Citations

Background Central to the armamentarium of a hand therapist is evaluation for successful orthotic use. Orthoses can have a profound effect on quality of life in persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)/motor neuron disease (MND). The purposes of orthoses are to decrease the effects of muscle imbalance, provide assistance in performance of activities of daily living (ADLs), prevent joint contracture, and relieve pain. There are few published accounts on the usefulness of orthoses and ALS. The purpose of this paper is to expand the body of literature by describing three successful cases. Methods Three cases illustrate effects on weakened proximal muscles, wrist extensors, thenar musculature, and intrinsic muscles. The primary outcome measure is patient report, but functional rating scales, goniometry, quality of life scores, and pinch strength when obtainable are described. Results Due to the progressive nature of the disease, outcome measures can be inconclusive. Patient report of increased life satisfaction and ability to participate in daily life is the critical outcome in these case examples. In all cases, satisfaction increased. Some of the stated changes include the following: ability to manipulate objects, grip, eat, wipe face, hold phone, use iPad®, and adjust hat. Conclusions Upper extremity orthotic use can be a beneficial adjunct contributing to the quality of life for individuals with ALS/MND. We have observed positive responses in pain control, contracture management, functional positioning, and increased independence with the use of orthoses. Designing appropriate means of studying effects of orthosis intervention is deficient in the current scientific literature.

The American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO‐HNSF) has published a supplement to this issue featuring the new Clinical Practice Guideline: Bell's Palsy. To assist in implementing the guideline recommendations, this article summarizes the rationale, purpose, and key action statements. The 11 recommendations developed encourage accurate and efficient diagnosis and treatment and, when applicable, facilitate patient follow‐up to address the management of long‐term sequelae or evaluation of new or worsening symptoms not indicative of Bell's palsy. There are myriad treatment options for Bell's palsy; some controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of several of these options, and there are consequent variations in care. In addition, there are numerous diagnostic tests available that are used in the evaluation of patients with Bell's palsy. Many of these tests are of questionable benefit in Bell's palsy. Furthermore, while patients with Bell's palsy enter the health care system with facial paresis/paralysis as a primary complaint, not all patients with facial paresis/paralysis have Bell's palsy. It is a concern that patients with alternative underlying etiologies may be misdiagnosed or have an unnecessary delay in diagnosis. All of these quality concerns provide an important opportunity for improvement in the diagnosis and management of patients with Bell's palsy.

Objective Bell's palsy, named after the Scottish anatomist, Sir Charles Bell, is the most common acute mono‐neuropathy, or disorder affecting a single nerve, and is the most common diagnosis associated with facial nerve weakness/paralysis. Bell's palsy is a rapid unilateral facial nerve paresis (weakness) or paralysis (complete loss of movement) of unknown cause. The condition leads to the partial or complete inability to voluntarily move facial muscles on the affected side of the face. Although typically self‐limited, the facial paresis/paralysis that occurs in Bell's palsy may cause significant temporary oral incompetence and an inability to close the eyelid, leading to potential eye injury. Additional long‐term poor outcomes do occur and can be devastating to the patient. Treatments are generally designed to improve facial function and facilitate recovery. There are myriad treatment options for Bell's palsy, and some controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of several of these options, and there are consequent variations in care. In addition, numerous diagnostic tests available are used in the evaluation of patients with Bell's palsy. Many of these tests are of questionable benefit in Bell's palsy. Furthermore, while patients with Bell's palsy enter the health care system with facial paresis/paralysis as a primary complaint, not all patients with facial paresis/paralysis have Bell's palsy. It is a concern that patients with alternative underlying etiologies may be misdiagnosed or have unnecessary delay in diagnosis. All of these quality concerns provide an important opportunity for improvement in the diagnosis and management of patients with Bell's palsy. Purpose The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve the accuracy of diagnosis for Bell's palsy, to improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients with Bell's palsy, and to decrease harmful variations in the evaluation and management of Bell's palsy. This guideline addresses these needs by encouraging accurate and efficient diagnosis and treatment and, when applicable, facilitating patient follow‐up to address the management of long‐term sequelae or evaluation of new or worsening symptoms not indicative of Bell's palsy. The guideline is intended for all clinicians in any setting who are likely to diagnose and manage patients with Bell's palsy. The target population is inclusive of both adults and children presenting with Bell's palsy. Action Statements The development group made a strong recommendation that (a) clinicians should assess the patient using history and physical examination to exclude identifiable causes of facial paresis or paralysis in patients presenting with acute‐onset unilateral facial paresis or paralysis, (b) clinicians should prescribe oral steroids within 72 hours of symptom onset for Bell's palsy patients 16 years and older, (c) clinicians should not prescribe oral antiviral therapy alone for patients with new‐onset Bell's palsy, and (d) clinicians should implement eye protection for Bell's palsy patients with impaired eye closure. The panel made recommendations that (a) clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory testing in patients with new‐onset Bell's palsy, (b) clinicians should not routinely perform diagnostic imaging for patients with new‐onset Bell's palsy, (c) clinicians should not perform electrodiagnostic testing in Bell's palsy patients with incomplete facial paralysis, and (d) clinicians should reassess or refer to a facial nerve specialist those Bell's palsy patients with (1) new or worsening neurologic findings at any point, (2) ocular symptoms developing at any point, or (3) incomplete facial recovery 3 months after initial symptom onset. The development group provided the following options : (a) clinicians may offer oral antiviral therapy in addition to oral steroids within 72 hours of symptom onset for patients with Bell's palsy, and (b) clinicians may offer electrodiagnostic testing to Bell's palsy patients with complete facial paralysis. The development group offered the following no recommendations : (a) no recommendation can be made regarding surgical decompression for patients with Bell's palsy, (b) no recommendation can be made regarding the effect of acupuncture in patients with Bell's palsy, and (c) no recommendation can be made regarding the effect of physical therapy in patients with Bell's palsy.

