474037137When was the last time you consumed a school lunch?  As Rick and I quip on PodMed this week, we have a collective and not-so-fond memory of 'mystery meat' and the like. Things have changed quite a bit these days, a study on the nutritional value of home-packed versus school-provided lunches as published in JAMA Pediatrics demonstrates, and while we're at it, seems like breakfast at school is another good idea, per a second study in the same issue.

The lunch study examined the nutritional content of lunches from home of 242 elementary and 95 intermediate school students from 12 schools located in the Houston, TX, area. The content of these lunches was compared with the guidelines found in the National School Lunch Program, begun in 2012, based on a 2009 (!) Institute of Medicine report.  I'll leave this huge legislative delay alone for the moment, and note that these were the first updates to nutritional recommendations for children for more than 30 years.

Here's what the study determined, "Compared with the NSLP guidelines, lunches brought from home contained more sodium (1110 vs ≤640 mg for elementary and 1003 vs ≤710 mg for intermediate students) and fewer servings of fruits (0.33 cup for elementary and 0.29 cup for intermediate students vs 0.50 cup per the NSLP guidelines), vegetables (0.07 cup for elementary and 0.11 cup for intermediate students vs 0.75 cup per the NSLP guidelines), whole grains (0.22-oz equivalent for elementary and 0.31-oz equivalent for intermediate students vs 0.50-oz minimum per the NLSP guidelines), and fluid milk (0.08 cup for elementary and 0.02 cup for intermediate students vs 1 cup per the NSLP guidelines). About 90% of lunches from home contained desserts, snack chips, and sweetened beverages, which are not permitted in reimbursable school meals. The cost of lunches from home averaged $1.93 for elementary and $1.76 for intermediate students. Students from lower-income intermediate schools brought significantly higher-priced ($1.94) lunches than did students from middle-income schools ($1.63)." While the authors conclude that efforts should be undertaken to educate parents to pack more nutritional lunches, we take a slightly different tack and opine that perhaps all children should be encouraged to eat school-provided lunches.

Ditto for the breakfast study.  Turns out that while school breakfast programs have been in place for some time in many low income areas, barriers to children actually eating breakfast at school include the need to arrive early as well as stigma associated with the program.  This study looked at 446 public elementary schools and assessed the impact of serving breakfast in the classroom.  While the authors were aiming at whether such a strategy improved academic performance this outcome was not significant, which Rick considers not surprising as the study wasn't long enough. Things that did show immediate improvement were the number of children who benefited, reductions in tardiness and improvements in overall attendance. I suggest in the podcast a sliding scale for all parents, so that all children can have breakfast in the classroom.  There is abundant evidence for the benefits of breakfast on school performance, and such a strategy would reduce stigma.  While we're at it, why not include lunch, too?

Other topics this week include two new agents to reduce potassium levels in people with chronic kidney disease in NEJM, a new agent for treating chronic cough in the Lancet, and two medications for managing Marfan syndrome in NEJM.  Until next week, y'all live well.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
No Comments

450642795Man or machine?  This debate increasingly occurs in many venues as computers and other devices created for our convenience, comfort and ease continue to be invented and disseminated.  But there's one area where the machine remains inferior to the efforts of man, as Rick and I discuss on PodMed this week: CPR or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. That's as featured in the Lancet this week and also presented at the American Heart Association meeting taking place concurrently.

This trial is unique in that it is pragmatic.  Rather than being conducted under ideal clinical or laboratory conditions, instead this trial randomized actual patients who had experienced out-of-hospital myocardial infarction (MI) or heart attack being transported from the field via ambulance.  The subjects were randomized in a 1:2 ration, respectively, to either mechanical CPR using a device known as a LUCAS-2, or manual CPR. A total of 4471 subjects who experienced cardiac arrest not as a result of trauma were included, with randomization taking place depending on which response vehicle arrived on the scene first, one equipped with the mechanical device or not. Sixty percent of those in the mechanical group actually received CPR using the device while 11 (less than 1%) of the manual group did so.

