promotes organ reserve and sustained health span, sees health as a positive vitality (not merely the absence of disease), and focuses on function rather than pathology.

Most of these statements about functional medicine apply to traditional family medicine. The clinical approach stressing lifestyle changes is mainstream, not unique. The focus on digestion and the microbiome as an important determinant of health is based on interesting basic science studies and associations noted between certain microbiome profiles and diseases.

But association is not causation. So far there is scant evidence that changing the microbiome results in better health, although some preliminary case series have generated intriguing hypotheses. And there is evidence that probiotics improve some symptoms. Ongoing research into the microbiome and health will, no doubt, be illuminating. We have much to learn.

What does seem unique, but suspect, about functional medicine is its focus on biochemical testing of unproven value and the prescribing of diets and supplements based on the test results. There are no sound scientific studies showing the benefit of this approach.

I suggest you read Orlando et al’s article. Functional medicine is an interesting, mostly unproven, approach to patient care. But I will keep an open mind until we see better research that either does—or doesn’t—support the validity of its practices.

Considering the controversy surrounding functional medicine, you may be wondering why JFP published an article about it last month.¹ David Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS, a vocal critic of functional medicine, commented: “Functional medicine. It sounds so … scientific and reasonable. It’s anything but. In fact, functional medicine combines the worst features of conventional medicine with a heapin’ helpin’ of quackery.”² On its website, however, The Institute for Functional Medicine claims that “functional medicine determines how and why illness occurs and restores health by addressing the root causes of disease for each individual.”³

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

Does functional medicine combine “the worst features of conventional medicine with a heapin’ helpin’ of quackery”? Or is it still in its infancy and does it deserve a wait-and-see approach?

Because functional medicine has gained a certain degree of popularity, I felt it was important for family physicians and other primary care clinicians to know enough about this alternative healing method to discuss it with patients who express interest.

In their review article in JFP, Orlando and colleagues tell us there are 7 defining characteristics of functional medicine.¹ It is patient centered rather than disease centered, uses a “systems biology” approach, considers the dynamic balance of gene-environment interactions, is personalized based on biochemical individuality, promotes organ reserve and sustained health span, sees health as a positive vitality (not merely the absence of disease), and focuses on function rather than pathology.

Most of these statements about functional medicine apply to traditional family medicine. The clinical approach stressing lifestyle changes is mainstream, not unique. The focus on digestion and the microbiome as an important determinant of health is based on interesting basic science studies and associations noted between certain microbiome profiles and diseases.

But association is not causation. So far there is scant evidence that changing the microbiome results in better health, although some preliminary case series have generated intriguing hypotheses. And there is evidence that probiotics improve some symptoms. Ongoing research into the microbiome and health will, no doubt, be illuminating. We have much to learn.

What does seem unique, but suspect, about functional medicine is its focus on biochemical testing of unproven value and the prescribing of diets and supplements based on the test results. There are no sound scientific studies showing the benefit of this approach.

I suggest you read Orlando et al’s article. Functional medicine is an interesting, mostly unproven, approach to patient care. But I will keep an open mind until we see better research that either does—or doesn’t—support the validity of its practices.

Considering the controversy surrounding functional medicine, you may be wondering why JFP published an article about it last month.¹ David Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS, a vocal critic of functional medicine, commented: “Functional medicine. It sounds so … scientific and reasonable. It’s anything but. In fact, functional medicine combines the worst features of conventional medicine with a heapin’ helpin’ of quackery.”² On its website, however, The Institute for Functional Medicine claims that “functional medicine determines how and why illness occurs and restores health by addressing the root causes of disease for each individual.”³

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

Does functional medicine combine “the worst features of conventional medicine with a heapin’ helpin’ of quackery”? Or is it still in its infancy and does it deserve a wait-and-see approach?

Because functional medicine has gained a certain degree of popularity, I felt it was important for family physicians and other primary care clinicians to know enough about this alternative healing method to discuss it with patients who express interest.

