Citations

ABSTRACT Osteoporosis-related fractures are undertreated, due in part to misinformation about recommended approaches to patient care and discrepancies among treatment guidelines. To help bridge this gap and improve patient outcomes, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research assembled a multistakeholder coalition to develop clinical recommendations for the optimal prevention of secondary fracture among people aged 65 years and older with a hip or vertebral fracture. The coalition developed 13 recommendations (7 primary and 6 secondary) strongly supported by the empirical literature. The coalition recommends increased communication with patients regarding fracture risk, mortality and morbidity outcomes, and fracture risk reduction. Risk assessment (including fall history) should occur at regular intervals with referral to physical and/or occupational therapy as appropriate. Oral, intravenous, and subcutaneous pharmacotherapies are efficacious and can reduce risk of future fracture. Patients need education, however, about the benefits and risks of both treatment and not receiving treatment. Oral bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate are first-line options and are generally well tolerated; otherwise, intravenous zoledronic acid and subcutaneous denosumab can be considered. Anabolic agents are expensive but may be beneficial for selected patients at high risk. Optimal duration of pharmacotherapy is unknown but because the risk for second fractures is highest in the early post-fracture period, prompt treatment is recommended. Adequate dietary or supplemental vitamin D and calcium intake should be assured. Individuals being treated for osteoporosis should be reevaluated for fracture risk routinely, including via patient education about osteoporosis and fractures and monitoring for adverse treatment effects. Patients should be strongly encouraged to avoid tobacco, consume alcohol in moderation at most, and engage in regular exercise and fall prevention strategies. Finally, referral to endocrinologists or other osteoporosis specialists may be warranted for individuals who experience repeated fracture or bone loss and those with complicating comorbidities (eg, hyperparathyroidism, chronic kidney disease). © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations for the acute symptomatic treatment of children and adolescents with migraine. Methods We performed a systematic review of the literature and rated risk of bias of included studies according to the American Academy of Neurology classification of evidence criteria. A multidisciplinary panel developed practice recommendations, integrating findings from the systematic review and following an Institute of Medicine‐compliant process to ensure transparency and patient engagement. Recommendations were supported by structured rationales, integrating evidence from the systematic review, related evidence, principles of care, and inferences from evidence. Results There is evidence to support the efficacy of the use of ibuprofen, acetaminophen (in children and adolescents), and triptans (mainly in adolescents) for the relief of migraine pain, although confidence in the evidence varies between agents. There is high confidence that adolescents receiving oral sumatriptan/naproxen and zolmitriptan nasal spray are more likely to be headache free at 2 hours than those receiving placebo. No acute treatments were effective for migraine‐related nausea or vomiting; some triptans were effective for migraine‐related phonophobia and photophobia. Recommendations Recommendations for the treatment of acute migraine in children and adolescents focus on the importance of early treatment, choosing the route of administration best suited to the characteristics of the individual migraine attack, and providing counselling on lifestyle factors that can exacerbate migraine, including trigger avoidance and medication overuse.

Objective To provide updated evidence‐based recommendations for migraine prevention using pharmacologic treatment with or without cognitive behavioral therapy in the pediatric population. Methods The authors systematically reviewed literature from January 2003 to August 2017 and developed practice recommendations using the American Academy of Neurology 2011 process, as amended. Results Fifteen class I‐III studies on migraine prevention in children in adolescents met inclusion criteria. There is insufficient evidence to determine if children and adolescents receiving divalproex, onabotulinumtoxinA, amitriptyline, nimodipine and flunarizine are more or less likely than those receiving placebo to have a reduction in headache frequency. Children with migraine receiving propranolol are possibly more likely than those receiving placebo to have an at least 50% reduction in headache frequency. Children and adolescents receiving topiramate and cinnarizine are probably more likely than those receiving placebo to have a decrease in headache frequency. Children with migraine receiving amitriptyline plus cognitive behavioral therapy are more likely than those receiving amitriptyline plus headache education to have a reduction in headache frequency. Recommendations The majority of randomized controlled trials studying the efficacy of preventive medications for pediatric migraine fail to demonstrate superiority to placebo. Recommendations for the prevention of migraine in children include counseling on lifestyle and behavioral factors that influence headache frequency, and assessment and management of comorbid disorders associated with headache persistence. Clinicians should engage in shared decision making with patients and caregivers regarding the use of preventive treatments for migraine, including discussion of the limitations in the evidence to support pharmacologic treatments.