The primary outcome was survival at 30 days post-MI, with secondary outcomes event survival, survival to 3 months, survival to 12 months, and survival with favorable neurological outcome at 3 months. Clearly the favorable neurological data is very important as this is compromised in many survivors.

There was no significant difference in 30 day survival among those who received mechanical CPR versus those who received manual: 6% versus 7% respectively. Longer term survival was also similar between groups, but those who received mechanical CPR had worse neurological outcomes than those who had manual CPR. A low rate of adverse events was also seen in those treated with the LUCAS-2:  three patients with chest bruising, two with chest lacerations, and two with blood in mouth. 15 device incidents while the LUCAS-2 was employed.

The authors conclude, and we agree, that the results of this trial argue against use of mechanical devices to perform CPR.  They're expensive, personnel using them require training, and they don't achieve the desired objective of improving survival odds for those having an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.  Since almost half a million such events occur each year in the US alone, getting our arms around the best way to conduct CPR is clearly important.  Rick and I agree that we're glad this study was done.  In a real world environment, under conditions where the expectation would be that the machine would perform better while jostling around in the back of an ambulance, it didn't.  Yet one more example of assumptions disproved, so kudos to the authors.

Rick makes the point that out-of-hospital CPR is very simple, consisting of chest compressions only, and that more efforts need to undertaken to simply convince the public that they're the best chance someone who's experienced an MI has to make it alive to the hospital.  Other topics this week on our heart-only issue include a better understanding of HDL cholesterol in NEJM, appropriate duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after stenting in the same journal, and police work and sudden cardiac death in the BMJ.  Until next week, y'all live well.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
1 Comment

86496585When confronted with the reality of death, the majority of people asked about their preferences say they'd like to die at home, surrounded by friends and family, and with minimal pain and discomfort.  Yet the sad fact remains that many people are unable to achieve that goal, Rick and I discuss on PodMed this week,  in spite of abundantly available hospice services.What are the barriers to more widespread utilization of hospice and can a cost analysis help provide evidence that such services are not only humane but cost-effective?  That's the substance of a study published this week in JAMA.

Researchers crunched numbers from a  20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who died in 2011, all with a cancer diagnosis. Patients with brain, pancreatic, metastatic malignancies or other poor-prognosis cancers enrolled in hospice before death were matched to similar patients who died without hospice care, resulting in almost 87,000 enrollee records for the analysis, about 60% of whom were enrolled in hospice care at the end of life. The final cohort consisted of 18,165 patients with poor prognosis cancers who were enrolled in hospice and the same number who were not, matched on age, sex, region, time from poor-prognosis diagnosis to death, and baseline care utilization.

Here's what the analysis showed: "After matching, 11% of nonhospice and 1% of hospice beneficiaries who had cancer-directed therapy after exposure were excluded. Median hospice duration was 11 days. After exposure, nonhospice beneficiaries had significantly more hospitalizations (65% [95% CI, 64%-66%], vs hospice with 42% [95% CI, 42%-43%]; risk ratio, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.5-1.6]), intensive care (36% [95% CI, 35%-37%], vs hospice with 15% [95% CI, 14%-15%]; risk ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.3-2.5]), and invasive procedures (51% [95% CI, 50%-52%], vs hospice with 27% [95% CI, 26%-27%]; risk ratio, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.9-2.0]), largely for acute conditions not directly related to cancer; and 74% (95% CI, 74%-75%) of nonhospice beneficiaries died in hospitals and nursing facilities compared with 14% (95% CI, 14%-15%) of hospice beneficiaries. Costs for hospice and nonhospice beneficiaries were not significantly different at baseline, but diverged after hospice start. Total costs over the last year of life were $71 517 (95% CI, $70 543-72 490) for nonhospice and $62 819 (95% CI, $62 082-63 557) for hospice, a statistically significant difference of $8697 (95% CI, $7560-$9835)."  Wow.  That's a lot of resources saved at the end of life, and as I query Rick in the podcast, wonder what would have happened if hospice had been utilized sooner than the median of 11 days found in this study?