Abstract Background: The etiology and natural history of Parkinson’s disease (PD) are not well understood. Some non-motor symptoms such as hyposmia, rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder, and constipation may develop during the prodromal stage of PD and precede PD diagnosis by years. Objectives: We examined the promise and pitfalls of research on premotor symptoms of PD and developed priorities and strategies to understand their clinical and etiological implications. Methods: This review was based on a workshop, Parkinson’s Disease Premotor Symptom Symposium, held 7–8 June 2012 at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Discussion: Research on premotor symptoms of PD may offer an excellent opportunity to characterize high-risk populations and to better understand PD etiology. Such research may lead to evaluation of novel etiological hypotheses such as the possibility that environmental toxicants or viruses may initiate PD pathogenesis in the gastrointestinal tract or olfactory bulb. At present, our understanding of premotor symptoms of PD is in its infancy and faces many obstacles. These symptoms are often not specific to PD and have low positive predictive value for early PD diagnosis. Further, the pathological bases and biological mechanisms of these premotor symptoms and their relevance to PD pathogenesis are poorly understood. Conclusion: This is an emerging research area with important data gaps to be filled. Future research is needed to understand the prevalence of multiple premotor symptoms and their etiological relevance to PD. Animal experiments and mechanistic studies will further understanding of the biology of these premotor symptoms and test novel etiological hypothesis. Citation: Chen H, Burton EA, Ross GW, Huang X, Savica R, Abbott RD, Ascherio A, Caviness JN, Gao X, Gray KA, Hong JS, Kamel F, Jennings D, Kirshner A, Lawler C, Liu R, Miller GW, Nussbaum R, Peddada SD, Comstock Rick A, Ritz B, Siderowf AD, Tanner CM, Tröster AI, Zhang J. 2013. Research on the premotor symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease: clinical and etiological implications. Environ Health Perspect 121:1245–1252; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1306967

ObjectiveTo evaluate serum interferon‐α (IFNα) activity in the context of autoantibody profiles in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM).MethodsSera from 36 patients with JDM were analyzed. Autoantibody profiles were determined by probing microarrays, which were fabricated with ∼80 distinct autoantigens, with serum and a Cy3‐conjugated secondary antibody. Arrays were scanned and analyzed to determine antigen reactivity. Serum IFNα activity was measured using a functional reporter cell assay. Sera were assayed alone or in combination with cellular material released from necrotic U937 cells to stimulate peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy donors in vitro, and IFNα production in culture was measured by a dissociation‐enhanced lanthanide fluoroimmunoassay (DELFIA).ResultsReactivity against at least 1 of 41 autoantigens on the microarray, including Ro 52, Ro 60, La, Sm, and RNP, was observed in 75% of the serum samples from patients with JDM. IFNα activity was detected in 7 samples by reporter cell assay. The reporter cell assay showed a significant association of reactivity against Ro, La, Sm, and proliferating cell nuclear antigen with serum IFNα activity (P = 0.005). Significance Analysis of Microarrays (SAM) identified increased reactivity against Sm, RNP, Ro 52, U1‐C, and Mi‐2 in these sera. Sixteen samples induced IFNα production as measured by DELFIA, and there was a significant association of reactivity against Ro, La, Sm, and RNP with the induction of IFNα by serum and necrotic cell material (P = 0.034). SAM identified increased reactivity against Ro 60 in these sera.ConclusionThese data support the hypothesis that nucleic acid–associated autoantibodies, including the Ro/La and Sm/RNP complexes, may stimulate the production of active IFNα in children with JDM.