Background: New technology and healthcare delivery approaches may help improve blood pressure (BP) control. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can demonstrate effectiveness of these emerging approaches, both overall and especially within underserved populations, but RCTs are expensive. Our objective is to establish a national platform to support BP control surveillance and efficient RCTs. Methods: The PCORnet BP Control Laboratory, designed and launched in partnership with the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Medical Association (AMA), leverages electronic health record (EHR) systems throughout the US, the National Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network (PCORnet), and the NIH-funded Eureka Research Platform, which enables direct-to-participant research including collection of patient-reported outcomes and mHealth data from wearable devices and smartphones. We will use these resources to 1) Conduct national surveillance through quarterly EHR data queries to calculate and track institution- and clinic-level BP control metrics across 23 PCORnet institutions, overall and within key subgroups, and support participation in the AHA/AMA’s Target:BP recognition program (BP Track); 2) Compare effectiveness of a Full Support versus Self-Guided version of the AMA’s Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner with Patients (MAP) program at improving BP control in a cluster randomized trial of 24 safety net clinics (BP MAP); and 3) Compare effectiveness of Smartphone-linked versus standard home BP monitoring at reducing systolic BP in an individual-level, direct-to-participant RCT of 2000 patients with uncontrolled BP (BP Home). Results: Preliminary BP Track queries demonstrate an overall BP control rate of 56%, lower control in Black patients (51%), substantial heterogeneity in clinic-level metrics (e.g., 33% vs. 64% BP control), and low rates of medication intensification (9% prescribed a new medication class when BP was high). BP Track will launch PCORnet-wide queries in June; BP MAP in May; and BP Home in August 2019. Conclusions: Feasibility testing is underway to determine if the PCORnet BP Control Laboratory will be useful for investigators interested in conducting efficient RCTs of BP control interventions.

AbstractIntroductionBehavior/Comportment/Personality (BEHAV) and Language (LANG) domains were added to the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR®) for improving evaluation of patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) (CDR® plus NACC FTLD).MethodsWe analyzed the CDR® plus NACC FTLD among participants from the baseline visit of the Advancing Research and Treatment for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration/Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects Consortium.ResultsThe CDR® plus NACC FTLD was able to detect early symptoms in the mildly impaired participants who were rated as CDR® sum of boxes (CDR®‐SB) = 0. The CDR®‐SB was not sensitive, particularly in participants with mild nonfluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia. Participants with familial and sporadic behavioral variant FTD exhibited similar CDR® plus NACC FTLD profiles except that language impairment was more frequent in participants with mild sporadic behavioral variant FTD. Adding the BEHAV and/or LANG domains to the CDR®‐SB significantly enhanced discriminatory power in differentiating among the FTLD spectrum disorders.DiscussionThe BEHAV and LANG domains enable the CDR® plus NACC FTLD to capture early symptomatology of FTLD.

As the cost of DNA sequencing continues to fall, more individuals are opting to undergo genomic testing in the absence of a clinical indication. Testing asymptomatic individuals for unsuspected conditions is not new to the medical and public health communities. However, the application of screening principles to inherited diseases with unknown prevalence in an unselected (low-risk) test population raises unique challenges. This paper examines the effect of disease prevalence on the positive predictive value of a test result. Many inherited conditions have very low prevalence in an unselected population, which increases the probability that some likely pathogenic variants may be false positives. In situations where the adverse impact of a false positive result is significant, laboratories should address this issue by either increasing the interpretive specificity of the test, performing a clinical confirmatory test to establish the presence of disease, or restricting the test to a population with increased disease prevalence. Here, we review the statistical concepts relevant to screening tests, apply these concepts to genetic disease screening, create a model to estimate prevalence and positive predictive value, and provide a framework for further discussion.

Abstract Background Previous studies of the prognostic importance of FOXO1 fusion status in patients with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) have had conflicting results. We re‐examined risk stratification by adding FOXO1 status to traditional clinical prognostic factors in children with localized or metastatic RMS. Methods Data from six COG clinical trials (D9602, D9802, D9803, ARST0331, ARTS0431, ARST0531; two studies each for low‐, intermediate‐ and high‐risk patients) accruing previously untreated patients with RMS from 1997 to 2013 yielded 1727 evaluable patients. Survival tree regression for event‐free survival (EFS) was conducted to recursively select prognostic factors for branching and split. Factors included were age, FOXO1, clinical group, histology, nodal status, number of metastatic sites, primary site, sex, tumor size, and presence of metastases in bone/bone marrow, soft tissue, effusions, lung, distant lymph nodes, and other sites. Definition and outcome of the proposed risk groups were compared to existing systems and cross‐validated results. Results The 5‐year EFS and overall survival (OS) for evaluable patients were 69% and 79%, respectively. Extent of disease (localized versus metastatic) was the first split (EFS 73% vs 30%; OS 84% vs. 42%). FOXO1 status (positive vs negative) was significant in the second split both for localized (EFS 52% vs 78%; OS 65% vs 88%) and metastatic disease (EFS 6% vs 46%; OS 19% vs 58%). Conclusions After metastatic status, FOXO1 status is the most important prognostic factor in patients with RMS and improves risk stratification of patients with localized RMS. Our findings support incorporation of FOXO1 status in risk stratified clinical trials.