It's revealing to look at what the authors consider to be major barriers to more hospice utilization.  They cite the penalty exacted by the Medicare administration against hospices with extended hospice stays, current lack of reimbursement for end-of-life discussions to physicians by the same agency, and finally, the requirement that patients forego any treatment with a curative intent in order to enroll as all having a chilling effect on enthusiasm for earlier adoption of hospice services.  Yet at least one myth, that of potential increased costs relative to hospice care, is clearly dispelled by this study.  Our hope is that the evidence provided here will help inform discussion around overcoming barriers and toward adoption of a more compassionate model of medical care at the end of life.

Other topics this week include Ebola treatment of two patients here in the US in NEJM, Tdap vaccination during pregnancy in JAMA, and four popular weight loss diets compared in Circulation.  Until next week, y'all live well.

 

 

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
No Comments

180524358Nephrolithiasis.  That's such a descriptive word; literally nephro for kidney and lithiasis for stone formation.  Would that more terminology was so very definitive!  However, as Rick and I discuss on PodMed this week, the term doesn't begin to describe the amazing pain most people report as a result of kidney stones, formed in the kidney and then passed down into the ureters on their way to the urinary bladder. Good news then in a literature review from the American College of Physicians, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggesting a range of dietary choices, supplements and medications to avoid forming kidney stones once you've done so in the past.

Here's what the paper states as the magnitude of the problem, "The lifetime prevalence of nephrolithiasis is 13% for men and 7% for women, with a 5-year recurrence rate after an initial event of 35% to 50% without treatment. Stones are caused by an interaction between genetics and environmental exposure." That's a whole lot of painful events it would be great to avoid.  How can we do that?

One strategy that seems to offer benefit is increasing fluid intake to the degree that at least 2 liters of urine are produced daily. Beverages to be avoided in achieving this goal are sodas acidified with phosphoric acid, usually of the cola variety. Rick advises that such information is readily available on the labeling of the product, and that some sodas use citric acid instead, which doesn't confer risk.

Evidence on diet was a bit scattered as several different types of diets were studied. Most seemed to suggest that some dietary evaluation and advice regarding diet composition was of benefit in reducing stone recurrence, and that analysis of the stone composition was necessary in providing dietary advice.

What about medications?  Thiazide diuretics, citrate therapy, and allopurinol may all provide benefit depending on the stone composition, and combination therapies may be attempted but evidence isn't abundant for additional benefit in stone formation reduction.The paper suggests that drug monotherapy be attempted after increased fluid intake fails to reduce stone formation or in people in whom increased fluid is contraindicated. And while the stone composition seems to give an indication of strategies to employ to reduce stone formation, the paper does not recommend that course as the evidence is insufficient, and also stops short of recommending blood chemistry or urine chemistry as informative.

How about the increasing number of people who are found to have existing stones incidentally?  While not addressed specifically in this paper, Rick muses that the strategies identified here may help keep stones from growing bigger or may even reverse them, so they're well worth trying when stones are found.  As I reveal on the podcast, both Rick and I have had this experience in the past, so no cola drinks for us!

Other topics this week include a vaccine for Dengue in NEJM, the import of nonobstructive coronary artery disease on heart attack and death in JAMA, and bleeding with dabigatran in JAMA Internal Medicine.  Until next week, y'all live well.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
No Comments

469796813(1)Metformin.  That's the word on the street for the best oral diabetes drug for those who are just beginning therapy for the disease, now affirmed by a study in JAMA Internal Medicine.  And as Rick and I marvel on PodMed this week, how is it that a comparative effectiveness study of common diabetes medications hasn't been undertaken before?  And another marvel: why do so many physicians continue to prescribe medicines other than metformin for initial diabetes therapy, in view of the fact that the American Diabetes Association and a host of other professional and advocacy organizations have been advocating metformin for years?  Let's hope this study will convince more of them to adopt evidence-based prescription.