In their review article in JFP, Orlando and colleagues tell us there are 7 defining characteristics of functional medicine.¹ It is patient centered rather than disease centered, uses a “systems biology” approach, considers the dynamic balance of gene-environment interactions, is personalized based on biochemical individuality, promotes organ reserve and sustained health span, sees health as a positive vitality (not merely the absence of disease), and focuses on function rather than pathology.

Most of these statements about functional medicine apply to traditional family medicine. The clinical approach stressing lifestyle changes is mainstream, not unique. The focus on digestion and the microbiome as an important determinant of health is based on interesting basic science studies and associations noted between certain microbiome profiles and diseases.

But association is not causation. So far there is scant evidence that changing the microbiome results in better health, although some preliminary case series have generated intriguing hypotheses. And there is evidence that probiotics improve some symptoms. Ongoing research into the microbiome and health will, no doubt, be illuminating. We have much to learn.

What does seem unique, but suspect, about functional medicine is its focus on biochemical testing of unproven value and the prescribing of diets and supplements based on the test results. There are no sound scientific studies showing the benefit of this approach.

I suggest you read Orlando et al’s article. Functional medicine is an interesting, mostly unproven, approach to patient care. But I will keep an open mind until we see better research that either does—or doesn’t—support the validity of its practices.

An 85-year-old man with a history of skin cancer presented to my dermatology practice (NT) for evaluation of a “pimple” on his left cheek that failed to resolve after 2 months (FIGURE). The patient noted that the lesion had grown, but that he otherwise felt well.

On examination, the lesion was plum colored, and the area was firm and nontender to palpation. The patient was referred to a plastic surgeon for an excisional biopsy to clarify the nature of the lesion.

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

A biopsy performed 2 weeks after the initial visit confirmed the clinical suspicion for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC).

MCC is a cutaneous neuroendocrine malignancy. Although its name acknowledges similarities between the tumor cells and Merkel cells, it is now considered unlikely that Merkel cells are the actual cells of origin.¹

The growing cohort of ageing baby boomers and the increased number of immunosuppressed individuals in the community suggest that clinicians are now more likely to encounter MCC than in the past.

The majority of MCCs are asymptomatic despite rapid growth and are typically red or pink and occur on UV-exposed areas, as in our patient.² A cyst or acneiform lesion is the single most common diagnosis given at the time of biopsy.²

The incidence of MCC is greatest in people of advanced age and in those who are immunosuppressed. In the United States, the estimated annual incidence rate rose from 0.5 cases per 100,000 people in 2000 to 0.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2013.³ MCC increases exponentially with advancing age, from 0.1 (per 100,000) in those ages 40 to 44 years to 9.8 in those older than 85 years.³ The growing cohort of ageing baby boomers and the increased number of immunosuppressed individuals in the community suggest that clinicians are now more likely to encounter MCC than in the past.

While UV radiation is highly associated with MCC, the major causative factor is considered to be Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV).¹ In fact, MCPyV has been linked to 80% of MCC cases.^1,3 Most people have positive serology for MCPyV in early childhood, but the association between MCC and old age highlights the impact of immunosuppression on MCPyV activity and MCC development.¹

Clinical suspicion is the first step in diagnosing MCC

The mnemonic AEIOU highlights the key clinical features of this aggressive tumor^2,4:

• Asymptomatic
• Expanding rapidly (often grows in less than 3 months)
• Immune suppression (eg, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, solid organ transplant patient)
• Older than 50
• UV exposure on fair skin.

If a lesion is suspected to be MCC, the next step includes biopsy so that a definitive diagnosis can be made. A firm, nontender nodule that lacks fluctuance should raise suspicion for a neoplastic process.

Continue to: The differential is broad, ranging from cysts to melanoma

The differential diagnosis for an enlarging, plum-colored nodule on sun-exposed skin includes an abscess, a ruptured or inflamed epidermoid cyst, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and malignant melanoma.

An abscess is typically tender and expands within a matter of days rather than months.

A cyst can be ruled out by the clinical appearance and lack of an overlying pore.

Basal cell carcinoma can be characterized by a rolled border and central ulceration.

Squamous cell carcinomas often exhibit a verrucous surface with marked hyperkeratosis.