Stress and its attendant psychosocial and lifestyle variables have been associated with coronary artery disease (CAD), yet the contribution of socioeconomic status (SES) has not been addressed. The aim of this study is to determine if stress assessment is associated with CAD independent of SES, and is incremental to the Framingham Score. The study group consisted of 325 executive patients undergoing comprehensive health assessment. Stress was assessed utilizing the validated “Self-Rated Stress” (SRS) instrument. Coronary artery calcification (CAC) served to assess the degree of atherosclerosis, a CAD equivalent and risk assessment tool. The relationship between SRS and CAC was assessed, with adjustment by potential confounders. CAC was modeled by a variety of cut points (>0, ≥5, ≥100, ≥200) for the test of trend across stress levels per Mantel-Haenszel chi-square (1 df) with nonsignificant P values of 0.9960, 0.5242, 0.1692, 0.3233, respectively. A logistic regression model with SRS as a categorically ranked and continuous variable to predict binary outcome of calcification yielded P values of 0.2366 and 0.9644; this relationship, further adjusted by age, fruit and vegetable consumption, exercise, and education, yielded no statistically significant association. No improvement of fit was observed for the established Framingham Score to CAC relation utilizing SRS. The study concluded that SRS did not play a role in early CAD when focusing on a population in higher socioeconomic strata, and SRS did not add predictive value beyond patient age or calculated Framingham risk. Future studies should focus on additional validated instruments of stress to differentiate between subtypes of stress for varying SES strata. ( Population Health Management 2013;16:332–340)

Abstract Rare germline mutations in the breast and ovarian cancer predisposition genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are present in roughly 5 percent of ovarian cancer patients. Both genes play key roles in DNA damage repair but appear to have distinct, although often complementary, functions. The risks of breast and ovarian cancer have been shown to differ between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, and mutation-specific effects have also been suggested for both groups. Published reports comparing the survival of ovarian cancer patients with and without BRCA1/2 mutations generally show a survival advantage among mutation carriers. This is thought to be related to an improved response of carriers to platinum-based therapies. Since it is not known whether BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers show similar survival patterns, we have performed a large, multicenter study to investigate the impact of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on ovarian cancer survival. 3,531 invasive epithelial ovarian cancer cases (1,178 BRCA1, 367 BRCA2 and 1,986 BRCA-negative) with survival time data from twenty-four studies in the U.S.A, Europe, Israel and Asia were included. In our main analysis, we excluded patients who were known or who were likely to have not received platinum-based therapy. Compared to non-carriers, BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers were more likely to present with advanced stage (BRCA1; p=2×10−4, BRCA2; p=4×10−6), high grade (BRCA1; p=4×10−9, BRCA2; p=1×10−4), serous disease (BRCA1; p=3×10−6, BRCA2; p=0.003). BRCA1 carriers were younger at diagnosis (p=2×10−9) and BRCA2 slightly older at diagnosis (p=0.002) than non-carriers. BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers did not differ in terms of tumor stage, grade or histology but did show differences in the age at diagnosis (p=2×10−14). In an unadjusted analysis, neither BRCA1 nor BRCA2 carriers differed from non-carriers in overall survival (BRCA1: HR=1.02, p=0.77, BRCA2: HR=0.89, p=0.36). After adjusting for stage, grade, histology and age at diagnosis, BRCA1 carriers showed a modest, non-significant, survival advantage (HR=0.84, p=0.12) while BRCA2 carriers showed a marked improvement (HR=0.57, p=6×10−4) compared to non-carriers. This survival advantage was also seen when comparing BRCA2 carriers to BRCA1 carriers after adjustment for age at diagnosis (HR=0.69, p=5×10−4). Similar results were obtained when we restricted the analysis to high grade, advanced stage, serous cases. The survival differences we observed between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers could be related to differences in tumor biology or chemo-sensitivity. Additional analyses investigating the later will be presented in addition to mutation-specific effects within BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this study, we provide strong evidence for genetic heterogeneity of survival effects in ovarian cancer patients with BRCA mutations. This could be applied to both clinical prediction and to aid our understanding of the complex biology of BRCA mutations. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 2752. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-2752