This study looked at 15, 516 patients who were part of the Aetna health insurance network and who began oral glucose lowering therapy  from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2013.  Four categories of medication were identified: metformin, a sulfonylurea,  a thiazolidinedione, or a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP-4). Review of the charts showed that just under 58% of patients were started on metformin, followed by 23% on the sulfonylureas, just over 13% on the dipetptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, and 6.1% on the thiazolidinediones. Out-of-pocket spending for the filling of the initial prescription was significantly higher for DPP-4 inhibitors and thiazolidinediones, the paper states.

What was the likelihood that an additional agent for the management of blood glucose would be required per agent initiated? "In unadjusted analyses, use of medications other than metformin was significantly associated with an increased risk of adding a second oral agent only, insulin only, and a second agent or insulin (P < .001 for all). In propensity score and multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, initiation of therapy with sulfonylureas (hazard ratio [HR], 1.68; 95% CI, 1.57-1.79), thiazolidinediones (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.43-1.80), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.79) was associated with an increased hazard of intensification." Well.  Happily, there were no increased risks associated with agents other than metformin, including low blood sugar, ED visits, or in this short term follow-up, cardiovascular events.

Why did so many physicians choose agents other than metformin for initial therapy?  In those who have kidney disease metformin is contraindicated, but as Rick quips in the podcast, it's extremely unlikely that 42% of patients in this study had such an issue.  He attributes the prescribing behavior to the influence of pharmaceutical companies, both in advertising to physicians and patients, who may come in asking for a certain medication as a result of direct-to-consumer advertising.  He also muses that physicians may choose other agents in deference to more up-to-date therapies.  To this I must counter that we have abundant clinical experience with metformin and it's very inexpensive.  Rick cites other benefits:  less weight gain and other side effects.  In sum then, we agree with the investigators and guidelines already in place that metformin should be the first line agent of choice in oral management of serum glucose in folks with diabetes, and that's really the evidence based conclusion.

Other topics this week include both an editorial and study from Sierra Leone on Ebola in NEJM, a look at an LDL variant and aortic valve calcification  in JAMA, and blood pressure lowering after stroke in the Lancet.  Until next week, y'all live well.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
No Comments

80720631Do you consume cow's milk or provide it to your children if you're a parent? Turns out many people are making a switch from cow's milk to other 'milk' alternatives such as almond milk, soy milk, or coconut milk, or to milk from another animal source such as goats. When queried on the switch parents in particular cite allergy concerns and antibiotic exposure as motivational factors, but, as Rick and I discuss on PodMed this week, such a strategy may have a much greater negative impact on children’s' health than any upside. That's based on a study of vitamin D levels and milk consumption in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (greetings Tom, our Canadian colleague :) ).

Researchers gleaned data from an ongoing Canadian study known by the acronym TARGet Kids!, described as a partnership between child health researchers in the departments of medicine, pediatrics, and family and community medicine at the University of Toronto. The current study recruited children from 1 to 6 years of age and who did not have chronic illness or a medical condition impacting growth. Almost 3000 children were enrolled and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D measurements were obtained from each child, as well as extensive information from parents on type of milk consumed and how much. Additional data, including age, sex, body mass index, daily vitamin D supplementation, consumption of margarine, skin pigmentation, and outdoor play time were also obtained.

Turns out that "each 250-mL cup of non–cow’s milk consumed was associated with a 3.1% decrease in 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. " Furthermore, the authors report, "We identified a dose-dependent association between consumption of non–cow’s milk beverages in early childhood and decreased serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. This association was modified by cow’s milk consumption, which suggests a trade-off between the consumption of cow’s milk fortified with higher levels of vitamin D and non–cow’s milk beverages with lower vitamin D content." Children of darker skin pigmentation who did not consume cow's milk were at higher risk for lower vitamin D levels in the absence of supplementation.

Okay, I query Rick in the podcast, what about outdoor playtime? He opines that exposure to sunlight is inadequate to overcome a loss of dietary vitamin D such as is seen when cow's milk is eliminated from the diets of children. Indeed, the authors of this paper point out that in the US and Canada, cow's milk is required to contain about 40 IU of vitamin D per 100ml, and is the major source of vitamin D for kids. Seems prudent therefore, for parents to supplement their kids with vitamin D if they choose an alternative to cow's milk. Does this also mean they should ask their child's pediatrician to measure their serum vitamin D? Rick's opinion is that if they supplement to the level supplied in cow's milk that may not be necessary. In any case mentioning this dietary choice to your child's pediatrician seems like the right thing to do.