Continue to: Melanoma

Melanoma manifests with brown or irregular pigmentation and may be associated with a precursor lesion.

Tx includes excision and consistent follow-up

Complete excision is the critical first step to successful therapy. Sentinel lymph node studies are typically performed because of the high incidence of lymph node metastasis. Frequent follow-up is required because of the high risk of recurrent or persistent disease.

Local recurrence usually occurs within 1 year of diagnosis in more than 40% of patients.⁵ Distant metastasis can be treated with a programmed cell death ligand 1 blocking agent (avelumab) or a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor (nivolumab or pembrolizumab).⁶

Our patient was referred to a regional cancer center for sentinel lymph node evaluation, where he was found to have nodal disease. The patient was put on pembrolizumab and received radiation therapy but showed only limited response. Seven months after diagnosis, he passed away from metastatic MCC.

An 85-year-old man with a history of skin cancer presented to my dermatology practice (NT) for evaluation of a “pimple” on his left cheek that failed to resolve after 2 months (FIGURE). The patient noted that the lesion had grown, but that he otherwise felt well.

On examination, the lesion was plum colored, and the area was firm and nontender to palpation. The patient was referred to a plastic surgeon for an excisional biopsy to clarify the nature of the lesion.

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

A biopsy performed 2 weeks after the initial visit confirmed the clinical suspicion for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC).

MCC is a cutaneous neuroendocrine malignancy. Although its name acknowledges similarities between the tumor cells and Merkel cells, it is now considered unlikely that Merkel cells are the actual cells of origin.¹

The growing cohort of ageing baby boomers and the increased number of immunosuppressed individuals in the community suggest that clinicians are now more likely to encounter MCC than in the past.

The majority of MCCs are asymptomatic despite rapid growth and are typically red or pink and occur on UV-exposed areas, as in our patient.² A cyst or acneiform lesion is the single most common diagnosis given at the time of biopsy.²

The incidence of MCC is greatest in people of advanced age and in those who are immunosuppressed. In the United States, the estimated annual incidence rate rose from 0.5 cases per 100,000 people in 2000 to 0.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2013.³ MCC increases exponentially with advancing age, from 0.1 (per 100,000) in those ages 40 to 44 years to 9.8 in those older than 85 years.³ The growing cohort of ageing baby boomers and the increased number of immunosuppressed individuals in the community suggest that clinicians are now more likely to encounter MCC than in the past.

While UV radiation is highly associated with MCC, the major causative factor is considered to be Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV).¹ In fact, MCPyV has been linked to 80% of MCC cases.^1,3 Most people have positive serology for MCPyV in early childhood, but the association between MCC and old age highlights the impact of immunosuppression on MCPyV activity and MCC development.¹

Clinical suspicion is the first step in diagnosing MCC

The mnemonic AEIOU highlights the key clinical features of this aggressive tumor^2,4:

• Asymptomatic
• Expanding rapidly (often grows in less than 3 months)
• Immune suppression (eg, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, solid organ transplant patient)
• Older than 50
• UV exposure on fair skin.

If a lesion is suspected to be MCC, the next step includes biopsy so that a definitive diagnosis can be made. A firm, nontender nodule that lacks fluctuance should raise suspicion for a neoplastic process.

Continue to: The differential is broad, ranging from cysts to melanoma

The differential diagnosis for an enlarging, plum-colored nodule on sun-exposed skin includes an abscess, a ruptured or inflamed epidermoid cyst, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and malignant melanoma.

An abscess is typically tender and expands within a matter of days rather than months.

A cyst can be ruled out by the clinical appearance and lack of an overlying pore.

Basal cell carcinoma can be characterized by a rolled border and central ulceration.

Squamous cell carcinomas often exhibit a verrucous surface with marked hyperkeratosis.

Continue to: Melanoma

Melanoma manifests with brown or irregular pigmentation and may be associated with a precursor lesion.

Tx includes excision and consistent follow-up

Complete excision is the critical first step to successful therapy. Sentinel lymph node studies are typically performed because of the high incidence of lymph node metastasis. Frequent follow-up is required because of the high risk of recurrent or persistent disease.