Other topics this week include the persistence of banned substances in dietary supplements in JAMA, knowledge of the presence of central venous catheters in Annals of Internal Medicine, and the cost impact of MD versus hospital ownership of medical practices in JAMA also. Until next week, y'all live well.

 

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
No Comments

155612753Who knew that transplanting poop, otherwise known as fecal material, stool, gut microbiota and other less scientifically rigorous terms, could successfully treat at least one modern scourge, Clostridium difficile infection? Now Rick and I talk about frozen, encapsulated fecal microbiota transplant administered orally on this week's PodMed, and as reported in JAMA.  In spite of the substantial yuck factor, turns out the strategy works in the vast majority of patients.  Good news indeed for those with this increasingly common cause of fulminant diarrhea that may result in death.

Researchers with previous experience in fecal transplant to treat C. dif infection, as it is fondly abbreviated in medical circles, mused that while direct transplant either right into the large bowel or administered via a nasogastric tube worked well in the majority of patients, several limitations were apparent.  These included the need to transplant fresh material from a donor related to the patient, who has previously been screened for the organism, and placement of a infusion device to accomplish the transplant. They hit upon the idea that screened, frozen material could be used instead, and had used this in a previous study for infusion via a nasogastric tube.  It was a short leap to aliquoting transplant material into capsules and administering them orally.

The current study enrolled twenty patients ranging in age from 11 to 89 years, to receive the capsules. All of the subjects had had at least three previous episodes of mild to moderate C. dif infection and had failed treatment with the usual antibiotic therapy, or had been hospitalized at least twice with severe C. dif infection. The fact that one of the subjects was only 11 years old points to the disturbing recent increase in infections among the pediatric population. Each subject was given 15 capsules of fecal transplant material on two consecutive days by an investigator. Those who failed to respond were offered an additional course of treatment.

Here are the very impressive results as reported in the paper: No serious adverse events...were observed. Among 20 patients treated, 14 had clinical resolution of diarrhea after the first administration of FMT [fecal microbiota transplant] remained symptom free at 8 weeks. All 6 nonresponders were re-treated at a mean of 7 days after the first procedure. Of these 6, 5 patients had resolution of diarrhea after the second treatment. However, 1 patient relapsed within the predetermined 8-week follow-up after initial diarrhea resolution, resulting in an overall rate of diarrhea resolution of 90%. The only variable significantly associated with response to first treatment was overall health score prior to FMT. Patients who needed a second treatment to achieve resolution of diarrhea had lower pretreatment health scores (were more symptomatic) than patients who had diarrhea resolution after a single administration..  Wow.  That's pretty good.  So what about those capsules?

Fecal donors were healthy, non pregnant adults 18 to 50 years of age, taking no medications and having a normal body mass index.  Clearly no previous history of C. dif infection was necessary and all donors were screened for infectious disease according to blood bank procedures.  Previous to stool donation all donors were requested to avoid allergenic foods but otherwise to eat normally.  Their stool was frozen and stored for 4 weeks to allow rescreening of donors before their microbiota were transplanted.  All in all, sounds like a fairly innocuous procedure to me, and one that may also be readily expanded.  Rick and I agree that such a strategy sounds promising indeed to stem the tide of C.dif infection.

Other topics this week include a really cool use of stem cells to treat macular degeneration and dystrophy in the Lancet, an update on Ebola projections in NEJM, and exercise and depression in teenagers in JAMA Pediatrics.  Until next week, y'all live well.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
No Comments

78751261Corneas, kidneys, lungs, hearts…now uteri (and yes, I checked it- that is the correct plural) can join the list of organs transplanted successfully and functionally into other humans.  That's as reported in the Lancet and as Rick and I discuss on PodMed this week.  What's the story?

Sometime in 2013 a 35 year old woman who lacked a uterus since birth, a condition known as Rokitansky syndrome, underwent transplantation of a uterus from her 61 year old, obviously postmenopausal friend, who had given birth to two children during her reproductive years.  Lack of a functional uterus is not uncommon; so-called 'absolute uterine factor infertility' can occur as a result of congenital absence of a uterus, hysterectomy, or a number of adhesions within the organ, and affects some 12,000 women in the UK alone.

As stated, the uterus was harvested from a live donor, who first took oral contraceptives for three months prior to organ retrieval to assure that bleeding would occur as predicted. The surgery spanned just over 10 hours due to extensive dissection relative to isolation and preservation of the vasculature supplying the organ. From my perspective, this is a mighty generous undertaking on the part of the donor!

In contrast, the recipient's operation took just less than five hours but that, of course, is where the easy part ended.  Immunosuppression was initiated and many and frequent examinations of the transplanted uterus ensued. Menses appeared spontaneously 43 days after the transplant, and continued at regular intervals thereafter.  Two minor rejection episodes were managed successfully and one year after uterine transplantation, the patient underwent embryo transfer with she and her partner's embryos, previously conceived via IVF. Pregnancy commenced and continued normally for 31 weeks, when the patient developed pre-eclampsia.  The baby, a girl, was delivered by Cesarean section at 31 weeks and 5 days gestation, and had normal Apgar scores and other measures of health.  Thus far, both mother and baby seem to be doing well.

The authors coin a term, "ephemeral transplant," to describe the fact that after one or two pregnancies, the transplanted uterus can and likely should be removed to allow the recipient to cease immunosuppression. Such removal should not take place immediately following birth as both the health of the infant and a period of recovery for the mother should be assured, but they say this successful management of infertility provides proof of concept that such a strategy is possible for women with absolute uterine factor infertility. Hmmm.  Rick and I are both in awe of so many aspects of this report, perhaps mostly because who knew that recycled uteri could still be so clearly functional? As those bumper stickers extolling the virtues of organ donation state, "Don't take your organs with you to heaven, we need them right here," I wonder how much pressure potential donors might be under if such a practice becomes widespread?  Somehow that harvesting operation doesn't appeal; I think there would have to be some pretty persuasive reasons to participate.  For now, yet one more miraculous medical intervention to ponder.

Other topics this week include a pan on transfusions for yet another group of people: those with septic shock, in NEJM, another in the Lancet on quality of life for teenagers with cerebral palsy, and in JAMA Internal Medicine, a look at decision fatigue and the prescription of antibiotics among physicians.  Until next week, y'all live well.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
No Comments

dv708017 When I think of teenage women this photograph conjures up an adage I largely agree with that 'girls just want to have fun.' Perhaps that accounts at least in part for the rather astonishing prevalence of adolescent pregnancy in the US: more than 600,000 each year, for an overall rate of 3 in 10 teenage women becoming pregnant before age 20. On this week's PodMed, Rick and I talk about a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that assesses a multipronged approach to intervention, with stellar results.

The study enrolled just over 1400 adolescents 15 to 19 years of age at any time during the study period. They were part of a larger study known as the  'Contraceptive CHOICE Project.' This project employed long acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) as the method of choice to reduce unwanted pregnancy among almost 10,000 women 14 to 45 years of age living in the St. Louis area. Participants in the study were provided with education regarding reversible contraceptive methods, identified from most to least effective.  Side effects, risks and benefits of each method were also identified. Women were provided with their chosen method free of charge the same day they attended an education session. Women were offered same day insertion of their method of choice among the LARCs, either intrauterine devices or implants, and they could obtain another shorter acting method if they were ineligible for same day insertion until their chosen method became available to them.

Telephone interviews were conducted by study staff at 3 and 6 months after employment of the chosen contraceptive method, then every 6 months thereafter up to 2 or 3 years, depending on enrollment date. Subjects received a $10 gift card at completion of each survey, which gathered data on satisfaction with the method, sexual behavior and pregnancy.  Pregnancy outcomes were recorded for those subjects who became pregnant.

The study states that the "majority of teens in both age groups chose LARC methods, but teens 14 to 17 years of age were more likely than older teens to do so (77.5% vs. 68.4%,). The implant was the most common contraceptive choice for participants 14 to 17 years of age, whereas an IUD was most commonly chosen by older teens." Here's what the conclusions are: " During the 2008–2013 period, the mean annual rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion among CHOICE participants were 34.0, 19.4, and 9.7 per 1000 teens, respectively. In comparison, rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion among sexually experienced U.S. teens in 2008 were 158.5, 94.0, and 41.5 per 1000, respectively."  Wow!  Those are some very impressive results, and suggest, at least to Rick and me, that provision of both information and free contraceptive methods can have a huge impact on this persistent problem.

Two aspects of this issue remain concerning for me.  One is that while 2 in 10 white teenagers will experience pregnancy before age 20, the number is twice that for blacks and Hispanics, so cultural sensitivity must play a role in such interventions.  Of even greater concern is the fact that none of these methods protect against STIs, some of which are livelong and even life threatening.  Rick and I agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics which also issued recommendations this week, citing first abstinence as the most effective contraceptive, but also advocating for condom use in addition to other methods for everyone's protection.

Other topics this week include early gluten introduction and celiac disease, also in NEJM, and two from JAMA: acupuncture for knee pain and heart valves in middle-aged adults.  Until next week, y'all live well.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
No Comments

166132487If you’re a woman, pretend for a moment that you’re pregnant.  If you’re a man, imagine you’re a woman who’s pregnant.  Then address the question, would you chose to undergo prenatal testing?  If the answer is yes, which type of testing would you chose?  Finally, what would you do based on the results? As Rick and I discuss on PodMed this week, a JAMA study elegantly demonstrates that pregnant women can be educated and informed regarding prenatal testing using a computer-based tool, and that when they are so-informed, even when prenatal testing of all types is offered free of charge, they chose to undergo such testing only half of the time a control group choses it.  Our conclusion is that development and utilization of such educational tools is practical and should likely be expanded to a host of complex healthcare decisions, particularly as people are being called upon more and more to engage in ‘shared decision making’ with their healthcare providers.  Let’s take a look at the study.

Researchers recruited from prenatal clinics in a variety of healthcare settings in the San Francisco area, representative of many economic and educational strata as well as ethnicity. All women were less than or equal to 20 weeks of gestation with no history of previous prenatal testing in the current pregnancy. A total of 710 women were recruited, 357 of whom were randomized to a computerized interactive decision support guide conducted in their choice of either English or Spanish, along with remission of fees for any prenatal testing they chose that was not covered by their insurance, or the remainder to routine care.

The computerized guide was administered at an interview site and took 45 to 60 minutes to complete.  The guide utilizes video, text, audio and graphics and a bilingual female narrator to describe prenatal testing options and their potential risks and benefits. The program emphasizes that the range of choices available are all reasonable and personal and optional additional detail is provided.  Outcomes for the study included whether and which prenatal testing options were chosen by the women, verified by medical records, and an assessment by telephone of subject regret later in pregnancy on which choices were made. As I’ve
already foreshadowed, invasive prenatal testing was selected about half of the time among those who were administered the computer guide as those who received usual care.  Moreover, those women who saw the guide were very happy with their decision later in pregnancy, as was the control group.

What this study tells Rick and me is it's very practical to offer this kind of guide to people making complex medical decisions, especially since it requires no additional time of any provider. So many decisions remind me of this!  Should you have arthroscopic knee surgery? cardiac stenting? carotid endarterctomy? the list seems endless.  If such an educational strategy were undertaken I believe it would empower people much more to feel responsible for their own health, and that's all to the good. Here, here!

Other topics this week include new Ebola estimates in MMWR, varicose vein treatment in NEJM, and PET scanning for lung cancer diagnosis in JAMA.  Until next week, y'all live well.

VN:F [1.9.17_1161]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
No Comments