Local recurrence usually occurs within 1 year of diagnosis in more than 40% of patients.⁵ Distant metastasis can be treated with a programmed cell death ligand 1 blocking agent (avelumab) or a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor (nivolumab or pembrolizumab).⁶

Our patient was referred to a regional cancer center for sentinel lymph node evaluation, where he was found to have nodal disease. The patient was put on pembrolizumab and received radiation therapy but showed only limited response. Seven months after diagnosis, he passed away from metastatic MCC.

An 85-year-old man with a history of skin cancer presented to my dermatology practice (NT) for evaluation of a “pimple” on his left cheek that failed to resolve after 2 months (FIGURE). The patient noted that the lesion had grown, but that he otherwise felt well.

On examination, the lesion was plum colored, and the area was firm and nontender to palpation. The patient was referred to a plastic surgeon for an excisional biopsy to clarify the nature of the lesion.

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

A biopsy performed 2 weeks after the initial visit confirmed the clinical suspicion for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC).

MCC is a cutaneous neuroendocrine malignancy. Although its name acknowledges similarities between the tumor cells and Merkel cells, it is now considered unlikely that Merkel cells are the actual cells of origin.¹

The growing cohort of ageing baby boomers and the increased number of immunosuppressed individuals in the community suggest that clinicians are now more likely to encounter MCC than in the past.

The majority of MCCs are asymptomatic despite rapid growth and are typically red or pink and occur on UV-exposed areas, as in our patient.² A cyst or acneiform lesion is the single most common diagnosis given at the time of biopsy.²

The incidence of MCC is greatest in people of advanced age and in those who are immunosuppressed. In the United States, the estimated annual incidence rate rose from 0.5 cases per 100,000 people in 2000 to 0.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2013.³ MCC increases exponentially with advancing age, from 0.1 (per 100,000) in those ages 40 to 44 years to 9.8 in those older than 85 years.³ The growing cohort of ageing baby boomers and the increased number of immunosuppressed individuals in the community suggest that clinicians are now more likely to encounter MCC than in the past.

While UV radiation is highly associated with MCC, the major causative factor is considered to be Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV).¹ In fact, MCPyV has been linked to 80% of MCC cases.^1,3 Most people have positive serology for MCPyV in early childhood, but the association between MCC and old age highlights the impact of immunosuppression on MCPyV activity and MCC development.¹

Clinical suspicion is the first step in diagnosing MCC

The mnemonic AEIOU highlights the key clinical features of this aggressive tumor^2,4:

• Asymptomatic
• Expanding rapidly (often grows in less than 3 months)
• Immune suppression (eg, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, solid organ transplant patient)
• Older than 50
• UV exposure on fair skin.

If a lesion is suspected to be MCC, the next step includes biopsy so that a definitive diagnosis can be made. A firm, nontender nodule that lacks fluctuance should raise suspicion for a neoplastic process.

Continue to: The differential is broad, ranging from cysts to melanoma

The differential diagnosis for an enlarging, plum-colored nodule on sun-exposed skin includes an abscess, a ruptured or inflamed epidermoid cyst, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and malignant melanoma.

An abscess is typically tender and expands within a matter of days rather than months.

A cyst can be ruled out by the clinical appearance and lack of an overlying pore.

Basal cell carcinoma can be characterized by a rolled border and central ulceration.

Squamous cell carcinomas often exhibit a verrucous surface with marked hyperkeratosis.

Continue to: Melanoma

Melanoma manifests with brown or irregular pigmentation and may be associated with a precursor lesion.

Tx includes excision and consistent follow-up

Complete excision is the critical first step to successful therapy. Sentinel lymph node studies are typically performed because of the high incidence of lymph node metastasis. Frequent follow-up is required because of the high risk of recurrent or persistent disease.

Local recurrence usually occurs within 1 year of diagnosis in more than 40% of patients.⁵ Distant metastasis can be treated with a programmed cell death ligand 1 blocking agent (avelumab) or a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor (nivolumab or pembrolizumab).⁶

Our patient was referred to a regional cancer center for sentinel lymph node evaluation, where he was found to have nodal disease. The patient was put on pembrolizumab and received radiation therapy but showed only limited response. Seven months after diagnosis, he passed away from metastatic MCC.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 67-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and chronic congestive heart failure (ejection fraction = 30%) was admitted to the intensive care unit with a diagnosis of acute hypoxic respiratory failure. He was discharged after 10 days of inpatient treatment that included daily VTE prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Should he go home on VTE prophylaxis?

Patients hospitalized with nonsurgical conditions such as congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis, inflammatory bowel disease, or active cancers are at increased risk for VTE due to inflammation and immobility. In a US study of 158,325 hospitalized nonsurgical patients, including those with cancer, infections, congestive heart failure, or respiratory failure, 4% of patients developed deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 1.5% developed pulmonary embolism (PE), and 0.2% developed both DVT and PE, at a median time of 74 days after discharge.² Prophylaxis in medical inpatients reduces VTE incidence in the hospital by 50% to 75%, but the period of increased VTE risk after discharge is not well understood in medical patients.³ American College of Chest Physicians guidelines provide recommendations for the duration of prophylactic anticoagulation after major orthopedic surgeries but make no recommendation for medical patients.³ American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines recommend against extending VTE prophylaxis after hospital discharge, including for patients with risk factors or chronic immobility.⁴

However, use of DOACs for short-term VTE prophylaxis as an alternative to LMWH in hospitalized patients is supported by a meta-analysis showing equivalent efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness.¹ The current study examined DOACs for extended postdischarge use.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Significant benefit of DOACs demonstrated across 4 large trials

This meta-analysis of 4 large randomized controlled trials examined the safety and efficacy of 6 weeks of postdischarge DOAC thromboprophylaxis compared with placebo in 26,408 high-risk nonsurgical hospitalized patients.¹ Patients at least 40 years old were admitted with diagnoses that included New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV congestive heart failure, active cancer, acute ischemic stroke, acute respiratory failure, or infectious or inflammatory disease. Study patients also had risk factors for VTE, including age 75 and older, obesity, chronic venous insufficiency, history of VTE, history of NYHA class III or IV congestive heart failure, history of cancer, thrombophilia, hormone replacement therapy, or major surgery within the 6 to 12 weeks before current medical hospitalization.

A recent meta-analysis sheds light on the benefits of extended postdischarge thromboprophylaxis in nonsurgical patients at high risk for VTE.

Patients were excluded if DOACs were contraindicated or if they had active or recent bleeding, renal failure, abnormal liver values, an upcoming need for surgery, or an indication for ongoing anticoagulation. Patients in 3 studies received 6 to 10 days of enoxaparin as prophylaxis during their inpatient stay. (The fourth study did not specify length of inpatient prophylaxis or drug used.) After discharge, patients were assigned to placebo or a regimen of rivaroxaban 10 mg daily, apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily, or betrixaban 80 mg daily for a range of 30 to 45 days. The primary outcome was the composite of total VTE and VTE-related death. A secondary outcome was the occurrence of nonfatal symptomatic VTE, and the primary safety outcome was the incidence of major bleeding.

The primary outcome occurred in 2.9% of the patients in the DOAC group compared with 3.6% of patients in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91; number needed to treat [NNT] = 143). The secondary outcome occurred in 0.48% of patients in the DOAC group compared with 0.77% of patients in the placebo group (OR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.83; NNT = 345). Major bleeding resulting in a decrease in hemoglobin concentration of more than 2 g/L, requiring transfusion of at least 2 units of packed red blood cells, reintervention at a previous surgical site, or bleeding in a critical organ or that was fatal, occurred in 0.58% of patients in the DOAC group compared with 0.3% of patients in the placebo group (OR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; number needed to harm [NNH] = 357). Nonmajor bleeding was increased in the DOAC group compared with placebo (2.2% vs 1.2%; OR = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5-2.1; NNH = 110).

The NNT to prevent a fatal VTE was 899 patients. After extrapolating original data on fatal PE and major bleeding to a national level, cost-benefit analysis preferred extended DOAC use, with a direct medical cost balance of $1.2 million per life saved.

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW