The 2017-2018 influenza season was one of the most severe in this century, according to every indicator measured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The proportion of outpatient visits due to influenza-like illness (ILI) was elevated nationally above a baseline of 2.2% for 19 straight weeks, and for 3 weeks it was over 7%.¹ High ILI activity was widespread and included all 50 states in January.

From October 2017 through April 2018, the CDC estimates that the influenza-related hospitalization rate was 106.6 per 100,000 population, with the highest rates among children 0 to 4 years (74.3/100,000), adults 50 to 64 years (115.7/100,000), and adults 65 years and older (460.9/100,000). More than 90% of adults hospitalized had a chronic condition, such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or obesity, placing them at high risk for influenza complications.¹

Influenza severity is also measured as the proportion of deaths due to pneumonia and influenza, which was above the epidemic threshold for 16 weeks in 2017-2018 and was above 10% for 4 weeks in January.¹ Based on all of these indicators, the 2017-2018 influenza season was classified as high severity overall and for all age groups, the first time this has happened since the 2003-2004 season. There were 171 pediatric deaths attributed to influenza, and more than three-quarters of vaccine-eligible children who died from influenza this season had not received influenza vaccine.¹

The type of influenza predominating last season was influenza A from early- through mid-season, and was influenza B later in the season (see https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/54974).¹ For the entire season, 71.2% of specimens that tested positive for influenza in public health labs were Influenza A and 84.9% of these were H3N2.¹

Effectiveness of influenza vaccine last season. As measured by preventing respiratory illness needing medical attention, vaccine effectiveness was 36% overall: 25% against influenza A (H3N2), 67% against influenza A (H1N1), and 42% against influenza B.¹ Effectiveness varied by age, being the highest in those 8 years and younger.² Effectiveness was questionable in those older than 65, with an estimated effectiveness of 23% but confidence intervals including 0.²

While the effectiveness of influenza vaccines remains suboptimal, the morbidity and mortality they prevent is still considerable. The CDC estimates that in 2016-2017, more than 5 million influenza illnesses, 2.6 million medical visits, and 84,700 hospitalizations were prevented.³ And effectiveness last season was similar to, or better than, what has been seen in each of the past 10 years (FIGURE).⁴

Three drugs were recommended for use to treat influenza in 2017-1018 (oseltamivir, peramivir, and zanamivir), and no resistance was found except in 1% of influenza A (H1N1) tested.¹ No resistance was found in other A or any B viruses tested.¹

Continue to: Safety

 

 

Safety

The safety of influenza vaccines is studied each year by both the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This past year, studies were conducted using the CDC-supported Safety Datalink System, looking for increased rates of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, anaphylaxis, Bell’s palsy, encephalitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), seizures, and transverse myelitis.⁵ No safety signals were detected. However, for some of the newer vaccines, the numbers of vaccinated individuals studied were small. The FDA studied the incidence of GBS using Medicare data and found no increased rates in those vaccinated.⁵

2018-2019 Recommendations

There are only a few changes to the recommendations for the upcoming influenza season. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) still recommends universal vaccination for anyone age 6 months and older who does not have a contraindication (TABLE 1⁶). Two of the antigens in the vaccines for this coming season are slightly different from last season (TABLE 2⁷).

After 2 years of recommending against the use of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) because of its low effectiveness in children against influenza A (H1N1), ACIP now includes it as an option for the upcoming season in individuals ages 2 through 49 years.⁸ The basis of this revised recommendation was 2-fold: 1) evidence of LAIV effectiveness comparable to that of inactivated products against A (H3N2) and B viruses; and 2) evidence that a new strain of A (H1N1) now used to produce the vaccine (A/Slovenia) produces a significantly higher antibody response than the strain (A/Bolivia) used in the years when the vaccine was not effective against A (H1N1).

However, the new formulation’s clinical effectiveness against A (H1N1) has not been demonstrated, leading the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that LAIV should be used in children only if other options are not available or if injectable vaccine is refused.⁹ Contraindications to the use of LAIV remain the same as the previous version of the vaccine (TABLE 1⁶).

Individuals with non-severe egg allergies can receive any licensed, recommended age-appropriate influenza vaccine and no longer have to be monitored for 30 minutes after receiving the vaccine. People who have severe egg allergies should be vaccinated with an egg-free product or in a medical setting and be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic conditions.

Continue to: Children 6 months through 8 years...

Children 6 months through 8 years who have previously received an influenza vaccine, either trivalent or quadrivalent, need only 1 dose; those who have not received vaccination need 2 doses separated by at least 4 weeks.

Available vaccine products

A table found on the CDC influenza Web site lists the vaccine products available in the United States and the ages for which they are approved.⁶ The options now include 2 standard-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3), 4 standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4), one cell culture-based IIV4 (ccIIV4), one standard dose IIV4 intradermal option, a trivalent and a quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3, RIV4), one LAIV, and 2 products for those 65 years and older—an adjuvanted IIV3 (aIIV3) and a high dose IIV3. Three of these products do not depend on egg-based technology: RIV3, RIV4, and ccIIV4.

Comparative effectiveness studies of these vaccine options, including those available for the elderly, are being conducted. Studies presented at the June 2018 ACIP meeting show comparable effectiveness of egg-based and non–egg-based products.⁶ At this time, ACIP does not make a preferential recommendation for any influenza vaccine product for any age group.

The 2017-2018 influenza season was one of the most severe in this century, according to every indicator measured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The proportion of outpatient visits due to influenza-like illness (ILI) was elevated nationally above a baseline of 2.2% for 19 straight weeks, and for 3 weeks it was over 7%.¹ High ILI activity was widespread and included all 50 states in January.

From October 2017 through April 2018, the CDC estimates that the influenza-related hospitalization rate was 106.6 per 100,000 population, with the highest rates among children 0 to 4 years (74.3/100,000), adults 50 to 64 years (115.7/100,000), and adults 65 years and older (460.9/100,000). More than 90% of adults hospitalized had a chronic condition, such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or obesity, placing them at high risk for influenza complications.¹

Influenza severity is also measured as the proportion of deaths due to pneumonia and influenza, which was above the epidemic threshold for 16 weeks in 2017-2018 and was above 10% for 4 weeks in January.¹ Based on all of these indicators, the 2017-2018 influenza season was classified as high severity overall and for all age groups, the first time this has happened since the 2003-2004 season. There were 171 pediatric deaths attributed to influenza, and more than three-quarters of vaccine-eligible children who died from influenza this season had not received influenza vaccine.¹

The type of influenza predominating last season was influenza A from early- through mid-season, and was influenza B later in the season (see https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/54974).¹ For the entire season, 71.2% of specimens that tested positive for influenza in public health labs were Influenza A and 84.9% of these were H3N2.¹

Effectiveness of influenza vaccine last season. As measured by preventing respiratory illness needing medical attention, vaccine effectiveness was 36% overall: 25% against influenza A (H3N2), 67% against influenza A (H1N1), and 42% against influenza B.¹ Effectiveness varied by age, being the highest in those 8 years and younger.² Effectiveness was questionable in those older than 65, with an estimated effectiveness of 23% but confidence intervals including 0.²

While the effectiveness of influenza vaccines remains suboptimal, the morbidity and mortality they prevent is still considerable. The CDC estimates that in 2016-2017, more than 5 million influenza illnesses, 2.6 million medical visits, and 84,700 hospitalizations were prevented.³ And effectiveness last season was similar to, or better than, what has been seen in each of the past 10 years (FIGURE).⁴

Three drugs were recommended for use to treat influenza in 2017-1018 (oseltamivir, peramivir, and zanamivir), and no resistance was found except in 1% of influenza A (H1N1) tested.¹ No resistance was found in other A or any B viruses tested.¹

Continue to: Safety

 

 

Safety

The safety of influenza vaccines is studied each year by both the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This past year, studies were conducted using the CDC-supported Safety Datalink System, looking for increased rates of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, anaphylaxis, Bell’s palsy, encephalitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), seizures, and transverse myelitis.⁵ No safety signals were detected. However, for some of the newer vaccines, the numbers of vaccinated individuals studied were small. The FDA studied the incidence of GBS using Medicare data and found no increased rates in those vaccinated.⁵

2018-2019 Recommendations

There are only a few changes to the recommendations for the upcoming influenza season. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) still recommends universal vaccination for anyone age 6 months and older who does not have a contraindication (TABLE 1⁶). Two of the antigens in the vaccines for this coming season are slightly different from last season (TABLE 2⁷).

After 2 years of recommending against the use of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) because of its low effectiveness in children against influenza A (H1N1), ACIP now includes it as an option for the upcoming season in individuals ages 2 through 49 years.⁸ The basis of this revised recommendation was 2-fold: 1) evidence of LAIV effectiveness comparable to that of inactivated products against A (H3N2) and B viruses; and 2) evidence that a new strain of A (H1N1) now used to produce the vaccine (A/Slovenia) produces a significantly higher antibody response than the strain (A/Bolivia) used in the years when the vaccine was not effective against A (H1N1).

However, the new formulation’s clinical effectiveness against A (H1N1) has not been demonstrated, leading the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that LAIV should be used in children only if other options are not available or if injectable vaccine is refused.⁹ Contraindications to the use of LAIV remain the same as the previous version of the vaccine (TABLE 1⁶).

Individuals with non-severe egg allergies can receive any licensed, recommended age-appropriate influenza vaccine and no longer have to be monitored for 30 minutes after receiving the vaccine. People who have severe egg allergies should be vaccinated with an egg-free product or in a medical setting and be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic conditions.

Continue to: Children 6 months through 8 years...

Children 6 months through 8 years who have previously received an influenza vaccine, either trivalent or quadrivalent, need only 1 dose; those who have not received vaccination need 2 doses separated by at least 4 weeks.

Available vaccine products

A table found on the CDC influenza Web site lists the vaccine products available in the United States and the ages for which they are approved.⁶ The options now include 2 standard-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3), 4 standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4), one cell culture-based IIV4 (ccIIV4), one standard dose IIV4 intradermal option, a trivalent and a quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3, RIV4), one LAIV, and 2 products for those 65 years and older—an adjuvanted IIV3 (aIIV3) and a high dose IIV3. Three of these products do not depend on egg-based technology: RIV3, RIV4, and ccIIV4.

Comparative effectiveness studies of these vaccine options, including those available for the elderly, are being conducted. Studies presented at the June 2018 ACIP meeting show comparable effectiveness of egg-based and non–egg-based products.⁶ At this time, ACIP does not make a preferential recommendation for any influenza vaccine product for any age group.

The 2017-2018 influenza season was one of the most severe in this century, according to every indicator measured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The proportion of outpatient visits due to influenza-like illness (ILI) was elevated nationally above a baseline of 2.2% for 19 straight weeks, and for 3 weeks it was over 7%.¹ High ILI activity was widespread and included all 50 states in January.

From October 2017 through April 2018, the CDC estimates that the influenza-related hospitalization rate was 106.6 per 100,000 population, with the highest rates among children 0 to 4 years (74.3/100,000), adults 50 to 64 years (115.7/100,000), and adults 65 years and older (460.9/100,000). More than 90% of adults hospitalized had a chronic condition, such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or obesity, placing them at high risk for influenza complications.¹

Influenza severity is also measured as the proportion of deaths due to pneumonia and influenza, which was above the epidemic threshold for 16 weeks in 2017-2018 and was above 10% for 4 weeks in January.¹ Based on all of these indicators, the 2017-2018 influenza season was classified as high severity overall and for all age groups, the first time this has happened since the 2003-2004 season. There were 171 pediatric deaths attributed to influenza, and more than three-quarters of vaccine-eligible children who died from influenza this season had not received influenza vaccine.¹

The type of influenza predominating last season was influenza A from early- through mid-season, and was influenza B later in the season (see https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/54974).¹ For the entire season, 71.2% of specimens that tested positive for influenza in public health labs were Influenza A and 84.9% of these were H3N2.¹

Effectiveness of influenza vaccine last season. As measured by preventing respiratory illness needing medical attention, vaccine effectiveness was 36% overall: 25% against influenza A (H3N2), 67% against influenza A (H1N1), and 42% against influenza B.¹ Effectiveness varied by age, being the highest in those 8 years and younger.² Effectiveness was questionable in those older than 65, with an estimated effectiveness of 23% but confidence intervals including 0.²

While the effectiveness of influenza vaccines remains suboptimal, the morbidity and mortality they prevent is still considerable. The CDC estimates that in 2016-2017, more than 5 million influenza illnesses, 2.6 million medical visits, and 84,700 hospitalizations were prevented.³ And effectiveness last season was similar to, or better than, what has been seen in each of the past 10 years (FIGURE).⁴

Three drugs were recommended for use to treat influenza in 2017-1018 (oseltamivir, peramivir, and zanamivir), and no resistance was found except in 1% of influenza A (H1N1) tested.¹ No resistance was found in other A or any B viruses tested.¹

Continue to: Safety

 

 

Safety

The safety of influenza vaccines is studied each year by both the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This past year, studies were conducted using the CDC-supported Safety Datalink System, looking for increased rates of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, anaphylaxis, Bell’s palsy, encephalitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), seizures, and transverse myelitis.⁵ No safety signals were detected. However, for some of the newer vaccines, the numbers of vaccinated individuals studied were small. The FDA studied the incidence of GBS using Medicare data and found no increased rates in those vaccinated.⁵

2018-2019 Recommendations

There are only a few changes to the recommendations for the upcoming influenza season. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) still recommends universal vaccination for anyone age 6 months and older who does not have a contraindication (TABLE 1⁶). Two of the antigens in the vaccines for this coming season are slightly different from last season (TABLE 2⁷).

After 2 years of recommending against the use of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) because of its low effectiveness in children against influenza A (H1N1), ACIP now includes it as an option for the upcoming season in individuals ages 2 through 49 years.⁸ The basis of this revised recommendation was 2-fold: 1) evidence of LAIV effectiveness comparable to that of inactivated products against A (H3N2) and B viruses; and 2) evidence that a new strain of A (H1N1) now used to produce the vaccine (A/Slovenia) produces a significantly higher antibody response than the strain (A/Bolivia) used in the years when the vaccine was not effective against A (H1N1).

However, the new formulation’s clinical effectiveness against A (H1N1) has not been demonstrated, leading the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that LAIV should be used in children only if other options are not available or if injectable vaccine is refused.⁹ Contraindications to the use of LAIV remain the same as the previous version of the vaccine (TABLE 1⁶).

Individuals with non-severe egg allergies can receive any licensed, recommended age-appropriate influenza vaccine and no longer have to be monitored for 30 minutes after receiving the vaccine. People who have severe egg allergies should be vaccinated with an egg-free product or in a medical setting and be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic conditions.

Continue to: Children 6 months through 8 years...

Children 6 months through 8 years who have previously received an influenza vaccine, either trivalent or quadrivalent, need only 1 dose; those who have not received vaccination need 2 doses separated by at least 4 weeks.

Available vaccine products

A table found on the CDC influenza Web site lists the vaccine products available in the United States and the ages for which they are approved.⁶ The options now include 2 standard-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3), 4 standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4), one cell culture-based IIV4 (ccIIV4), one standard dose IIV4 intradermal option, a trivalent and a quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV3, RIV4), one LAIV, and 2 products for those 65 years and older—an adjuvanted IIV3 (aIIV3) and a high dose IIV3. Three of these products do not depend on egg-based technology: RIV3, RIV4, and ccIIV4.

Comparative effectiveness studies of these vaccine options, including those available for the elderly, are being conducted. Studies presented at the June 2018 ACIP meeting show comparable effectiveness of egg-based and non–egg-based products.⁶ At this time, ACIP does not make a preferential recommendation for any influenza vaccine product for any age group.

Regular exercise confers several well-established benefits. In such conditions as coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and diabetes, exercise has led to a reduction in mortality similar to that seen with pharmacotherapy.¹ For patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions, the benefits of exercise-based interventions are measurably reduced pain and improved daily function.² However, prescribing of exercise is often neglected, with preference given to pharmacologic or surgical interventions.³ In part, the disregard of exercise as therapy results from unfamiliarity with appropriate exercise prescriptions,³ which include various forms of aerobic exercise, strength training, and stretching to increase flexibility (TABLE).

As is true of many therapeutic modalities, exercise must be tailored to the condition and to a patient’s preferences to optimize its benefits. In this review, we describe exercise regimens well suited for common musculoskeletal conditions, examine the effectiveness of exercise in each condition, and provide examples for use in treating patients.

Osteoarthritis of the hip and knee

Osteoarthritis (OA), one of the most common chronic joint diseases, erodes the articular cartilage and subchondral bone of a synovial joint, eventually leading to joint failure. Pain and diminished muscle strength restrict physical activity and can lead to decreased fitness and impaired muscle function. Exercise helps reduce pain and improve muscle function and quality of life in patients with hip or knee OA regardless of age, disease severity, or level of pain and dysfunction.²

Knee exercises. Activities suitable for patients with OA include muscle strengthening, aerobic conditioning, and range-of-motion (ROM) exercises.^4-6 A 2015 Cochrane review of OA of the knee showed that exercise reduced pain and improved physical function and quality of life in patients who completed a treatment program, and that pain relief persisted up to 6 months after intervention.⁵

For knee OA, supervised quadriceps strengthening may provide greater pain relief than nonspecific, unsupervised exercises.

When designing an exercise prescription for patients with knee OA, consider quadriceps strengthening with an initial period of supervision, which may provide greater pain relief than nonspecific, unsupervised lower limb exercises.⁴ Enhanced strength of the lower limb may lessen force through the knee, thereby decreasing pain and improving overall physical function.⁷ Simple, teachable exercises include squats, step-ups, knee extension/flexion while sitting in a chair, and hip abduction/adduction while standing or lying down. Elastic bands, dumbbells, or cuff weights may be used to increase resistance.

Hip exercises. Exercise can significantly reduce pain and improve function for up to 6 months for patients with mild-to-moderate symptomatic hip OA.⁶ Types of exercise for hip OA include strength training of hip and core muscles, functional exercises that imitate movements in daily activities, and flexibility training. These exercises help reduce pain and increase ROM. Exercise should include resistance training and should not exceed the limit for acceptable pain.⁸

Aquatic therapy is also appropriate for exercise and strength training and can decrease pain and disability and improve quality of life.⁹ Supervised physical therapy, including strength training, manual therapy, and balance training, are important for reducing pain and improving function. Physical therapy can also enhance adherence to a prescribed exercise program.¹⁰

Continue to: Appropriate exercise prescriptions...

Appropriate exercise prescriptions for patients with knee or hip OA should focus on low-impact activities that can improve strength, flexibility, and function (FIGURE 1). A typical regimen would be 30 or more cumulative minutes daily of stationary cycling, water-based exercises, or strength training, 3 to 5 days per week. Individualize workout intensity for each patient, emphasizing that high-intensity, low-impact effort may yield greater strength gains and take less time to perform.¹¹ A high-intensity exercise prescription focusing on quadriceps, hip, and core strengthening may consist of 3 sets of 8 repetitions with resistance set at 40% of the maximum resistance against which the patient can perform 1 repetition.⁷

Barriers to exercise in knee and hip OA include negative patient and provider perspectives on exercise and patients’ fear that increased activity may actually worsen OA.¹² Depending on a patient’s personal preferences, ways to overcome these barriers and encourage adherence might be supervised exercises in an individual or group setting or audiotapes or videos of recommended exercises.¹⁰

Chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a large socioeconomic burden in the United States, with upward of $100 billion per year accounted for in health care costs and decreased worker productivity.¹³ The etiology of chronic LBP can be multifactorial and due to any of several conditions such as degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and facet arthropathy. Treatment is difficult, given that many common interventions—medications, massage, manipulation—have limited efficacy.¹⁴ However, for patients with nonspecific chronic LBP, exercise is an effective intervention for reducing pain and improving physical function.¹⁵

An effective approach is to design an exercise regimen for the individual by type, duration, and frequency of activity, administered under supervision to encourage adherence.¹⁶ Appropriate exercises emphasize resistance, strength training, and core stabilization, often focusing on whole body and trunk motion (FIGURE 2).¹⁷

Although yoga or Pilates classes may have a small effect on function, no high-quality evidence exists for their superiority to other forms of exercise.^18,19 Back School, a therapeutic program that includes education on anatomy and biomechanics, optimal posture, ergonomics, and back exercises, has limited, low-quality evidence for treatment comparisons.²⁰ Aerobic exercise, including treadmill, elliptical, or cycling exercises or walking outdoors can reduce pain and improve physical and psychologic functioning.²¹

Continue to: The most common reported adverse effect...

The most common reported adverse effect of exercise is a temporary exacerbation of back pain. However, having patients continue daily activities within the permitted limits of pain leads to more rapid recovery than rest or back-mobilizing exercises.^15,22,23

Cautions. Exercise is contraindicated in patients with LBP arising from a serious medical condition, such as fracture, infection, cancer, or cauda equina syndrome.²⁴ Importantly, exercise interventions recommended for acute LBP have not shown benefit for chronic LBP.

Chronic shoulder pain

With a prevalence ranging from 7% to 26% in the general population,²⁵ chronic shoulder pain often interferes with essential activities of daily living. The etiology of chronic shoulder pain is broad and most commonly involves disorders of the rotator cuff, which functions in both motion and dynamic stabilization of the shoulder. The common term “rotator cuff pain syndrome” can cover such disorders as subacromial impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tendinopathy or tendinitis, partial or full thickness rotator cuff tears, calcific tendinitis, and subacromial bursitis. These pathologies may have overlapping presentations. Manual therapy and exercise, usually delivered as a component of structured physical therapy, focus on stretches and other exercises to increase ROM, stability, and strength of the rotator cuff musculature.²⁶

A 2016 Cochrane review that evaluated manual therapy and exercise for chronic shoulder pain yielded limited high-quality evidence for effectiveness compared with placebo.²⁷ Five trials found no important differences between manual therapy and exercise compared with glucocorticoid injection relative to overall pain, function, active shoulder abduction, and quality of life from 4 weeks up to 12 months.²⁷ But compared with placebo, exercise has been more effective in reducing reported pain, especially in the context of strengthening regimens focused on flexion, extension, and internal and external rotation.²⁸

For subacromial impingement syndrome, a 2017 meta-analysis found that a generalized exercise program relieves pain and improves function, ROM, and strength.²⁹ A generalized shoulder-strengthening program includes exercises that focus on internal and external rotation, horizontal abduction, and shoulder stabilization (FIGURE 3). These exercises can be completed with 3 sets of 15 to 20 repetitions, which create a fatigue response that improves strength and targets local muscular endurance.³⁰

Continue to: Achilles tendinopathy

Achilles tendinopathy

Achilles tendinopathy (also referred to as chronic Achilles tendinitis) is a degenerative condition of the Achilles tendon related to overuse that leads to pain, swelling, and impaired performance. It accounts for approximately 18% of injuries in runners and 4% of all patients presenting to sports medicine clinics.³¹ Eccentric muscle loading has become the dominant conservative intervention strategy for chronic Achilles tendinopathy.

For chronic tendinopathies, eccentric exercises subject greater force than concentric exercises through a controlled lengthening of a muscle-tendon unit, resulting in a greater remodeling stimulus of the tendon.³² Classically, the Alfredson protocol has been used to treat chronic Achilles tendinopathy. This program of eccentric heel-drop exercises recommends completion of 180 eccentric repetitions a day for up to 12 weeks (FIGURE 4).³³ Exercises are performed slowly, and load can be increased when exercises are performed without pain or perhaps with mild nondisabling pain.

Several systematic reviews have supported the use of eccentric exercises for chronic Achilles tendinopathy,^31,36,37 but no specific protocol or exercise regimen has demonstrated superiority. However, with the Alfredson protocol, improvement in pain and function in patients with chronic Achilles tendinopathy has persisted for up to 5 years.³⁸

Lateral epicondylitis

Lateral epicondylitis (also called lateral epicondylosis or “tennis elbow”) is a disabling musculoskeletal condition that leads to pain and tenderness around the extensor mass of the lateral elbow. It is caused by microtrauma to the tendon, usually sustained through repetitive movement in a sporting activity, industrial work, or hobby. Affecting up to 3% of the US population, lateral epicondylitis is associated with pain and functional disability, as well as emotional and psychosocial consequences.³⁹

Continue to: Proposed treatment and rehabilitation options...

Proposed treatment and rehabilitation options for patients with lateral epicondylitis have included massage, manipulation, taping, acupuncture, orthotic devices, ultrasound, activity modification, and rest. Exercise programs incorporating eccentric muscle activity are becoming increasingly popular for such conditions as Achilles and patellar tendinopathies, and they may translate well to other chronic tendinopathies, such as lateral epicondylitis.³²

An eccentric exercise program for lateral epicondylitis, either in isolation or as an adjunct to other therapies, has decreased pain and improved function and grip strength from baseline measures.⁴⁰ Compared with a standard exercise regimen without eccentric strength training, use of eccentric training improves such clinical measures as pain intensity and disability status, as it decreases tendon thickness and aids in recovering homogenous tendon structure.⁴¹

A sample exercise. The patient may sit in a chair and, with the forearm flexed and pronated over the edge of a table, grasp some form of resistance (bucket of water, training weight, resistance band) (FIGURE 5). The nonaffected hand can be used to help lift the affected wrist into full extension and then removed to allow lowering of the hand over several seconds into flexion. This activity can be performed in sets of 8 to 12 repetitions, 2 to 3 times a day, until the patient’s pain and function have improved.⁴²

Overcoming barriers to exercise

A major concern across all studies assessing the therapeutic value of exercise is patient compliance and adherence to prescribed programs. Compliance and adherence are affected in part by psychosocial factors such as low literacy and poor social support. From a physician’s perspective, direct and indirect costs of treatment and rehabilitation of chronic musculoskeletal conditions may discourage the prescribing of supervised physical therapy.³

Continuing daily activities within permitted limits of pain leads to more rapid recovery from low back pain than rest or back-mobilizing exercises.

Steps to consider in overcoming these barriers would be advising an exercise regimen that requires only an initial period of supervision; educating patients about the benefits of an exercise program; exploring a patient’s expectations, beliefs, and fears; and developing strategies for long-term adherence.¹⁶ Supervision through physical therapy is often suggested. However, significant barriers may exist that impede a patient’s ability to attend or participate, in which case physician observation in the course of regularly scheduled clinical examinations could be considered.

Continue to: When prescribing exercises...

When prescribing exercises, be sure to address patient expectations regarding pain, duration, and limitations of exercise. It would be helpful for patients to know, for instance, that working through mild-to-moderate pain during exercise has been shown to shorten post-exercise recovery time and, in the short-term, improve relief from pain.⁴³

Tailoring specific exercise prescriptions for a patient will make the regimen more satisfying for the individual and optimize adherence, which in turn will increase the potential for pain reduction and improved function. Secondary benefits would likely be weight loss and prevention (or regression) of cardiovascular disease. Continued evaluation by the physician or physical therapist should be part of ongoing management, as well as “refresher courses” to ensure understanding of, and adherence to, the exercise program. The potential benefits and limited risks of exercise, if done properly, make it a primary intervention for specific musculoskeletal conditions.

CORRESPONDENCE
Peter J. Carek, MD, MS, Department of Community Health and Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, PO Box 100237, Gainesville, FL 32610-0237; carek@ufl.edu.

Regular exercise confers several well-established benefits. In such conditions as coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and diabetes, exercise has led to a reduction in mortality similar to that seen with pharmacotherapy.¹ For patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions, the benefits of exercise-based interventions are measurably reduced pain and improved daily function.² However, prescribing of exercise is often neglected, with preference given to pharmacologic or surgical interventions.³ In part, the disregard of exercise as therapy results from unfamiliarity with appropriate exercise prescriptions,³ which include various forms of aerobic exercise, strength training, and stretching to increase flexibility (TABLE).

As is true of many therapeutic modalities, exercise must be tailored to the condition and to a patient’s preferences to optimize its benefits. In this review, we describe exercise regimens well suited for common musculoskeletal conditions, examine the effectiveness of exercise in each condition, and provide examples for use in treating patients.

Osteoarthritis of the hip and knee

Osteoarthritis (OA), one of the most common chronic joint diseases, erodes the articular cartilage and subchondral bone of a synovial joint, eventually leading to joint failure. Pain and diminished muscle strength restrict physical activity and can lead to decreased fitness and impaired muscle function. Exercise helps reduce pain and improve muscle function and quality of life in patients with hip or knee OA regardless of age, disease severity, or level of pain and dysfunction.²

Knee exercises. Activities suitable for patients with OA include muscle strengthening, aerobic conditioning, and range-of-motion (ROM) exercises.^4-6 A 2015 Cochrane review of OA of the knee showed that exercise reduced pain and improved physical function and quality of life in patients who completed a treatment program, and that pain relief persisted up to 6 months after intervention.⁵

For knee OA, supervised quadriceps strengthening may provide greater pain relief than nonspecific, unsupervised exercises.

When designing an exercise prescription for patients with knee OA, consider quadriceps strengthening with an initial period of supervision, which may provide greater pain relief than nonspecific, unsupervised lower limb exercises.⁴ Enhanced strength of the lower limb may lessen force through the knee, thereby decreasing pain and improving overall physical function.⁷ Simple, teachable exercises include squats, step-ups, knee extension/flexion while sitting in a chair, and hip abduction/adduction while standing or lying down. Elastic bands, dumbbells, or cuff weights may be used to increase resistance.

Hip exercises. Exercise can significantly reduce pain and improve function for up to 6 months for patients with mild-to-moderate symptomatic hip OA.⁶ Types of exercise for hip OA include strength training of hip and core muscles, functional exercises that imitate movements in daily activities, and flexibility training. These exercises help reduce pain and increase ROM. Exercise should include resistance training and should not exceed the limit for acceptable pain.⁸

Aquatic therapy is also appropriate for exercise and strength training and can decrease pain and disability and improve quality of life.⁹ Supervised physical therapy, including strength training, manual therapy, and balance training, are important for reducing pain and improving function. Physical therapy can also enhance adherence to a prescribed exercise program.¹⁰

Continue to: Appropriate exercise prescriptions...

Appropriate exercise prescriptions for patients with knee or hip OA should focus on low-impact activities that can improve strength, flexibility, and function (FIGURE 1). A typical regimen would be 30 or more cumulative minutes daily of stationary cycling, water-based exercises, or strength training, 3 to 5 days per week. Individualize workout intensity for each patient, emphasizing that high-intensity, low-impact effort may yield greater strength gains and take less time to perform.¹¹ A high-intensity exercise prescription focusing on quadriceps, hip, and core strengthening may consist of 3 sets of 8 repetitions with resistance set at 40% of the maximum resistance against which the patient can perform 1 repetition.⁷

Barriers to exercise in knee and hip OA include negative patient and provider perspectives on exercise and patients’ fear that increased activity may actually worsen OA.¹² Depending on a patient’s personal preferences, ways to overcome these barriers and encourage adherence might be supervised exercises in an individual or group setting or audiotapes or videos of recommended exercises.¹⁰

Chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a large socioeconomic burden in the United States, with upward of $100 billion per year accounted for in health care costs and decreased worker productivity.¹³ The etiology of chronic LBP can be multifactorial and due to any of several conditions such as degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and facet arthropathy. Treatment is difficult, given that many common interventions—medications, massage, manipulation—have limited efficacy.¹⁴ However, for patients with nonspecific chronic LBP, exercise is an effective intervention for reducing pain and improving physical function.¹⁵

An effective approach is to design an exercise regimen for the individual by type, duration, and frequency of activity, administered under supervision to encourage adherence.¹⁶ Appropriate exercises emphasize resistance, strength training, and core stabilization, often focusing on whole body and trunk motion (FIGURE 2).¹⁷

Although yoga or Pilates classes may have a small effect on function, no high-quality evidence exists for their superiority to other forms of exercise.^18,19 Back School, a therapeutic program that includes education on anatomy and biomechanics, optimal posture, ergonomics, and back exercises, has limited, low-quality evidence for treatment comparisons.²⁰ Aerobic exercise, including treadmill, elliptical, or cycling exercises or walking outdoors can reduce pain and improve physical and psychologic functioning.²¹

Continue to: The most common reported adverse effect...

The most common reported adverse effect of exercise is a temporary exacerbation of back pain. However, having patients continue daily activities within the permitted limits of pain leads to more rapid recovery than rest or back-mobilizing exercises.^15,22,23

Cautions. Exercise is contraindicated in patients with LBP arising from a serious medical condition, such as fracture, infection, cancer, or cauda equina syndrome.²⁴ Importantly, exercise interventions recommended for acute LBP have not shown benefit for chronic LBP.

Chronic shoulder pain

With a prevalence ranging from 7% to 26% in the general population,²⁵ chronic shoulder pain often interferes with essential activities of daily living. The etiology of chronic shoulder pain is broad and most commonly involves disorders of the rotator cuff, which functions in both motion and dynamic stabilization of the shoulder. The common term “rotator cuff pain syndrome” can cover such disorders as subacromial impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tendinopathy or tendinitis, partial or full thickness rotator cuff tears, calcific tendinitis, and subacromial bursitis. These pathologies may have overlapping presentations. Manual therapy and exercise, usually delivered as a component of structured physical therapy, focus on stretches and other exercises to increase ROM, stability, and strength of the rotator cuff musculature.²⁶

A 2016 Cochrane review that evaluated manual therapy and exercise for chronic shoulder pain yielded limited high-quality evidence for effectiveness compared with placebo.²⁷ Five trials found no important differences between manual therapy and exercise compared with glucocorticoid injection relative to overall pain, function, active shoulder abduction, and quality of life from 4 weeks up to 12 months.²⁷ But compared with placebo, exercise has been more effective in reducing reported pain, especially in the context of strengthening regimens focused on flexion, extension, and internal and external rotation.²⁸

For subacromial impingement syndrome, a 2017 meta-analysis found that a generalized exercise program relieves pain and improves function, ROM, and strength.²⁹ A generalized shoulder-strengthening program includes exercises that focus on internal and external rotation, horizontal abduction, and shoulder stabilization (FIGURE 3). These exercises can be completed with 3 sets of 15 to 20 repetitions, which create a fatigue response that improves strength and targets local muscular endurance.³⁰

Continue to: Achilles tendinopathy

Achilles tendinopathy

Achilles tendinopathy (also referred to as chronic Achilles tendinitis) is a degenerative condition of the Achilles tendon related to overuse that leads to pain, swelling, and impaired performance. It accounts for approximately 18% of injuries in runners and 4% of all patients presenting to sports medicine clinics.³¹ Eccentric muscle loading has become the dominant conservative intervention strategy for chronic Achilles tendinopathy.

For chronic tendinopathies, eccentric exercises subject greater force than concentric exercises through a controlled lengthening of a muscle-tendon unit, resulting in a greater remodeling stimulus of the tendon.³² Classically, the Alfredson protocol has been used to treat chronic Achilles tendinopathy. This program of eccentric heel-drop exercises recommends completion of 180 eccentric repetitions a day for up to 12 weeks (FIGURE 4).³³ Exercises are performed slowly, and load can be increased when exercises are performed without pain or perhaps with mild nondisabling pain.

Several systematic reviews have supported the use of eccentric exercises for chronic Achilles tendinopathy,^31,36,37 but no specific protocol or exercise regimen has demonstrated superiority. However, with the Alfredson protocol, improvement in pain and function in patients with chronic Achilles tendinopathy has persisted for up to 5 years.³⁸

Lateral epicondylitis

Lateral epicondylitis (also called lateral epicondylosis or “tennis elbow”) is a disabling musculoskeletal condition that leads to pain and tenderness around the extensor mass of the lateral elbow. It is caused by microtrauma to the tendon, usually sustained through repetitive movement in a sporting activity, industrial work, or hobby. Affecting up to 3% of the US population, lateral epicondylitis is associated with pain and functional disability, as well as emotional and psychosocial consequences.³⁹

Continue to: Proposed treatment and rehabilitation options...

Proposed treatment and rehabilitation options for patients with lateral epicondylitis have included massage, manipulation, taping, acupuncture, orthotic devices, ultrasound, activity modification, and rest. Exercise programs incorporating eccentric muscle activity are becoming increasingly popular for such conditions as Achilles and patellar tendinopathies, and they may translate well to other chronic tendinopathies, such as lateral epicondylitis.³²

An eccentric exercise program for lateral epicondylitis, either in isolation or as an adjunct to other therapies, has decreased pain and improved function and grip strength from baseline measures.⁴⁰ Compared with a standard exercise regimen without eccentric strength training, use of eccentric training improves such clinical measures as pain intensity and disability status, as it decreases tendon thickness and aids in recovering homogenous tendon structure.⁴¹

A sample exercise. The patient may sit in a chair and, with the forearm flexed and pronated over the edge of a table, grasp some form of resistance (bucket of water, training weight, resistance band) (FIGURE 5). The nonaffected hand can be used to help lift the affected wrist into full extension and then removed to allow lowering of the hand over several seconds into flexion. This activity can be performed in sets of 8 to 12 repetitions, 2 to 3 times a day, until the patient’s pain and function have improved.⁴²

Overcoming barriers to exercise

A major concern across all studies assessing the therapeutic value of exercise is patient compliance and adherence to prescribed programs. Compliance and adherence are affected in part by psychosocial factors such as low literacy and poor social support. From a physician’s perspective, direct and indirect costs of treatment and rehabilitation of chronic musculoskeletal conditions may discourage the prescribing of supervised physical therapy.³

Continuing daily activities within permitted limits of pain leads to more rapid recovery from low back pain than rest or back-mobilizing exercises.

Steps to consider in overcoming these barriers would be advising an exercise regimen that requires only an initial period of supervision; educating patients about the benefits of an exercise program; exploring a patient’s expectations, beliefs, and fears; and developing strategies for long-term adherence.¹⁶ Supervision through physical therapy is often suggested. However, significant barriers may exist that impede a patient’s ability to attend or participate, in which case physician observation in the course of regularly scheduled clinical examinations could be considered.

Continue to: When prescribing exercises...

When prescribing exercises, be sure to address patient expectations regarding pain, duration, and limitations of exercise. It would be helpful for patients to know, for instance, that working through mild-to-moderate pain during exercise has been shown to shorten post-exercise recovery time and, in the short-term, improve relief from pain.⁴³

Tailoring specific exercise prescriptions for a patient will make the regimen more satisfying for the individual and optimize adherence, which in turn will increase the potential for pain reduction and improved function. Secondary benefits would likely be weight loss and prevention (or regression) of cardiovascular disease. Continued evaluation by the physician or physical therapist should be part of ongoing management, as well as “refresher courses” to ensure understanding of, and adherence to, the exercise program. The potential benefits and limited risks of exercise, if done properly, make it a primary intervention for specific musculoskeletal conditions.

CORRESPONDENCE
Peter J. Carek, MD, MS, Department of Community Health and Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, PO Box 100237, Gainesville, FL 32610-0237; carek@ufl.edu.

Regular exercise confers several well-established benefits. In such conditions as coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and diabetes, exercise has led to a reduction in mortality similar to that seen with pharmacotherapy.¹ For patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions, the benefits of exercise-based interventions are measurably reduced pain and improved daily function.² However, prescribing of exercise is often neglected, with preference given to pharmacologic or surgical interventions.³ In part, the disregard of exercise as therapy results from unfamiliarity with appropriate exercise prescriptions,³ which include various forms of aerobic exercise, strength training, and stretching to increase flexibility (TABLE).

As is true of many therapeutic modalities, exercise must be tailored to the condition and to a patient’s preferences to optimize its benefits. In this review, we describe exercise regimens well suited for common musculoskeletal conditions, examine the effectiveness of exercise in each condition, and provide examples for use in treating patients.

Osteoarthritis of the hip and knee

Osteoarthritis (OA), one of the most common chronic joint diseases, erodes the articular cartilage and subchondral bone of a synovial joint, eventually leading to joint failure. Pain and diminished muscle strength restrict physical activity and can lead to decreased fitness and impaired muscle function. Exercise helps reduce pain and improve muscle function and quality of life in patients with hip or knee OA regardless of age, disease severity, or level of pain and dysfunction.²

Knee exercises. Activities suitable for patients with OA include muscle strengthening, aerobic conditioning, and range-of-motion (ROM) exercises.^4-6 A 2015 Cochrane review of OA of the knee showed that exercise reduced pain and improved physical function and quality of life in patients who completed a treatment program, and that pain relief persisted up to 6 months after intervention.⁵

For knee OA, supervised quadriceps strengthening may provide greater pain relief than nonspecific, unsupervised exercises.

When designing an exercise prescription for patients with knee OA, consider quadriceps strengthening with an initial period of supervision, which may provide greater pain relief than nonspecific, unsupervised lower limb exercises.⁴ Enhanced strength of the lower limb may lessen force through the knee, thereby decreasing pain and improving overall physical function.⁷ Simple, teachable exercises include squats, step-ups, knee extension/flexion while sitting in a chair, and hip abduction/adduction while standing or lying down. Elastic bands, dumbbells, or cuff weights may be used to increase resistance.

Hip exercises. Exercise can significantly reduce pain and improve function for up to 6 months for patients with mild-to-moderate symptomatic hip OA.⁶ Types of exercise for hip OA include strength training of hip and core muscles, functional exercises that imitate movements in daily activities, and flexibility training. These exercises help reduce pain and increase ROM. Exercise should include resistance training and should not exceed the limit for acceptable pain.⁸

Aquatic therapy is also appropriate for exercise and strength training and can decrease pain and disability and improve quality of life.⁹ Supervised physical therapy, including strength training, manual therapy, and balance training, are important for reducing pain and improving function. Physical therapy can also enhance adherence to a prescribed exercise program.¹⁰

Continue to: Appropriate exercise prescriptions...

Appropriate exercise prescriptions for patients with knee or hip OA should focus on low-impact activities that can improve strength, flexibility, and function (FIGURE 1). A typical regimen would be 30 or more cumulative minutes daily of stationary cycling, water-based exercises, or strength training, 3 to 5 days per week. Individualize workout intensity for each patient, emphasizing that high-intensity, low-impact effort may yield greater strength gains and take less time to perform.¹¹ A high-intensity exercise prescription focusing on quadriceps, hip, and core strengthening may consist of 3 sets of 8 repetitions with resistance set at 40% of the maximum resistance against which the patient can perform 1 repetition.⁷

Barriers to exercise in knee and hip OA include negative patient and provider perspectives on exercise and patients’ fear that increased activity may actually worsen OA.¹² Depending on a patient’s personal preferences, ways to overcome these barriers and encourage adherence might be supervised exercises in an individual or group setting or audiotapes or videos of recommended exercises.¹⁰

Chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a large socioeconomic burden in the United States, with upward of $100 billion per year accounted for in health care costs and decreased worker productivity.¹³ The etiology of chronic LBP can be multifactorial and due to any of several conditions such as degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and facet arthropathy. Treatment is difficult, given that many common interventions—medications, massage, manipulation—have limited efficacy.¹⁴ However, for patients with nonspecific chronic LBP, exercise is an effective intervention for reducing pain and improving physical function.¹⁵

An effective approach is to design an exercise regimen for the individual by type, duration, and frequency of activity, administered under supervision to encourage adherence.¹⁶ Appropriate exercises emphasize resistance, strength training, and core stabilization, often focusing on whole body and trunk motion (FIGURE 2).¹⁷

Although yoga or Pilates classes may have a small effect on function, no high-quality evidence exists for their superiority to other forms of exercise.^18,19 Back School, a therapeutic program that includes education on anatomy and biomechanics, optimal posture, ergonomics, and back exercises, has limited, low-quality evidence for treatment comparisons.²⁰ Aerobic exercise, including treadmill, elliptical, or cycling exercises or walking outdoors can reduce pain and improve physical and psychologic functioning.²¹

Continue to: The most common reported adverse effect...

The most common reported adverse effect of exercise is a temporary exacerbation of back pain. However, having patients continue daily activities within the permitted limits of pain leads to more rapid recovery than rest or back-mobilizing exercises.^15,22,23

Cautions. Exercise is contraindicated in patients with LBP arising from a serious medical condition, such as fracture, infection, cancer, or cauda equina syndrome.²⁴ Importantly, exercise interventions recommended for acute LBP have not shown benefit for chronic LBP.

Chronic shoulder pain

With a prevalence ranging from 7% to 26% in the general population,²⁵ chronic shoulder pain often interferes with essential activities of daily living. The etiology of chronic shoulder pain is broad and most commonly involves disorders of the rotator cuff, which functions in both motion and dynamic stabilization of the shoulder. The common term “rotator cuff pain syndrome” can cover such disorders as subacromial impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tendinopathy or tendinitis, partial or full thickness rotator cuff tears, calcific tendinitis, and subacromial bursitis. These pathologies may have overlapping presentations. Manual therapy and exercise, usually delivered as a component of structured physical therapy, focus on stretches and other exercises to increase ROM, stability, and strength of the rotator cuff musculature.²⁶

A 2016 Cochrane review that evaluated manual therapy and exercise for chronic shoulder pain yielded limited high-quality evidence for effectiveness compared with placebo.²⁷ Five trials found no important differences between manual therapy and exercise compared with glucocorticoid injection relative to overall pain, function, active shoulder abduction, and quality of life from 4 weeks up to 12 months.²⁷ But compared with placebo, exercise has been more effective in reducing reported pain, especially in the context of strengthening regimens focused on flexion, extension, and internal and external rotation.²⁸

For subacromial impingement syndrome, a 2017 meta-analysis found that a generalized exercise program relieves pain and improves function, ROM, and strength.²⁹ A generalized shoulder-strengthening program includes exercises that focus on internal and external rotation, horizontal abduction, and shoulder stabilization (FIGURE 3). These exercises can be completed with 3 sets of 15 to 20 repetitions, which create a fatigue response that improves strength and targets local muscular endurance.³⁰

Continue to: Achilles tendinopathy

Achilles tendinopathy

Achilles tendinopathy (also referred to as chronic Achilles tendinitis) is a degenerative condition of the Achilles tendon related to overuse that leads to pain, swelling, and impaired performance. It accounts for approximately 18% of injuries in runners and 4% of all patients presenting to sports medicine clinics.³¹ Eccentric muscle loading has become the dominant conservative intervention strategy for chronic Achilles tendinopathy.

For chronic tendinopathies, eccentric exercises subject greater force than concentric exercises through a controlled lengthening of a muscle-tendon unit, resulting in a greater remodeling stimulus of the tendon.³² Classically, the Alfredson protocol has been used to treat chronic Achilles tendinopathy. This program of eccentric heel-drop exercises recommends completion of 180 eccentric repetitions a day for up to 12 weeks (FIGURE 4).³³ Exercises are performed slowly, and load can be increased when exercises are performed without pain or perhaps with mild nondisabling pain.

Several systematic reviews have supported the use of eccentric exercises for chronic Achilles tendinopathy,^31,36,37 but no specific protocol or exercise regimen has demonstrated superiority. However, with the Alfredson protocol, improvement in pain and function in patients with chronic Achilles tendinopathy has persisted for up to 5 years.³⁸

Lateral epicondylitis

Lateral epicondylitis (also called lateral epicondylosis or “tennis elbow”) is a disabling musculoskeletal condition that leads to pain and tenderness around the extensor mass of the lateral elbow. It is caused by microtrauma to the tendon, usually sustained through repetitive movement in a sporting activity, industrial work, or hobby. Affecting up to 3% of the US population, lateral epicondylitis is associated with pain and functional disability, as well as emotional and psychosocial consequences.³⁹

Continue to: Proposed treatment and rehabilitation options...

Proposed treatment and rehabilitation options for patients with lateral epicondylitis have included massage, manipulation, taping, acupuncture, orthotic devices, ultrasound, activity modification, and rest. Exercise programs incorporating eccentric muscle activity are becoming increasingly popular for such conditions as Achilles and patellar tendinopathies, and they may translate well to other chronic tendinopathies, such as lateral epicondylitis.³²

An eccentric exercise program for lateral epicondylitis, either in isolation or as an adjunct to other therapies, has decreased pain and improved function and grip strength from baseline measures.⁴⁰ Compared with a standard exercise regimen without eccentric strength training, use of eccentric training improves such clinical measures as pain intensity and disability status, as it decreases tendon thickness and aids in recovering homogenous tendon structure.⁴¹

A sample exercise. The patient may sit in a chair and, with the forearm flexed and pronated over the edge of a table, grasp some form of resistance (bucket of water, training weight, resistance band) (FIGURE 5). The nonaffected hand can be used to help lift the affected wrist into full extension and then removed to allow lowering of the hand over several seconds into flexion. This activity can be performed in sets of 8 to 12 repetitions, 2 to 3 times a day, until the patient’s pain and function have improved.⁴²

Overcoming barriers to exercise

A major concern across all studies assessing the therapeutic value of exercise is patient compliance and adherence to prescribed programs. Compliance and adherence are affected in part by psychosocial factors such as low literacy and poor social support. From a physician’s perspective, direct and indirect costs of treatment and rehabilitation of chronic musculoskeletal conditions may discourage the prescribing of supervised physical therapy.³

Continuing daily activities within permitted limits of pain leads to more rapid recovery from low back pain than rest or back-mobilizing exercises.

Steps to consider in overcoming these barriers would be advising an exercise regimen that requires only an initial period of supervision; educating patients about the benefits of an exercise program; exploring a patient’s expectations, beliefs, and fears; and developing strategies for long-term adherence.¹⁶ Supervision through physical therapy is often suggested. However, significant barriers may exist that impede a patient’s ability to attend or participate, in which case physician observation in the course of regularly scheduled clinical examinations could be considered.

Continue to: When prescribing exercises...

When prescribing exercises, be sure to address patient expectations regarding pain, duration, and limitations of exercise. It would be helpful for patients to know, for instance, that working through mild-to-moderate pain during exercise has been shown to shorten post-exercise recovery time and, in the short-term, improve relief from pain.⁴³

Tailoring specific exercise prescriptions for a patient will make the regimen more satisfying for the individual and optimize adherence, which in turn will increase the potential for pain reduction and improved function. Secondary benefits would likely be weight loss and prevention (or regression) of cardiovascular disease. Continued evaluation by the physician or physical therapist should be part of ongoing management, as well as “refresher courses” to ensure understanding of, and adherence to, the exercise program. The potential benefits and limited risks of exercise, if done properly, make it a primary intervention for specific musculoskeletal conditions.

CORRESPONDENCE
Peter J. Carek, MD, MS, Department of Community Health and Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, PO Box 100237, Gainesville, FL 32610-0237; carek@ufl.edu.

Resources

US Food & Drug Administration. FDA authorizes, with special controls, direct-to-consumer test that reports three mutations in the BRCA breast cancer genes. March 6, 2018. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm599560.htm. Accessed August 8, 2018.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: BRCA-related cancer: risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. Available at:
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/brca-related-cancer-risk-assessment-genetic-counseling-and-genetic-testing. Accessed August 8, 2018.

Resources

US Food & Drug Administration. FDA authorizes, with special controls, direct-to-consumer test that reports three mutations in the BRCA breast cancer genes. March 6, 2018. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm599560.htm. Accessed August 8, 2018.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: BRCA-related cancer: risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. Available at:
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/brca-related-cancer-risk-assessment-genetic-counseling-and-genetic-testing. Accessed August 8, 2018.

Resources

US Food & Drug Administration. FDA authorizes, with special controls, direct-to-consumer test that reports three mutations in the BRCA breast cancer genes. March 6, 2018. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm599560.htm. Accessed August 8, 2018.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: BRCA-related cancer: risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. Available at:
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/brca-related-cancer-risk-assessment-genetic-counseling-and-genetic-testing. Accessed August 8, 2018.

Background: Pain is a very common cause for emergency room visits. Nonpharmacologic pain management is not well studied for adult patients visiting the ED.

Dr. Hasanein is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: Pain is a very common cause for emergency room visits. Nonpharmacologic pain management is not well studied for adult patients visiting the ED.

Dr. Hasanein is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: Pain is a very common cause for emergency room visits. Nonpharmacologic pain management is not well studied for adult patients visiting the ED.

Dr. Hasanein is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Obesity not only makes flu more severe, but also lengthens the period of viral shedding for influenza A, according to a study by University of Michigan researchers, partly funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Over 3 flu seasons, the researchers monitored 1,783 people from 320 households in Managua, Nicaragua. During that time, 87 people became ill with influenza A and 58 with influenza B.

More than 40% of the adults aged > 18 years were obese, as defined by body mass. Obese adults with ≥ 2 symptoms of influenza A (n = 62) shed the virus 42% longer than did nonobese adults, or 5.2 days compared with 3.7 days, respectively. Obese adults with 1 or no symptoms of influenza A (n = 25) shed the virus 104% longer than nonobese adults—3.2 days compared with 1.6 days, respectively.

Obesity was not a risk factor for increased viral shedding duration in children aged 5 to 17 years or for adults with influenza B.

The researchers suggest that chronic inflammation caused by obesity may be responsible for the increased viral shedding. Reducing obesity rates could be an important target to limit the spread of viral infectious diseases, they suggest. The findings may have particular significance in the US, where in 2014 35% of adults were obese compared with 17.4% of adults in Nicaragua.

Obesity not only makes flu more severe, but also lengthens the period of viral shedding for influenza A, according to a study by University of Michigan researchers, partly funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Over 3 flu seasons, the researchers monitored 1,783 people from 320 households in Managua, Nicaragua. During that time, 87 people became ill with influenza A and 58 with influenza B.

More than 40% of the adults aged > 18 years were obese, as defined by body mass. Obese adults with ≥ 2 symptoms of influenza A (n = 62) shed the virus 42% longer than did nonobese adults, or 5.2 days compared with 3.7 days, respectively. Obese adults with 1 or no symptoms of influenza A (n = 25) shed the virus 104% longer than nonobese adults—3.2 days compared with 1.6 days, respectively.

Obesity was not a risk factor for increased viral shedding duration in children aged 5 to 17 years or for adults with influenza B.

The researchers suggest that chronic inflammation caused by obesity may be responsible for the increased viral shedding. Reducing obesity rates could be an important target to limit the spread of viral infectious diseases, they suggest. The findings may have particular significance in the US, where in 2014 35% of adults were obese compared with 17.4% of adults in Nicaragua.

Obesity not only makes flu more severe, but also lengthens the period of viral shedding for influenza A, according to a study by University of Michigan researchers, partly funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Over 3 flu seasons, the researchers monitored 1,783 people from 320 households in Managua, Nicaragua. During that time, 87 people became ill with influenza A and 58 with influenza B.

More than 40% of the adults aged > 18 years were obese, as defined by body mass. Obese adults with ≥ 2 symptoms of influenza A (n = 62) shed the virus 42% longer than did nonobese adults, or 5.2 days compared with 3.7 days, respectively. Obese adults with 1 or no symptoms of influenza A (n = 25) shed the virus 104% longer than nonobese adults—3.2 days compared with 1.6 days, respectively.

Obesity was not a risk factor for increased viral shedding duration in children aged 5 to 17 years or for adults with influenza B.

The researchers suggest that chronic inflammation caused by obesity may be responsible for the increased viral shedding. Reducing obesity rates could be an important target to limit the spread of viral infectious diseases, they suggest. The findings may have particular significance in the US, where in 2014 35% of adults were obese compared with 17.4% of adults in Nicaragua.

IN THIS ARTICLE

• Diagnosis
• Management
• Outcome for the case patient

An 18-year-old woman presents to urgent care with a one-day history of sudden-onset sore throat, chills, malaise, and fever (102.5°F). On physical examination, the tonsils and pharynx are erythematous, and anterior cervical lymph nodes are tender on palpation. A rapid strep test is negative. The patient is instructed to use throat lozenges and take ibuprofen (400 mg every 8 h) as needed for pain.

On day 2, the patient’s fever resolves, but a painful rash develops on her palms and soles. Clinical examination reveals multiple erythematous plaques on the hands and feet (see Figure 1). The patient is diagnosed with hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD).

DISCUSSION

HFMD is caused by enteroviruses, most commonly coxsackievirus A16 (CV-A16) or enterovirus 71 (EV71).¹ However, a newly recognized strain, CV-A6, has caused worldwide outbreaks of HFMD in both children and adults. Although less common than CV-A16 or EV71, CV-A6 is associated with a more severe disease course.¹ The CV-A6 strain was first identified in Finland in 2008 during a major outbreak of HFMD; it reached the United States in 2011.^2,3 Accurate statistics on the prevalence of CV-A6 in the US are difficult to obtain because HFMD is not a reportable condition.

Clinical presentation

HFMD typically manifests with painful oral lesions, with or without a macular, maculopapular, or vesicular exanthema. If a fever is present, it is usually below 101°F. The oral lesions are typically benign and manifest as erythematous macules that progress to vesicles with an erythematous halo. These lesions tend to be painful and may interfere with eating or drinking. Signs and symptoms associated with the more virulent form, CV-A6, may include

• Higher fever
• Wider distribution of lesions
• More extensive skin involvement
• Longer duration
• Palmar and plantar desquamation
• Nail dystrophy.^4,5

Laboratory diagnosis

Most symptomatic enterovirus infections are diagnosed based on clinical findings alone, reducing the need for laboratory testing. Laboratory confirmation may be warranted for more severe infections and during outbreaks. Molecular methods, such as reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, are typically used for identifying enteroviruses, as they are rapid, sensitive, and widely available in hospital and commercial laboratories.⁶ Viral culture methods are labor-intensive, expensive, and reserved for typing the isolate. Serology is not useful in the diagnosis of acute infection.

Continue to: Differential diagnosis

 

 

Differential diagnosis

The differential diagnosis of HFMD includes conditions with oral lesions and maculopapular, vesicular lesions involving the palms and/or soles, as well as erythroderma.

Oral lesions. Aphthous ulcers are shallow, painful oral lesions not accompanied by skin rashes. Herpes gingivostomatitis, caused by herpes simplex virus (HSV), is often preceded by a prodrome of fever. The associated lesions manifest as vesicular clusters on a red base that evolve into large, painful ulcers. HSV mouth lesions can populate the gingivae, pharynx, hard palate, lips, and perioral skin. Skin lesions may occur unilaterally.

Rashes involving palms and soles. A number of conditions manifest with skin lesions similar to those of HFMD. An autoeczematization reaction consisting of a pruritic, papulovesicular eruption secondary to dermatophyte infection (eg, tinea pedis, tinea manuum, tinea cruris, tinea corporis, tinea capitis) should be ruled out. This type of reaction is thought to be a delayed hypersensitivity response to fungal antigens. Pruritus and the absence of mouth sores distinguishes this reaction from HFMD.⁷

Secondary syphilis can manifest with a short-lived macular rash involving the palm and soles, as well as oral mucous patches and generalized lymphad­enopathy. Syphilis testing, including rapid plasma reagin or Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test with fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption, can rule out this diagnosis.

Erythema multiforme, which is more common in young adults, is characterized by target lesions on the palms and soles and erosions and/or bullae in the mouth and mucous membranes. It is usually preceded by a trigger, such as HSV infection.

Continue to: Erythroderma

Erythroderma. In addition to a rash, erythema multiforme can cause desquamation later in the disease course. Toxic shock syndrome (TSS), a life-threatening condition caused by Streptococcus or Staphylococcus, has an abrupt onset that is associated with high fever and hypotension. TSS causes a sunburn-like rash on the palms and soles that desquamates weeks after onset. Scarlet fever, caused by group A Streptococcus, can cause an erythematous rash with desquamation in children and adolescents. Scalded skin syndrome is a desquamative condition caused by Staphylococcus that occurs primarily in infants and young children.

Management

There is no specific antiviral treatment for HFMD, and thus management is mainly supportive. Fever and pain can be managed with ibuprofen or acetaminophen. Children who are unable to maintain oral hydration may require hospitalization for IV fluids.

Prevention of HFMD requires strict hand hygiene—washing with soap and water—as well as thoroughly cleaning and disinfecting surfaces that come in contact with infected oral secretions or feces.⁸

OUTCOME FOR THE CASE PATIENT

The patient was discharged and instructed to take ibuprofen as needed.

About three weeks later, the patient’s palms and soles began to peel. Clinical examination at follow-up revealed painful, diffuse, scaly desquamation of the hands and feet (see Figure 2). The patient also experienced loosening and shedding of the proximal nails (see Figure 3). She was diagnosed with postviral shedding.

Continue to: About eight weeks after the desquamatory rash manifested...

About eight weeks after the desquamatory rash manifested, complete resolution was seen. The patient experienced continued onychomadesis three months after the initial presentation.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should be mindful of the increasing incidence of HFMD in the adult population, since it may mimic other disease states. The extent and chronicity of this patient’s clinical manifestations were unusual and may have been caused by CV-A6.

IN THIS ARTICLE

• Diagnosis
• Management
• Outcome for the case patient

An 18-year-old woman presents to urgent care with a one-day history of sudden-onset sore throat, chills, malaise, and fever (102.5°F). On physical examination, the tonsils and pharynx are erythematous, and anterior cervical lymph nodes are tender on palpation. A rapid strep test is negative. The patient is instructed to use throat lozenges and take ibuprofen (400 mg every 8 h) as needed for pain.

On day 2, the patient’s fever resolves, but a painful rash develops on her palms and soles. Clinical examination reveals multiple erythematous plaques on the hands and feet (see Figure 1). The patient is diagnosed with hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD).

DISCUSSION

HFMD is caused by enteroviruses, most commonly coxsackievirus A16 (CV-A16) or enterovirus 71 (EV71).¹ However, a newly recognized strain, CV-A6, has caused worldwide outbreaks of HFMD in both children and adults. Although less common than CV-A16 or EV71, CV-A6 is associated with a more severe disease course.¹ The CV-A6 strain was first identified in Finland in 2008 during a major outbreak of HFMD; it reached the United States in 2011.^2,3 Accurate statistics on the prevalence of CV-A6 in the US are difficult to obtain because HFMD is not a reportable condition.

Clinical presentation

HFMD typically manifests with painful oral lesions, with or without a macular, maculopapular, or vesicular exanthema. If a fever is present, it is usually below 101°F. The oral lesions are typically benign and manifest as erythematous macules that progress to vesicles with an erythematous halo. These lesions tend to be painful and may interfere with eating or drinking. Signs and symptoms associated with the more virulent form, CV-A6, may include

• Higher fever
• Wider distribution of lesions
• More extensive skin involvement
• Longer duration
• Palmar and plantar desquamation
• Nail dystrophy.^4,5

Laboratory diagnosis

Most symptomatic enterovirus infections are diagnosed based on clinical findings alone, reducing the need for laboratory testing. Laboratory confirmation may be warranted for more severe infections and during outbreaks. Molecular methods, such as reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, are typically used for identifying enteroviruses, as they are rapid, sensitive, and widely available in hospital and commercial laboratories.⁶ Viral culture methods are labor-intensive, expensive, and reserved for typing the isolate. Serology is not useful in the diagnosis of acute infection.

Continue to: Differential diagnosis

 

 

Differential diagnosis

The differential diagnosis of HFMD includes conditions with oral lesions and maculopapular, vesicular lesions involving the palms and/or soles, as well as erythroderma.

Oral lesions. Aphthous ulcers are shallow, painful oral lesions not accompanied by skin rashes. Herpes gingivostomatitis, caused by herpes simplex virus (HSV), is often preceded by a prodrome of fever. The associated lesions manifest as vesicular clusters on a red base that evolve into large, painful ulcers. HSV mouth lesions can populate the gingivae, pharynx, hard palate, lips, and perioral skin. Skin lesions may occur unilaterally.

Rashes involving palms and soles. A number of conditions manifest with skin lesions similar to those of HFMD. An autoeczematization reaction consisting of a pruritic, papulovesicular eruption secondary to dermatophyte infection (eg, tinea pedis, tinea manuum, tinea cruris, tinea corporis, tinea capitis) should be ruled out. This type of reaction is thought to be a delayed hypersensitivity response to fungal antigens. Pruritus and the absence of mouth sores distinguishes this reaction from HFMD.⁷

Secondary syphilis can manifest with a short-lived macular rash involving the palm and soles, as well as oral mucous patches and generalized lymphad­enopathy. Syphilis testing, including rapid plasma reagin or Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test with fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption, can rule out this diagnosis.

Erythema multiforme, which is more common in young adults, is characterized by target lesions on the palms and soles and erosions and/or bullae in the mouth and mucous membranes. It is usually preceded by a trigger, such as HSV infection.

Continue to: Erythroderma

Erythroderma. In addition to a rash, erythema multiforme can cause desquamation later in the disease course. Toxic shock syndrome (TSS), a life-threatening condition caused by Streptococcus or Staphylococcus, has an abrupt onset that is associated with high fever and hypotension. TSS causes a sunburn-like rash on the palms and soles that desquamates weeks after onset. Scarlet fever, caused by group A Streptococcus, can cause an erythematous rash with desquamation in children and adolescents. Scalded skin syndrome is a desquamative condition caused by Staphylococcus that occurs primarily in infants and young children.

Management

There is no specific antiviral treatment for HFMD, and thus management is mainly supportive. Fever and pain can be managed with ibuprofen or acetaminophen. Children who are unable to maintain oral hydration may require hospitalization for IV fluids.

Prevention of HFMD requires strict hand hygiene—washing with soap and water—as well as thoroughly cleaning and disinfecting surfaces that come in contact with infected oral secretions or feces.⁸

OUTCOME FOR THE CASE PATIENT

The patient was discharged and instructed to take ibuprofen as needed.

About three weeks later, the patient’s palms and soles began to peel. Clinical examination at follow-up revealed painful, diffuse, scaly desquamation of the hands and feet (see Figure 2). The patient also experienced loosening and shedding of the proximal nails (see Figure 3). She was diagnosed with postviral shedding.

Continue to: About eight weeks after the desquamatory rash manifested...

About eight weeks after the desquamatory rash manifested, complete resolution was seen. The patient experienced continued onychomadesis three months after the initial presentation.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should be mindful of the increasing incidence of HFMD in the adult population, since it may mimic other disease states. The extent and chronicity of this patient’s clinical manifestations were unusual and may have been caused by CV-A6.

IN THIS ARTICLE

• Diagnosis
• Management
• Outcome for the case patient

An 18-year-old woman presents to urgent care with a one-day history of sudden-onset sore throat, chills, malaise, and fever (102.5°F). On physical examination, the tonsils and pharynx are erythematous, and anterior cervical lymph nodes are tender on palpation. A rapid strep test is negative. The patient is instructed to use throat lozenges and take ibuprofen (400 mg every 8 h) as needed for pain.

On day 2, the patient’s fever resolves, but a painful rash develops on her palms and soles. Clinical examination reveals multiple erythematous plaques on the hands and feet (see Figure 1). The patient is diagnosed with hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD).

DISCUSSION

HFMD is caused by enteroviruses, most commonly coxsackievirus A16 (CV-A16) or enterovirus 71 (EV71).¹ However, a newly recognized strain, CV-A6, has caused worldwide outbreaks of HFMD in both children and adults. Although less common than CV-A16 or EV71, CV-A6 is associated with a more severe disease course.¹ The CV-A6 strain was first identified in Finland in 2008 during a major outbreak of HFMD; it reached the United States in 2011.^2,3 Accurate statistics on the prevalence of CV-A6 in the US are difficult to obtain because HFMD is not a reportable condition.

Clinical presentation

HFMD typically manifests with painful oral lesions, with or without a macular, maculopapular, or vesicular exanthema. If a fever is present, it is usually below 101°F. The oral lesions are typically benign and manifest as erythematous macules that progress to vesicles with an erythematous halo. These lesions tend to be painful and may interfere with eating or drinking. Signs and symptoms associated with the more virulent form, CV-A6, may include

• Higher fever
• Wider distribution of lesions
• More extensive skin involvement
• Longer duration
• Palmar and plantar desquamation
• Nail dystrophy.^4,5

Laboratory diagnosis

Most symptomatic enterovirus infections are diagnosed based on clinical findings alone, reducing the need for laboratory testing. Laboratory confirmation may be warranted for more severe infections and during outbreaks. Molecular methods, such as reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, are typically used for identifying enteroviruses, as they are rapid, sensitive, and widely available in hospital and commercial laboratories.⁶ Viral culture methods are labor-intensive, expensive, and reserved for typing the isolate. Serology is not useful in the diagnosis of acute infection.

Continue to: Differential diagnosis

 

 

Differential diagnosis

The differential diagnosis of HFMD includes conditions with oral lesions and maculopapular, vesicular lesions involving the palms and/or soles, as well as erythroderma.

Oral lesions. Aphthous ulcers are shallow, painful oral lesions not accompanied by skin rashes. Herpes gingivostomatitis, caused by herpes simplex virus (HSV), is often preceded by a prodrome of fever. The associated lesions manifest as vesicular clusters on a red base that evolve into large, painful ulcers. HSV mouth lesions can populate the gingivae, pharynx, hard palate, lips, and perioral skin. Skin lesions may occur unilaterally.

Rashes involving palms and soles. A number of conditions manifest with skin lesions similar to those of HFMD. An autoeczematization reaction consisting of a pruritic, papulovesicular eruption secondary to dermatophyte infection (eg, tinea pedis, tinea manuum, tinea cruris, tinea corporis, tinea capitis) should be ruled out. This type of reaction is thought to be a delayed hypersensitivity response to fungal antigens. Pruritus and the absence of mouth sores distinguishes this reaction from HFMD.⁷

Secondary syphilis can manifest with a short-lived macular rash involving the palm and soles, as well as oral mucous patches and generalized lymphad­enopathy. Syphilis testing, including rapid plasma reagin or Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test with fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption, can rule out this diagnosis.

Erythema multiforme, which is more common in young adults, is characterized by target lesions on the palms and soles and erosions and/or bullae in the mouth and mucous membranes. It is usually preceded by a trigger, such as HSV infection.

Continue to: Erythroderma

Erythroderma. In addition to a rash, erythema multiforme can cause desquamation later in the disease course. Toxic shock syndrome (TSS), a life-threatening condition caused by Streptococcus or Staphylococcus, has an abrupt onset that is associated with high fever and hypotension. TSS causes a sunburn-like rash on the palms and soles that desquamates weeks after onset. Scarlet fever, caused by group A Streptococcus, can cause an erythematous rash with desquamation in children and adolescents. Scalded skin syndrome is a desquamative condition caused by Staphylococcus that occurs primarily in infants and young children.

Management

There is no specific antiviral treatment for HFMD, and thus management is mainly supportive. Fever and pain can be managed with ibuprofen or acetaminophen. Children who are unable to maintain oral hydration may require hospitalization for IV fluids.

Prevention of HFMD requires strict hand hygiene—washing with soap and water—as well as thoroughly cleaning and disinfecting surfaces that come in contact with infected oral secretions or feces.⁸

OUTCOME FOR THE CASE PATIENT

The patient was discharged and instructed to take ibuprofen as needed.

About three weeks later, the patient’s palms and soles began to peel. Clinical examination at follow-up revealed painful, diffuse, scaly desquamation of the hands and feet (see Figure 2). The patient also experienced loosening and shedding of the proximal nails (see Figure 3). She was diagnosed with postviral shedding.

Continue to: About eight weeks after the desquamatory rash manifested...

About eight weeks after the desquamatory rash manifested, complete resolution was seen. The patient experienced continued onychomadesis three months after the initial presentation.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should be mindful of the increasing incidence of HFMD in the adult population, since it may mimic other disease states. The extent and chronicity of this patient’s clinical manifestations were unusual and may have been caused by CV-A6.

For the pancreatobiliary session, Michelle Ann Anderson, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reminded us about appropriate patient selection given the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, also known as post-ERCP pancreatitis. Strategies to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis include using pancreatic duct stents and using wire rather than contrast for cannulation. She recommended rectal indomethacin for all patients. Because of encouraging data, she recommended 2-3 L of lactated Ringer’s solution during the procedure and recovery. 

Katie Morgan, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, reviewed her group’s experience with 195 total pancreatectomies with islet autotransplants for chronic pancreatitis. Quality of life improved with major reductions in narcotic use, and 25% of patients were insulin free. 

Bret Petersen, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., discussed multidrug resistant infection in ERCP endoscopes. He reminded us of the risk of lapses in endoscope reprocessing steps and the need for monitoring. He commented on recent Food and Drug Administration’s culture guidance and new technologies in development. 

James Scheiman, MD, from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, discussed pancreatic cysts. He reviewed the controversy between the more conservative American Gastroenterological Association guidelines and the more aggressive International Consensus guidelines. He advised considering patient preferences with a multidisciplinary approach.
For the liver session, Guadalupe García-Tsao, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., discussed the controversy regarding nonselective beta-blockers. She advised caution if refractory ascites are present because of risk for renal dysfunction, but she also highlighted the benefits including reduced first and recurrent variceal hemorrhage. 

Rohit Loomba, MD, from the University of California at San Diego addressed fibrosis assessments in fatty liver. In his algorithm, patients with low Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Fibrosis Score or Fibrosis-4 scores would have continued observation, while patients with medium or high scores would undergo transient elastography or magnetic resonance elastography. 

Patrick Northup, MD, from the University of Virginia discussed anticoagulation for portal vein thrombosis. He also discussed consideration of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt if there are high-risk varices. Duration of anticoagulation is controversial, but this strategy may prevent decompensation and affect transplant outcomes. 

Daryl Lau, MD, MSc, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, reviewed the hepatitis B virus therapy controversy for e-antigen–negative patients with prolonged viral suppression. She recommended caution in general and emphasized that stage 3-4 fibrosis patients should not discontinue therapy. 

The final talk was my review of hepatitis C virus treatment. I emphasized that pretreatment fibrosis assessments are critical given continued risk of hepatocellular carcinoma after cure. Challenges include identifying the remaining patients and supporting them through treatment. HCV therapies demonstrate what is possible when breakthroughs are translated to clinical care, and I was honored to participate in this course that highlighted many advances in our field.

Dr. Muir is a professor of medicine, director of gastroenterology & hepatology research at Duke Clinical Research Institute, and chief of the division of gastroenterology in the department of medicine at Duke University, all in Durham, N.C. He has received research grants from and served on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and several other pharmaceutical companies. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the spring postgraduate course sessions held at DDW 2018.

For the pancreatobiliary session, Michelle Ann Anderson, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reminded us about appropriate patient selection given the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, also known as post-ERCP pancreatitis. Strategies to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis include using pancreatic duct stents and using wire rather than contrast for cannulation. She recommended rectal indomethacin for all patients. Because of encouraging data, she recommended 2-3 L of lactated Ringer’s solution during the procedure and recovery. 

Katie Morgan, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, reviewed her group’s experience with 195 total pancreatectomies with islet autotransplants for chronic pancreatitis. Quality of life improved with major reductions in narcotic use, and 25% of patients were insulin free. 

Bret Petersen, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., discussed multidrug resistant infection in ERCP endoscopes. He reminded us of the risk of lapses in endoscope reprocessing steps and the need for monitoring. He commented on recent Food and Drug Administration’s culture guidance and new technologies in development. 

James Scheiman, MD, from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, discussed pancreatic cysts. He reviewed the controversy between the more conservative American Gastroenterological Association guidelines and the more aggressive International Consensus guidelines. He advised considering patient preferences with a multidisciplinary approach.
For the liver session, Guadalupe García-Tsao, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., discussed the controversy regarding nonselective beta-blockers. She advised caution if refractory ascites are present because of risk for renal dysfunction, but she also highlighted the benefits including reduced first and recurrent variceal hemorrhage. 

Rohit Loomba, MD, from the University of California at San Diego addressed fibrosis assessments in fatty liver. In his algorithm, patients with low Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Fibrosis Score or Fibrosis-4 scores would have continued observation, while patients with medium or high scores would undergo transient elastography or magnetic resonance elastography. 

Patrick Northup, MD, from the University of Virginia discussed anticoagulation for portal vein thrombosis. He also discussed consideration of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt if there are high-risk varices. Duration of anticoagulation is controversial, but this strategy may prevent decompensation and affect transplant outcomes. 

Daryl Lau, MD, MSc, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, reviewed the hepatitis B virus therapy controversy for e-antigen–negative patients with prolonged viral suppression. She recommended caution in general and emphasized that stage 3-4 fibrosis patients should not discontinue therapy. 

The final talk was my review of hepatitis C virus treatment. I emphasized that pretreatment fibrosis assessments are critical given continued risk of hepatocellular carcinoma after cure. Challenges include identifying the remaining patients and supporting them through treatment. HCV therapies demonstrate what is possible when breakthroughs are translated to clinical care, and I was honored to participate in this course that highlighted many advances in our field.

Dr. Muir is a professor of medicine, director of gastroenterology & hepatology research at Duke Clinical Research Institute, and chief of the division of gastroenterology in the department of medicine at Duke University, all in Durham, N.C. He has received research grants from and served on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and several other pharmaceutical companies. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the spring postgraduate course sessions held at DDW 2018.

For the pancreatobiliary session, Michelle Ann Anderson, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reminded us about appropriate patient selection given the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, also known as post-ERCP pancreatitis. Strategies to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis include using pancreatic duct stents and using wire rather than contrast for cannulation. She recommended rectal indomethacin for all patients. Because of encouraging data, she recommended 2-3 L of lactated Ringer’s solution during the procedure and recovery. 

Katie Morgan, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, reviewed her group’s experience with 195 total pancreatectomies with islet autotransplants for chronic pancreatitis. Quality of life improved with major reductions in narcotic use, and 25% of patients were insulin free. 

Bret Petersen, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., discussed multidrug resistant infection in ERCP endoscopes. He reminded us of the risk of lapses in endoscope reprocessing steps and the need for monitoring. He commented on recent Food and Drug Administration’s culture guidance and new technologies in development. 

James Scheiman, MD, from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, discussed pancreatic cysts. He reviewed the controversy between the more conservative American Gastroenterological Association guidelines and the more aggressive International Consensus guidelines. He advised considering patient preferences with a multidisciplinary approach.
For the liver session, Guadalupe García-Tsao, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., discussed the controversy regarding nonselective beta-blockers. She advised caution if refractory ascites are present because of risk for renal dysfunction, but she also highlighted the benefits including reduced first and recurrent variceal hemorrhage. 

Rohit Loomba, MD, from the University of California at San Diego addressed fibrosis assessments in fatty liver. In his algorithm, patients with low Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Fibrosis Score or Fibrosis-4 scores would have continued observation, while patients with medium or high scores would undergo transient elastography or magnetic resonance elastography. 

Patrick Northup, MD, from the University of Virginia discussed anticoagulation for portal vein thrombosis. He also discussed consideration of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt if there are high-risk varices. Duration of anticoagulation is controversial, but this strategy may prevent decompensation and affect transplant outcomes. 

Daryl Lau, MD, MSc, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, reviewed the hepatitis B virus therapy controversy for e-antigen–negative patients with prolonged viral suppression. She recommended caution in general and emphasized that stage 3-4 fibrosis patients should not discontinue therapy. 

The final talk was my review of hepatitis C virus treatment. I emphasized that pretreatment fibrosis assessments are critical given continued risk of hepatocellular carcinoma after cure. Challenges include identifying the remaining patients and supporting them through treatment. HCV therapies demonstrate what is possible when breakthroughs are translated to clinical care, and I was honored to participate in this course that highlighted many advances in our field.

Dr. Muir is a professor of medicine, director of gastroenterology & hepatology research at Duke Clinical Research Institute, and chief of the division of gastroenterology in the department of medicine at Duke University, all in Durham, N.C. He has received research grants from and served on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and several other pharmaceutical companies. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the spring postgraduate course sessions held at DDW 2018.

The inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) session covered optimal ways to initiate treatment for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, when and how to discontinue some of those treatments, and the use of biosimilars as substitutes for biologic therapies. Finally, suggestions were provided regarding the often-challenging identification of irritable bowel complaints in patients with IBD.

Dr. Weinberg is chairman of the department of medicine, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the spring postgraduate course sessions held at DDW 2018.

The inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) session covered optimal ways to initiate treatment for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, when and how to discontinue some of those treatments, and the use of biosimilars as substitutes for biologic therapies. Finally, suggestions were provided regarding the often-challenging identification of irritable bowel complaints in patients with IBD.

Dr. Weinberg is chairman of the department of medicine, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the spring postgraduate course sessions held at DDW 2018.

The inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) session covered optimal ways to initiate treatment for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, when and how to discontinue some of those treatments, and the use of biosimilars as substitutes for biologic therapies. Finally, suggestions were provided regarding the often-challenging identification of irritable bowel complaints in patients with IBD.

Dr. Weinberg is chairman of the department of medicine, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia. This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the spring postgraduate course sessions held at DDW 2018.

A dramatic rise in the recognition of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has followed the case series by Stephen Attwood, MD, and Alex Straumann, MD, which first characterized the disease 25 years ago. While still a young disease, EoE has evolved from esoterica to a leading cause of dysphagia and food impaction worldwide (Gastroenterology. 2018 Jan;154[2]:319-32.). The typical face of EoE is a 30- to 40-year-old white man, but EoE afflicts both men and women of all ages and ethnic groups.

Guidelines prior to 2017 excluded proton pump inhibitor–responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPIREE) from a formal diagnosis of EoE. The last decade, however, has witnessed the rise of fall of PPIREE, which was first reported in 2006 in a case series of three pediatric patients with presentations consistent with EoE, but symptom and histologic resolution after treatment with omeprazole. At the time, these cases were viewed as rare curiosities. Subsequent to a prospective series by Javier Molina-Infante, MD, in 2011, however, multiple studies have demonstrated that 30%-50% of patients suspected of having EoE respond to proton pump inhibitor (PPI). Clearly, PPIREE is not rare. Clinical and translational studies have investigated the phenomenon of PPIREE, noting that EoE and PPIREE share demographic, symptom, endoscopic, and pathologic features as well as biomarker expression and gene profiles that are distinct from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Furthermore, studies have identified intriguing, acid-independent properties of PPIs that inhibit allergic inflammation in cultured EoE cell lines. Together, these clinical and translational studies led to a 2016 European task force recommendation to remove the PPI trial from the diagnostic criteria for EoE (Gut 2016 Mar;65[3]:524-31). At Digestive Disease Week 2017^®, an international consortium sponsored by the International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Researchers (TIGERS) convened in Chicago to review this controversy. The consensus from this meeting was in line with the European position statement. For patients with a clinical presentation suggestive of EoE and esophageal eosinophilia, clinicians should carefully consider non-EoE causes of esophageal eosinophilia but would not be required to use PPIs to establish a diagnosis of EoE.

Assessment of disease activity in EoE has largely focused on counting eosinophils on esophageal biopsies, but the mucosa may be the tip of the EoE iceberg. There is increasing evidence that the inflammation and remodeling aspects of EoE extend beneath the mucosa. If you “dig a little deeper” and sample the subepithelial space, a different face of EoE emerges, with eosinophilic inflammation and fibrosis in EoE that are distinct from GERD. This subepithelial remodeling forms the basis for the strictures and narrow caliber esophagus that are major complications of EoE.

Treatment of EoE involves a multifaceted approach that includes medications, dietary therapy, and esophageal dilation. No drugs have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for EoE. Off-label use of topical corticosteroids are a mainstay of therapy, with 10 double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials demonstrating efficacy for both histology and symptoms. Novel therapeutic approaches to EoE are targeting allergic cytokine mediators including interleukin-4, 5, and 13 with promising results. The role of biologic therapies in the management of EoE is yet undefined but the increasing recognition of steroid-refractory patients as well as potential effects on esophageal remodeling are unmet needs. Diet therapy continues to be an important, first-line option for motivated patients and clinicians, with removal of the six most common food allergens associated with a 70% histologic response in both pediatric and adult studies. Less-restrictive diets have been devised to reduce the need for repeated endoscopies. At the same time, several office-based tests of disease activity are undergoing validation, including the esophageal string test, Cytosponge, mucosal impedance, transnasal endoscopy, and confocal microscopy capsule. These technologies will lead to fewer endoscopies and may shift EoE management to the primary care or allergist’s office.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that EoE is not a “GI disease,” but one that is best managed by a multifaceted approach that integrates allergists, immunologists, pathologists, radiologists, dietitians, patient advocacy, and epidemiologists who are confronting this new disease. The Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers, funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network, is an example of a multidisciplinary collaboration that addresses fundamental questions regarding the natural history and optimal management of EoE.
 

Dr. Hirano is a professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Northwestern University, Chicago. He has received grant support from the NIH Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR, U54 AI117804). CEGIR is also supported by patient advocacy groups including the American Partnership for Eosinophilic Disorders, the CURED Foundation, and the Eosinophilic Family Coalition. Dr. Hirano has received consulting fees and research funding from Celgene, Regeneron, and Shire among others. Dr. Hirano made his comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the Annual Digestive Disease Week.

A dramatic rise in the recognition of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has followed the case series by Stephen Attwood, MD, and Alex Straumann, MD, which first characterized the disease 25 years ago. While still a young disease, EoE has evolved from esoterica to a leading cause of dysphagia and food impaction worldwide (Gastroenterology. 2018 Jan;154[2]:319-32.). The typical face of EoE is a 30- to 40-year-old white man, but EoE afflicts both men and women of all ages and ethnic groups.

Guidelines prior to 2017 excluded proton pump inhibitor–responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPIREE) from a formal diagnosis of EoE. The last decade, however, has witnessed the rise of fall of PPIREE, which was first reported in 2006 in a case series of three pediatric patients with presentations consistent with EoE, but symptom and histologic resolution after treatment with omeprazole. At the time, these cases were viewed as rare curiosities. Subsequent to a prospective series by Javier Molina-Infante, MD, in 2011, however, multiple studies have demonstrated that 30%-50% of patients suspected of having EoE respond to proton pump inhibitor (PPI). Clearly, PPIREE is not rare. Clinical and translational studies have investigated the phenomenon of PPIREE, noting that EoE and PPIREE share demographic, symptom, endoscopic, and pathologic features as well as biomarker expression and gene profiles that are distinct from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Furthermore, studies have identified intriguing, acid-independent properties of PPIs that inhibit allergic inflammation in cultured EoE cell lines. Together, these clinical and translational studies led to a 2016 European task force recommendation to remove the PPI trial from the diagnostic criteria for EoE (Gut 2016 Mar;65[3]:524-31). At Digestive Disease Week 2017^®, an international consortium sponsored by the International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Researchers (TIGERS) convened in Chicago to review this controversy. The consensus from this meeting was in line with the European position statement. For patients with a clinical presentation suggestive of EoE and esophageal eosinophilia, clinicians should carefully consider non-EoE causes of esophageal eosinophilia but would not be required to use PPIs to establish a diagnosis of EoE.

Assessment of disease activity in EoE has largely focused on counting eosinophils on esophageal biopsies, but the mucosa may be the tip of the EoE iceberg. There is increasing evidence that the inflammation and remodeling aspects of EoE extend beneath the mucosa. If you “dig a little deeper” and sample the subepithelial space, a different face of EoE emerges, with eosinophilic inflammation and fibrosis in EoE that are distinct from GERD. This subepithelial remodeling forms the basis for the strictures and narrow caliber esophagus that are major complications of EoE.

Treatment of EoE involves a multifaceted approach that includes medications, dietary therapy, and esophageal dilation. No drugs have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for EoE. Off-label use of topical corticosteroids are a mainstay of therapy, with 10 double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials demonstrating efficacy for both histology and symptoms. Novel therapeutic approaches to EoE are targeting allergic cytokine mediators including interleukin-4, 5, and 13 with promising results. The role of biologic therapies in the management of EoE is yet undefined but the increasing recognition of steroid-refractory patients as well as potential effects on esophageal remodeling are unmet needs. Diet therapy continues to be an important, first-line option for motivated patients and clinicians, with removal of the six most common food allergens associated with a 70% histologic response in both pediatric and adult studies. Less-restrictive diets have been devised to reduce the need for repeated endoscopies. At the same time, several office-based tests of disease activity are undergoing validation, including the esophageal string test, Cytosponge, mucosal impedance, transnasal endoscopy, and confocal microscopy capsule. These technologies will lead to fewer endoscopies and may shift EoE management to the primary care or allergist’s office.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that EoE is not a “GI disease,” but one that is best managed by a multifaceted approach that integrates allergists, immunologists, pathologists, radiologists, dietitians, patient advocacy, and epidemiologists who are confronting this new disease. The Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers, funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network, is an example of a multidisciplinary collaboration that addresses fundamental questions regarding the natural history and optimal management of EoE.
 

Dr. Hirano is a professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Northwestern University, Chicago. He has received grant support from the NIH Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR, U54 AI117804). CEGIR is also supported by patient advocacy groups including the American Partnership for Eosinophilic Disorders, the CURED Foundation, and the Eosinophilic Family Coalition. Dr. Hirano has received consulting fees and research funding from Celgene, Regeneron, and Shire among others. Dr. Hirano made his comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the Annual Digestive Disease Week.

A dramatic rise in the recognition of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has followed the case series by Stephen Attwood, MD, and Alex Straumann, MD, which first characterized the disease 25 years ago. While still a young disease, EoE has evolved from esoterica to a leading cause of dysphagia and food impaction worldwide (Gastroenterology. 2018 Jan;154[2]:319-32.). The typical face of EoE is a 30- to 40-year-old white man, but EoE afflicts both men and women of all ages and ethnic groups.

Guidelines prior to 2017 excluded proton pump inhibitor–responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPIREE) from a formal diagnosis of EoE. The last decade, however, has witnessed the rise of fall of PPIREE, which was first reported in 2006 in a case series of three pediatric patients with presentations consistent with EoE, but symptom and histologic resolution after treatment with omeprazole. At the time, these cases were viewed as rare curiosities. Subsequent to a prospective series by Javier Molina-Infante, MD, in 2011, however, multiple studies have demonstrated that 30%-50% of patients suspected of having EoE respond to proton pump inhibitor (PPI). Clearly, PPIREE is not rare. Clinical and translational studies have investigated the phenomenon of PPIREE, noting that EoE and PPIREE share demographic, symptom, endoscopic, and pathologic features as well as biomarker expression and gene profiles that are distinct from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Furthermore, studies have identified intriguing, acid-independent properties of PPIs that inhibit allergic inflammation in cultured EoE cell lines. Together, these clinical and translational studies led to a 2016 European task force recommendation to remove the PPI trial from the diagnostic criteria for EoE (Gut 2016 Mar;65[3]:524-31). At Digestive Disease Week 2017^®, an international consortium sponsored by the International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Researchers (TIGERS) convened in Chicago to review this controversy. The consensus from this meeting was in line with the European position statement. For patients with a clinical presentation suggestive of EoE and esophageal eosinophilia, clinicians should carefully consider non-EoE causes of esophageal eosinophilia but would not be required to use PPIs to establish a diagnosis of EoE.

Assessment of disease activity in EoE has largely focused on counting eosinophils on esophageal biopsies, but the mucosa may be the tip of the EoE iceberg. There is increasing evidence that the inflammation and remodeling aspects of EoE extend beneath the mucosa. If you “dig a little deeper” and sample the subepithelial space, a different face of EoE emerges, with eosinophilic inflammation and fibrosis in EoE that are distinct from GERD. This subepithelial remodeling forms the basis for the strictures and narrow caliber esophagus that are major complications of EoE.

Treatment of EoE involves a multifaceted approach that includes medications, dietary therapy, and esophageal dilation. No drugs have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for EoE. Off-label use of topical corticosteroids are a mainstay of therapy, with 10 double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials demonstrating efficacy for both histology and symptoms. Novel therapeutic approaches to EoE are targeting allergic cytokine mediators including interleukin-4, 5, and 13 with promising results. The role of biologic therapies in the management of EoE is yet undefined but the increasing recognition of steroid-refractory patients as well as potential effects on esophageal remodeling are unmet needs. Diet therapy continues to be an important, first-line option for motivated patients and clinicians, with removal of the six most common food allergens associated with a 70% histologic response in both pediatric and adult studies. Less-restrictive diets have been devised to reduce the need for repeated endoscopies. At the same time, several office-based tests of disease activity are undergoing validation, including the esophageal string test, Cytosponge, mucosal impedance, transnasal endoscopy, and confocal microscopy capsule. These technologies will lead to fewer endoscopies and may shift EoE management to the primary care or allergist’s office.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that EoE is not a “GI disease,” but one that is best managed by a multifaceted approach that integrates allergists, immunologists, pathologists, radiologists, dietitians, patient advocacy, and epidemiologists who are confronting this new disease. The Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers, funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network, is an example of a multidisciplinary collaboration that addresses fundamental questions regarding the natural history and optimal management of EoE.
 

Dr. Hirano is a professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Northwestern University, Chicago. He has received grant support from the NIH Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR, U54 AI117804). CEGIR is also supported by patient advocacy groups including the American Partnership for Eosinophilic Disorders, the CURED Foundation, and the Eosinophilic Family Coalition. Dr. Hirano has received consulting fees and research funding from Celgene, Regeneron, and Shire among others. Dr. Hirano made his comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the Annual Digestive Disease Week.

In my introductory comments to the practice management section last year, I wrote about cultivating competencies for value-based care. One of the key competencies was patient centeredness. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient experience measures specifically were highlighted as examples of meaningful tools for achieving patient centeredness. Starting with this month’s contribution by Drs Reed and Dellon on PROs in esophageal disease, we begin a series of articles focused on this important construct. We will follow this article with reports focused on PRO for patients with irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, and chronic liver disease. These reports will not only review the importance of PROs, but also highlight the most practical approaches to measuring disease-specific PROs in clinical practice all with the goal of improving the care of our patients.
Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF, Special Section Editor
 

Patients seek medical care for symptoms affecting their quality of life,¹ and this is particularly true of digestive diseases, in which many common conditions are symptom predominant. However, clinician and patient perception of symptoms often conflict,² and formalized measurement tools may have a role for optimizing symptom assessment. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) directly capture patients’ health status from their own perspectives and can bridge the divide between patient and provider interpretation. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines PROs as “any report of the status of a patient’s health condition that comes directly from the patient without interpretation of the patient’s response by a clinician or anyone else.”³

For the clinical assessment of esophageal diseases, existing physiologic and structural testing modalities cannot ascertain patient disease perception or measure the impact of symptoms on health care–associated quality of life. In contrast, by capturing patient-centric data, PROs can provide insight into the psychosocial aspects of patient disease perceptions; capture health-related quality of life (HRQL); improve provider understanding; highlight discordance between physiologic, symptom, and HRQL measures; and formalize follow-up evaluation of treatment response.^1,4 Following up symptoms such as dysphagia or heartburn over time in a structured way allows clinically obtained data to be used in pragmatic or comparative effectiveness studies. PROs are now an integral part of the FDA’s drug approval process.

In this article, we review the available PROs capturing esophageal symptoms with a focus on dysphagia and heartburn measures that were developed with rigorous methodology; it is beyond the scope of this article to perform a thorough review of all upper gastrointestinal (GI) PROs or quality-of-life PROs. We then discuss how esophageal PROs may be incorporated into clinical practice now, as well as opportunities for PRO use in the future.
 

Esophageal symptom-specific patient-reported outcomes

The literature pertinent to upper GI and esophageal-specific PROs is heterogeneous, and the development of PROs has been variable in rigor. Two recent systematic reviews identified PROs pertinent to dysphagia and heartburn (Table 1) and both emphasized rigorous measures developed in accordance with FDA guidance.³

Patel et al⁵ identified 34 dysphagia-specific PRO measures, of which 10 were rigorously developed (Table 1). These measures encompassed multiple conditions including esophageal cancer (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Esophageal Cancer Subscale, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life with esophageal Cancer 25 items, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life with esophageal cancer 18 items, upper aerodigestive neoplasm-attributable oropharyngeal dysphagia [M.D. Anderson dysphagia inventory], mechanical and neuromyogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia [swallow quality-of-life questionnaire], Sydney Swallow Questionnaire, [swallowing quality of care], achalasia [Measure of Achalasia Disease Severity], eosinophilic esophagitis [Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire], and general dysphagia symptoms and gastroesophageal reflux [Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Gastrointestinal Symptom Scales (PROMIS-GI)]. PROMIS-GI, produced as part of the National Institutes of Health PROMIS program, includes rigorous measures for general dysphagia symptoms and gastroesophageal reflux in addition to lower gastrointestinal symptom measures.

The systematic review by Vakil et al⁶ found 15 PRO measures for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms that underwent psychometric evaluation (Table 1). Of these, 5 measures were devised according to the developmental steps stipulated by the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency, and each measure has been used as an end point for a clinical trial. The 5 measures include the GERD Symptom Assessment Scale, the Nocturnal Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Severity and Impact Questionnaire, the Reflux Questionnaire, the Reflux Disease Questionnaire, and the Proton Pump Inhibitor Acid Suppression Symptom Test (Table 1). Additional PROs capturing esophageal symptoms include the eosinophilic esophagitis symptom activity index, Eckardt score (used for achalasia), Mayo dysphagia questionnaire, and GERD-Q (Table 1).

Utilization of esophageal patient-reported outcomes in practice

Before incorporating a PRO into clinical practice, providers must appreciate the construct(s), intent, developmental measurement properties, validation strategies, and responsiveness characteristics associated with the measure.⁴ PROs can be symptom- and/or condition-specific. For example, this could include dysphagia associated with achalasia or eosinophilic esophagitis, postoperative dysphagia from spine surgery, or general dysphagia symptoms regardless of the etiology (Table 1). Intent refers to the context in which a PRO should be used and generally is stratified into 3 areas: population surveillance, individual patient-clinician interactions, and research studies.⁴ A thorough analysis of PRO developmental properties exceeds the scope of this article. However, several key considerations are worth discussing. Each measure should clearly delineate the construct, or outcome, in addition to the population used to create the measure (eg, patients with achalasia). PROs should be assessed for reliability, construct validity, and content validity. Reliability pertains to the degree in which scores are free from measurement error, the extent to which items (ie, questions) correlate, and test–retest reliability. Construct validity includes dimensionality (evidence of whether a single or multiple subscales exist in the measure), responsiveness to change (longitudinal validity), and convergent validity (correlation with additional construct-specific measures). Central to the PRO development process is the involvement of patients and content experts (content validity). PRO measures should be readily interpretable, and the handling of missing items should be stipulated. The burden, or time required for administering and scoring the instrument, and the reading level of the PRO need to be considered.⁸ In short, a PRO should measure something important to patients, in a way that patients can understand, and in a way that accurately reflects the underlying symptom and disease.

Although PROs traditionally represent a method for gathering data for research, they also should be viewed as a means of improving clinical care. The monitoring of change in a particular construct represents a common application of PROs in clinical practice. This helps quantify the efficacy of an intervention and can provide insight into the comparative effectiveness of alternative therapies. For example, in a patient with an esophageal stricture, a dysphagia-specific measure could be used at baseline before an endoscopy and dilation, in follow-up evaluation after dilation, and then as a monitoring tool to determine when repeat dilation may be needed. Similarly, the Eckardt score has been used commonly to monitor response to achalasia treatments. Clinicians also may use PROs in real time to optimize patient management. The data gathered from PROs may help triage patients into treatment pathways, trigger follow-up appointments, supply patient education prompts, and produce patient and provider alerts.⁸ For providers engaging in clinical research, PROs administered at the point of patient intake, whether electronically through a patient portal or in the clinic, provide a means of gathering baseline data.⁹ A key question, however, is whether it is practical to use a PRO routinely in the clinic, esophageal function laboratory, or endoscopy suite.

These practical issues include cultivating a conducive environment for PRO utilization, considering the burden of the measure on the patient, and utilization of the results in an expedient manner.⁹ To promote seamless use of a PRO in clinical work-flows, a multimodal means of collecting PRO data should be arranged. Electronic PROs available through a patient portal, designed with a user-friendly and intuitive interface, facilitate patient completion of PROs at their convenience, and ideally before a clinical or procedure visit. For patients without access to the internet, tablets and/or computer terminals within the office are convenient options. Nurses or clinic staff also could help patients complete a PRO during check-in for clinic, esophageal testing, or endoscopy. The burden a PRO imposes on patients also limits the utility of a measure. For instance, PROs with a small number of questions are more likely to be completed, while scales consisting of 30 of more items are infrequently finished. Clinicians also should consider how they plan to use the results of a PRO before implementing one; if the data will not be used, then the effort to implement and collect it will be wasted. Moreover, patients will anticipate that the time required to complete a PRO will translate to an impact on their management plan and will more readily complete additional PROs if previous measures expediently affected their care.⁹

Barriers to patient-reported outcome implementation and future directions

Given the potential benefits to PRO use, why are they not implemented routinely? In practice, there are multiple barriers that thwart the adoption of PROs into both health care systems and individual practices. The integration of PROs into large health care systems languishes partly because of technological and operational barriers.⁹ For instance, the manual distribution, collection, and transcription of handwritten information requires substantial investitures of time, which is magnified by the number of patients whose care is provided within a large health system. One approach to the technological barrier includes the creation of an electronic platform integrating with patient portals. Such a platform would obviate the need to manually collect and transcribe documents, and could import data directly into provider documentation and flowsheets. However, the programming time and costs are substantial upfront, and without clear data that this could lead to improved outcomes or decreased costs downstream there may be reluctance to devote resources to this. In clinical practice, the already significant demands on providers’ time mitigates enthusiasm to add additional tasks. Providers also could face annual licensing agreements, fees on a per-study basis, or royalties associated with particular PROs, and at the individual practice level, there may not be appropriate expertise to select and implement routine PRO monitoring. To address this, efforts are being made to simplify the process of incorporating PROs. For example, given the relatively large number of heterogeneous PROs, the PROMIS project1 endeavors to clarify which PROs constitute the best measure for each construct and condition.⁹ The PROMIS measures also are provided publicly and are available without license or fee.

Areas particularly well situated for growth in the use of PRO measures include comparative effectiveness studies and pragmatic clinical trials. PRO-derived data may promote a shift from explanatory randomized controlled trials to pragmatic randomized controlled trials because these data emphasize patient-centered care and are more broadly generalizable to clinical settings. Furthermore, the derivation of data directly from the health care delivery system through PROs, such as two-way text messages, increases the relevance and cost effectiveness of clinical trials. Given the current medical climate, pressures continue to mount to identify cost-efficient and efficacious medical therapies.¹⁰ In this capacity, PROs facilitate the understanding of changes in HRQL domains subject to treatment choices. PROs further consider the comparative symptom burden and side effects associated with competing treatment strategies.¹¹ Finally, PROs also have enabled the procurement of data from patient-powered research networks. Although this concept has not yet been applied to esophageal diseases, one example of this in the GI field is the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America Partners project, which has built an internet cohort consisting of approximately 14,200 inflammatory bowel disease patients who are monitored with a series of PROs.¹² An endeavor such as this should be a model for esophageal conditions in the future.
 

Conclusions

PROs, as a structured means of directly assessing symptoms, help facilitate a provider’s understanding from a patient’s perspectives. Multiple PROs have been developed to characterize constructs pertinent to esophageal diseases and symptoms. These vary in methodologic rigor, but multiple well-constructed PROs exist for symptom domains such as dysphagia and heartburn, and can be used to monitor symptoms over time and assess treatment efficacy. Implementation of esophageal PROs, both in large health systems and in routine clinical practice, is not yet standard and faces a number of barriers. However, the potential benefits are substantial and include increased patient-centeredness, more accurate and timely disease monitoring, and applicability to comparative effectiveness studies, pragmatic clinical trials, and patient-powered research networks.
 

References

1. Spiegel B., Hays R., Bolus R., et al. Development of the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) gastrointestinal symptom scales. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1804-14.

2. Chassany O., Shaheen N.J., Karlsson M., et al. Systematic review: symptom assessment using patient-reported outcomes in gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2012;47:1412-21.

3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79. Available from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034633%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC1629006

Accessed May 23, 2017

4. Lipscomb J. Cancer outcomes research and the arenas of application. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;2004:1-7.

5. Patel D.A., Sharda R., Hovis K.L., et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in dysphagia: a systematic review of instrument development and validation. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30:1-23.

6. Vakil N.B., Halling K., Becher A., et al. Systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments for gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25:2-14.

7. Bedell A., Taft T.H., Keefer L. Development of the Northwestern Esophageal Quality of Life Scale: a hybrid measure for use across esophageal conditions. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:493-9.

8. Farnik M., Pierzchala W. Instrument development and evaluation for patient-related outcomes assessments. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2012;3:1-7.

9. Wagle N.W.. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). N Engl J Med Catal. 2016; :1-2. Available from:

http://catalyst.nejm.org/implementing-proms-patient-reported-outcome-measures/. Accessed July 14, 2017

10. Richesson R.L., Hammond W.E., Nahm M., et al. Electronic health records based phenotyping in next-generation clinical trials: a perspective from the NIH Health Care Systems Collaboratory. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2013;20: e226-e231.

11. Coon C.D., McLeod L.D. Patient-reported outcomes: current perspectives and future directions. Clin Ther. 2013;35:399-401.

12. Chung A.E., Sandler R.S., Long M.D., et al. Harnessing person-generated health data to accelerate patient-centered outcomes research: The Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America PCORnet Patient Powered Research Network (CCFA Partners)

J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2016;23:485-90.

13. Darling G., Eton D.T., Sulman J., et al. Validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy esophageal cancer subscale. Cancer. 2006;107:854-63.

14. Lagergren P., Fayers P., Conroy T., et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OG25, to assess health-related quality of life in patients with cancer of the oesophagus, the oesophago-gastric junction and the stomach. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:2066-73.

15. Blazeby J.M., Conroy T., Hammerlid E., et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of an EORTC questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OES18, to assess quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1384-94.

16. Chen A.Y., Frankowski R., Bishop-Leone J., et al. The development and validation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer: the M. D. Anderson dysphagia inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:870-6.

17. McHorney C.A., Bricker D.E., Robbins J., et al. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: II. item reduction and preliminary scaling. Dysphagia. 2000;15:122-33.

18. Wallace K.L., Middleton S., Cook I.J. Development and validation of a self-report symptom inventory to assess the severity of oral-pharyngeal dysphagia. Gastroenterology. 2000;118:678-87.

19. McHorney C.A., Robbins J.A., Lomax K., et al. The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: III. Documentation of reliability and validity. Dysphagia. 2002;17:97-114.

20. Urbach D.R., Tomlinson G.A., Harnish J.L., et al. A measure of disease-specific health-related quality of life for achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1668-76.

21. Eckardt V., Aignherr C., Bernhard G. Predictors of outcome in patients with achalasia treated by pneumatic dilation. Gastroenterology. 1992;103:1732-8.

22. Dellon E.S., Irani A.M., Hill M.R., et al. Development and field testing of a novel patient-reported outcome measure of dysphagia in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:634-42.

23. Franciosi J.P., Hommel K., DeBrosse C.W., et al. Development of a validated patient-reported symptom metric for pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis: qualitative methods. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011;11:126.

24. Schoepfer A.M., Straumann A., Panczak R., et al. Development and validation of a symptom-based activity index for adults with eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2014;147:1-24.

25. Grudell A.B., Alexander J.A., Enders F.B., et al. Validation of the Mayo Dysphagia Questionnaire. Dis Esophagus. 2007;20:202-5.

26. Rothman M., Farup C., Steward W., et al. Symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease: Development of a questionnaire for use in clinical trials. Dig Dis Sci. 2001;46:1540-9.

27. Spiegel B.M., Roberts L., Mody R., et al. The development and validation of a nocturnal gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptom severity and impact questionnaire for adults. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;32:591-602.

28. Bardhan K.D., Stanghellini V., Armstrong D., et al. International validation of ReQuest in patients with endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:891-8.

29. Van Zanten S.V., Armstrong D., Barkun A., et al. Symptom overlap in patients with upper gastrointestinal complaints in the Canadian confirmatory acid suppression test (CAST) study: Further psychometric validation of the reflux disease questionnaire. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25:1087-97.

30. Armstrong D., Moayyedi P., Hunt R., et al. M1870 resolution of persistent GERD symptoms after a change in therapy: EncomPASS - a cluster-randomized study in primary care. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(Suppl 1):A-435.

31. Jones R., Junghard O., Dent J., et al. Developement of the GerdQ, a tool for the diagnosis and management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;30:1030-8.


Dr. Reed is a senior fellow and Dr. Dillon is an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill. Dr. Dellon has received research funding from Adare, Allakos, GSK, Meritage, Miraca, Nutricia, Celgene/Receptos, Regeneron, and Shire; he has been a consultant for Adare, Alivio, Allakos, AstraZeneca, Banner, Calypso, Enumeral, EsoCap, Celgene/Receptos, GSK, Regeneron, Robarts, and Shire; and has received an educational grant from Banner and Holoclara.

In my introductory comments to the practice management section last year, I wrote about cultivating competencies for value-based care. One of the key competencies was patient centeredness. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient experience measures specifically were highlighted as examples of meaningful tools for achieving patient centeredness. Starting with this month’s contribution by Drs Reed and Dellon on PROs in esophageal disease, we begin a series of articles focused on this important construct. We will follow this article with reports focused on PRO for patients with irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, and chronic liver disease. These reports will not only review the importance of PROs, but also highlight the most practical approaches to measuring disease-specific PROs in clinical practice all with the goal of improving the care of our patients.
Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF, Special Section Editor
 

Patients seek medical care for symptoms affecting their quality of life,¹ and this is particularly true of digestive diseases, in which many common conditions are symptom predominant. However, clinician and patient perception of symptoms often conflict,² and formalized measurement tools may have a role for optimizing symptom assessment. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) directly capture patients’ health status from their own perspectives and can bridge the divide between patient and provider interpretation. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines PROs as “any report of the status of a patient’s health condition that comes directly from the patient without interpretation of the patient’s response by a clinician or anyone else.”³

For the clinical assessment of esophageal diseases, existing physiologic and structural testing modalities cannot ascertain patient disease perception or measure the impact of symptoms on health care–associated quality of life. In contrast, by capturing patient-centric data, PROs can provide insight into the psychosocial aspects of patient disease perceptions; capture health-related quality of life (HRQL); improve provider understanding; highlight discordance between physiologic, symptom, and HRQL measures; and formalize follow-up evaluation of treatment response.^1,4 Following up symptoms such as dysphagia or heartburn over time in a structured way allows clinically obtained data to be used in pragmatic or comparative effectiveness studies. PROs are now an integral part of the FDA’s drug approval process.

In this article, we review the available PROs capturing esophageal symptoms with a focus on dysphagia and heartburn measures that were developed with rigorous methodology; it is beyond the scope of this article to perform a thorough review of all upper gastrointestinal (GI) PROs or quality-of-life PROs. We then discuss how esophageal PROs may be incorporated into clinical practice now, as well as opportunities for PRO use in the future.
 

Esophageal symptom-specific patient-reported outcomes

The literature pertinent to upper GI and esophageal-specific PROs is heterogeneous, and the development of PROs has been variable in rigor. Two recent systematic reviews identified PROs pertinent to dysphagia and heartburn (Table 1) and both emphasized rigorous measures developed in accordance with FDA guidance.³

Patel et al⁵ identified 34 dysphagia-specific PRO measures, of which 10 were rigorously developed (Table 1). These measures encompassed multiple conditions including esophageal cancer (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Esophageal Cancer Subscale, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life with esophageal Cancer 25 items, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life with esophageal cancer 18 items, upper aerodigestive neoplasm-attributable oropharyngeal dysphagia [M.D. Anderson dysphagia inventory], mechanical and neuromyogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia [swallow quality-of-life questionnaire], Sydney Swallow Questionnaire, [swallowing quality of care], achalasia [Measure of Achalasia Disease Severity], eosinophilic esophagitis [Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire], and general dysphagia symptoms and gastroesophageal reflux [Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Gastrointestinal Symptom Scales (PROMIS-GI)]. PROMIS-GI, produced as part of the National Institutes of Health PROMIS program, includes rigorous measures for general dysphagia symptoms and gastroesophageal reflux in addition to lower gastrointestinal symptom measures.

The systematic review by Vakil et al⁶ found 15 PRO measures for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms that underwent psychometric evaluation (Table 1). Of these, 5 measures were devised according to the developmental steps stipulated by the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency, and each measure has been used as an end point for a clinical trial. The 5 measures include the GERD Symptom Assessment Scale, the Nocturnal Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Severity and Impact Questionnaire, the Reflux Questionnaire, the Reflux Disease Questionnaire, and the Proton Pump Inhibitor Acid Suppression Symptom Test (Table 1). Additional PROs capturing esophageal symptoms include the eosinophilic esophagitis symptom activity index, Eckardt score (used for achalasia), Mayo dysphagia questionnaire, and GERD-Q (Table 1).

Utilization of esophageal patient-reported outcomes in practice

Before incorporating a PRO into clinical practice, providers must appreciate the construct(s), intent, developmental measurement properties, validation strategies, and responsiveness characteristics associated with the measure.⁴ PROs can be symptom- and/or condition-specific. For example, this could include dysphagia associated with achalasia or eosinophilic esophagitis, postoperative dysphagia from spine surgery, or general dysphagia symptoms regardless of the etiology (Table 1). Intent refers to the context in which a PRO should be used and generally is stratified into 3 areas: population surveillance, individual patient-clinician interactions, and research studies.⁴ A thorough analysis of PRO developmental properties exceeds the scope of this article. However, several key considerations are worth discussing. Each measure should clearly delineate the construct, or outcome, in addition to the population used to create the measure (eg, patients with achalasia). PROs should be assessed for reliability, construct validity, and content validity. Reliability pertains to the degree in which scores are free from measurement error, the extent to which items (ie, questions) correlate, and test–retest reliability. Construct validity includes dimensionality (evidence of whether a single or multiple subscales exist in the measure), responsiveness to change (longitudinal validity), and convergent validity (correlation with additional construct-specific measures). Central to the PRO development process is the involvement of patients and content experts (content validity). PRO measures should be readily interpretable, and the handling of missing items should be stipulated. The burden, or time required for administering and scoring the instrument, and the reading level of the PRO need to be considered.⁸ In short, a PRO should measure something important to patients, in a way that patients can understand, and in a way that accurately reflects the underlying symptom and disease.

Although PROs traditionally represent a method for gathering data for research, they also should be viewed as a means of improving clinical care. The monitoring of change in a particular construct represents a common application of PROs in clinical practice. This helps quantify the efficacy of an intervention and can provide insight into the comparative effectiveness of alternative therapies. For example, in a patient with an esophageal stricture, a dysphagia-specific measure could be used at baseline before an endoscopy and dilation, in follow-up evaluation after dilation, and then as a monitoring tool to determine when repeat dilation may be needed. Similarly, the Eckardt score has been used commonly to monitor response to achalasia treatments. Clinicians also may use PROs in real time to optimize patient management. The data gathered from PROs may help triage patients into treatment pathways, trigger follow-up appointments, supply patient education prompts, and produce patient and provider alerts.⁸ For providers engaging in clinical research, PROs administered at the point of patient intake, whether electronically through a patient portal or in the clinic, provide a means of gathering baseline data.⁹ A key question, however, is whether it is practical to use a PRO routinely in the clinic, esophageal function laboratory, or endoscopy suite.

These practical issues include cultivating a conducive environment for PRO utilization, considering the burden of the measure on the patient, and utilization of the results in an expedient manner.⁹ To promote seamless use of a PRO in clinical work-flows, a multimodal means of collecting PRO data should be arranged. Electronic PROs available through a patient portal, designed with a user-friendly and intuitive interface, facilitate patient completion of PROs at their convenience, and ideally before a clinical or procedure visit. For patients without access to the internet, tablets and/or computer terminals within the office are convenient options. Nurses or clinic staff also could help patients complete a PRO during check-in for clinic, esophageal testing, or endoscopy. The burden a PRO imposes on patients also limits the utility of a measure. For instance, PROs with a small number of questions are more likely to be completed, while scales consisting of 30 of more items are infrequently finished. Clinicians also should consider how they plan to use the results of a PRO before implementing one; if the data will not be used, then the effort to implement and collect it will be wasted. Moreover, patients will anticipate that the time required to complete a PRO will translate to an impact on their management plan and will more readily complete additional PROs if previous measures expediently affected their care.⁹

Barriers to patient-reported outcome implementation and future directions

Given the potential benefits to PRO use, why are they not implemented routinely? In practice, there are multiple barriers that thwart the adoption of PROs into both health care systems and individual practices. The integration of PROs into large health care systems languishes partly because of technological and operational barriers.⁹ For instance, the manual distribution, collection, and transcription of handwritten information requires substantial investitures of time, which is magnified by the number of patients whose care is provided within a large health system. One approach to the technological barrier includes the creation of an electronic platform integrating with patient portals. Such a platform would obviate the need to manually collect and transcribe documents, and could import data directly into provider documentation and flowsheets. However, the programming time and costs are substantial upfront, and without clear data that this could lead to improved outcomes or decreased costs downstream there may be reluctance to devote resources to this. In clinical practice, the already significant demands on providers’ time mitigates enthusiasm to add additional tasks. Providers also could face annual licensing agreements, fees on a per-study basis, or royalties associated with particular PROs, and at the individual practice level, there may not be appropriate expertise to select and implement routine PRO monitoring. To address this, efforts are being made to simplify the process of incorporating PROs. For example, given the relatively large number of heterogeneous PROs, the PROMIS project1 endeavors to clarify which PROs constitute the best measure for each construct and condition.⁹ The PROMIS measures also are provided publicly and are available without license or fee.

Areas particularly well situated for growth in the use of PRO measures include comparative effectiveness studies and pragmatic clinical trials. PRO-derived data may promote a shift from explanatory randomized controlled trials to pragmatic randomized controlled trials because these data emphasize patient-centered care and are more broadly generalizable to clinical settings. Furthermore, the derivation of data directly from the health care delivery system through PROs, such as two-way text messages, increases the relevance and cost effectiveness of clinical trials. Given the current medical climate, pressures continue to mount to identify cost-efficient and efficacious medical therapies.¹⁰ In this capacity, PROs facilitate the understanding of changes in HRQL domains subject to treatment choices. PROs further consider the comparative symptom burden and side effects associated with competing treatment strategies.¹¹ Finally, PROs also have enabled the procurement of data from patient-powered research networks. Although this concept has not yet been applied to esophageal diseases, one example of this in the GI field is the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America Partners project, which has built an internet cohort consisting of approximately 14,200 inflammatory bowel disease patients who are monitored with a series of PROs.¹² An endeavor such as this should be a model for esophageal conditions in the future.
 

Conclusions

PROs, as a structured means of directly assessing symptoms, help facilitate a provider’s understanding from a patient’s perspectives. Multiple PROs have been developed to characterize constructs pertinent to esophageal diseases and symptoms. These vary in methodologic rigor, but multiple well-constructed PROs exist for symptom domains such as dysphagia and heartburn, and can be used to monitor symptoms over time and assess treatment efficacy. Implementation of esophageal PROs, both in large health systems and in routine clinical practice, is not yet standard and faces a number of barriers. However, the potential benefits are substantial and include increased patient-centeredness, more accurate and timely disease monitoring, and applicability to comparative effectiveness studies, pragmatic clinical trials, and patient-powered research networks.
 

References

1. Spiegel B., Hays R., Bolus R., et al. Development of the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) gastrointestinal symptom scales. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1804-14.

2. Chassany O., Shaheen N.J., Karlsson M., et al. Systematic review: symptom assessment using patient-reported outcomes in gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2012;47:1412-21.

3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79. Available from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034633%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC1629006

Accessed May 23, 2017

4. Lipscomb J. Cancer outcomes research and the arenas of application. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;2004:1-7.

5. Patel D.A., Sharda R., Hovis K.L., et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in dysphagia: a systematic review of instrument development and validation. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30:1-23.

6. Vakil N.B., Halling K., Becher A., et al. Systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments for gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25:2-14.

7. Bedell A., Taft T.H., Keefer L. Development of the Northwestern Esophageal Quality of Life Scale: a hybrid measure for use across esophageal conditions. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:493-9.

8. Farnik M., Pierzchala W. Instrument development and evaluation for patient-related outcomes assessments. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2012;3:1-7.

9. Wagle N.W.. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). N Engl J Med Catal. 2016; :1-2. Available from:

http://catalyst.nejm.org/implementing-proms-patient-reported-outcome-measures/. Accessed July 14, 2017

10. Richesson R.L., Hammond W.E., Nahm M., et al. Electronic health records based phenotyping in next-generation clinical trials: a perspective from the NIH Health Care Systems Collaboratory. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2013;20: e226-e231.

11. Coon C.D., McLeod L.D. Patient-reported outcomes: current perspectives and future directions. Clin Ther. 2013;35:399-401.

12. Chung A.E., Sandler R.S., Long M.D., et al. Harnessing person-generated health data to accelerate patient-centered outcomes research: The Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America PCORnet Patient Powered Research Network (CCFA Partners)

J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2016;23:485-90.

13. Darling G., Eton D.T., Sulman J., et al. Validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy esophageal cancer subscale. Cancer. 2006;107:854-63.

14. Lagergren P., Fayers P., Conroy T., et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OG25, to assess health-related quality of life in patients with cancer of the oesophagus, the oesophago-gastric junction and the stomach. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:2066-73.

15. Blazeby J.M., Conroy T., Hammerlid E., et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of an EORTC questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OES18, to assess quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1384-94.

16. Chen A.Y., Frankowski R., Bishop-Leone J., et al. The development and validation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer: the M. D. Anderson dysphagia inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:870-6.

17. McHorney C.A., Bricker D.E., Robbins J., et al. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: II. item reduction and preliminary scaling. Dysphagia. 2000;15:122-33.

18. Wallace K.L., Middleton S., Cook I.J. Development and validation of a self-report symptom inventory to assess the severity of oral-pharyngeal dysphagia. Gastroenterology. 2000;118:678-87.

19. McHorney C.A., Robbins J.A., Lomax K., et al. The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: III. Documentation of reliability and validity. Dysphagia. 2002;17:97-114.

20. Urbach D.R., Tomlinson G.A., Harnish J.L., et al. A measure of disease-specific health-related quality of life for achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1668-76.

21. Eckardt V., Aignherr C., Bernhard G. Predictors of outcome in patients with achalasia treated by pneumatic dilation. Gastroenterology. 1992;103:1732-8.

22. Dellon E.S., Irani A.M., Hill M.R., et al. Development and field testing of a novel patient-reported outcome measure of dysphagia in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:634-42.

23. Franciosi J.P., Hommel K., DeBrosse C.W., et al. Development of a validated patient-reported symptom metric for pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis: qualitative methods. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011;11:126.

24. Schoepfer A.M., Straumann A., Panczak R., et al. Development and validation of a symptom-based activity index for adults with eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2014;147:1-24.

25. Grudell A.B., Alexander J.A., Enders F.B., et al. Validation of the Mayo Dysphagia Questionnaire. Dis Esophagus. 2007;20:202-5.

26. Rothman M., Farup C., Steward W., et al. Symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease: Development of a questionnaire for use in clinical trials. Dig Dis Sci. 2001;46:1540-9.

27. Spiegel B.M., Roberts L., Mody R., et al. The development and validation of a nocturnal gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptom severity and impact questionnaire for adults. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;32:591-602.

28. Bardhan K.D., Stanghellini V., Armstrong D., et al. International validation of ReQuest in patients with endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:891-8.

29. Van Zanten S.V., Armstrong D., Barkun A., et al. Symptom overlap in patients with upper gastrointestinal complaints in the Canadian confirmatory acid suppression test (CAST) study: Further psychometric validation of the reflux disease questionnaire. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25:1087-97.

30. Armstrong D., Moayyedi P., Hunt R., et al. M1870 resolution of persistent GERD symptoms after a change in therapy: EncomPASS - a cluster-randomized study in primary care. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(Suppl 1):A-435.

31. Jones R., Junghard O., Dent J., et al. Developement of the GerdQ, a tool for the diagnosis and management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;30:1030-8.


Dr. Reed is a senior fellow and Dr. Dillon is an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill. Dr. Dellon has received research funding from Adare, Allakos, GSK, Meritage, Miraca, Nutricia, Celgene/Receptos, Regeneron, and Shire; he has been a consultant for Adare, Alivio, Allakos, AstraZeneca, Banner, Calypso, Enumeral, EsoCap, Celgene/Receptos, GSK, Regeneron, Robarts, and Shire; and has received an educational grant from Banner and Holoclara.

In my introductory comments to the practice management section last year, I wrote about cultivating competencies for value-based care. One of the key competencies was patient centeredness. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient experience measures specifically were highlighted as examples of meaningful tools for achieving patient centeredness. Starting with this month’s contribution by Drs Reed and Dellon on PROs in esophageal disease, we begin a series of articles focused on this important construct. We will follow this article with reports focused on PRO for patients with irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, and chronic liver disease. These reports will not only review the importance of PROs, but also highlight the most practical approaches to measuring disease-specific PROs in clinical practice all with the goal of improving the care of our patients.
Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, AGAF, Special Section Editor
 

Patients seek medical care for symptoms affecting their quality of life,¹ and this is particularly true of digestive diseases, in which many common conditions are symptom predominant. However, clinician and patient perception of symptoms often conflict,² and formalized measurement tools may have a role for optimizing symptom assessment. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) directly capture patients’ health status from their own perspectives and can bridge the divide between patient and provider interpretation. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines PROs as “any report of the status of a patient’s health condition that comes directly from the patient without interpretation of the patient’s response by a clinician or anyone else.”³

For the clinical assessment of esophageal diseases, existing physiologic and structural testing modalities cannot ascertain patient disease perception or measure the impact of symptoms on health care–associated quality of life. In contrast, by capturing patient-centric data, PROs can provide insight into the psychosocial aspects of patient disease perceptions; capture health-related quality of life (HRQL); improve provider understanding; highlight discordance between physiologic, symptom, and HRQL measures; and formalize follow-up evaluation of treatment response.^1,4 Following up symptoms such as dysphagia or heartburn over time in a structured way allows clinically obtained data to be used in pragmatic or comparative effectiveness studies. PROs are now an integral part of the FDA’s drug approval process.

In this article, we review the available PROs capturing esophageal symptoms with a focus on dysphagia and heartburn measures that were developed with rigorous methodology; it is beyond the scope of this article to perform a thorough review of all upper gastrointestinal (GI) PROs or quality-of-life PROs. We then discuss how esophageal PROs may be incorporated into clinical practice now, as well as opportunities for PRO use in the future.
 

Esophageal symptom-specific patient-reported outcomes

The literature pertinent to upper GI and esophageal-specific PROs is heterogeneous, and the development of PROs has been variable in rigor. Two recent systematic reviews identified PROs pertinent to dysphagia and heartburn (Table 1) and both emphasized rigorous measures developed in accordance with FDA guidance.³

Patel et al⁵ identified 34 dysphagia-specific PRO measures, of which 10 were rigorously developed (Table 1). These measures encompassed multiple conditions including esophageal cancer (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Esophageal Cancer Subscale, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life with esophageal Cancer 25 items, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life with esophageal cancer 18 items, upper aerodigestive neoplasm-attributable oropharyngeal dysphagia [M.D. Anderson dysphagia inventory], mechanical and neuromyogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia [swallow quality-of-life questionnaire], Sydney Swallow Questionnaire, [swallowing quality of care], achalasia [Measure of Achalasia Disease Severity], eosinophilic esophagitis [Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire], and general dysphagia symptoms and gastroesophageal reflux [Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Gastrointestinal Symptom Scales (PROMIS-GI)]. PROMIS-GI, produced as part of the National Institutes of Health PROMIS program, includes rigorous measures for general dysphagia symptoms and gastroesophageal reflux in addition to lower gastrointestinal symptom measures.

The systematic review by Vakil et al⁶ found 15 PRO measures for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms that underwent psychometric evaluation (Table 1). Of these, 5 measures were devised according to the developmental steps stipulated by the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency, and each measure has been used as an end point for a clinical trial. The 5 measures include the GERD Symptom Assessment Scale, the Nocturnal Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Severity and Impact Questionnaire, the Reflux Questionnaire, the Reflux Disease Questionnaire, and the Proton Pump Inhibitor Acid Suppression Symptom Test (Table 1). Additional PROs capturing esophageal symptoms include the eosinophilic esophagitis symptom activity index, Eckardt score (used for achalasia), Mayo dysphagia questionnaire, and GERD-Q (Table 1).

Utilization of esophageal patient-reported outcomes in practice

Before incorporating a PRO into clinical practice, providers must appreciate the construct(s), intent, developmental measurement properties, validation strategies, and responsiveness characteristics associated with the measure.⁴ PROs can be symptom- and/or condition-specific. For example, this could include dysphagia associated with achalasia or eosinophilic esophagitis, postoperative dysphagia from spine surgery, or general dysphagia symptoms regardless of the etiology (Table 1). Intent refers to the context in which a PRO should be used and generally is stratified into 3 areas: population surveillance, individual patient-clinician interactions, and research studies.⁴ A thorough analysis of PRO developmental properties exceeds the scope of this article. However, several key considerations are worth discussing. Each measure should clearly delineate the construct, or outcome, in addition to the population used to create the measure (eg, patients with achalasia). PROs should be assessed for reliability, construct validity, and content validity. Reliability pertains to the degree in which scores are free from measurement error, the extent to which items (ie, questions) correlate, and test–retest reliability. Construct validity includes dimensionality (evidence of whether a single or multiple subscales exist in the measure), responsiveness to change (longitudinal validity), and convergent validity (correlation with additional construct-specific measures). Central to the PRO development process is the involvement of patients and content experts (content validity). PRO measures should be readily interpretable, and the handling of missing items should be stipulated. The burden, or time required for administering and scoring the instrument, and the reading level of the PRO need to be considered.⁸ In short, a PRO should measure something important to patients, in a way that patients can understand, and in a way that accurately reflects the underlying symptom and disease.

Although PROs traditionally represent a method for gathering data for research, they also should be viewed as a means of improving clinical care. The monitoring of change in a particular construct represents a common application of PROs in clinical practice. This helps quantify the efficacy of an intervention and can provide insight into the comparative effectiveness of alternative therapies. For example, in a patient with an esophageal stricture, a dysphagia-specific measure could be used at baseline before an endoscopy and dilation, in follow-up evaluation after dilation, and then as a monitoring tool to determine when repeat dilation may be needed. Similarly, the Eckardt score has been used commonly to monitor response to achalasia treatments. Clinicians also may use PROs in real time to optimize patient management. The data gathered from PROs may help triage patients into treatment pathways, trigger follow-up appointments, supply patient education prompts, and produce patient and provider alerts.⁸ For providers engaging in clinical research, PROs administered at the point of patient intake, whether electronically through a patient portal or in the clinic, provide a means of gathering baseline data.⁹ A key question, however, is whether it is practical to use a PRO routinely in the clinic, esophageal function laboratory, or endoscopy suite.

These practical issues include cultivating a conducive environment for PRO utilization, considering the burden of the measure on the patient, and utilization of the results in an expedient manner.⁹ To promote seamless use of a PRO in clinical work-flows, a multimodal means of collecting PRO data should be arranged. Electronic PROs available through a patient portal, designed with a user-friendly and intuitive interface, facilitate patient completion of PROs at their convenience, and ideally before a clinical or procedure visit. For patients without access to the internet, tablets and/or computer terminals within the office are convenient options. Nurses or clinic staff also could help patients complete a PRO during check-in for clinic, esophageal testing, or endoscopy. The burden a PRO imposes on patients also limits the utility of a measure. For instance, PROs with a small number of questions are more likely to be completed, while scales consisting of 30 of more items are infrequently finished. Clinicians also should consider how they plan to use the results of a PRO before implementing one; if the data will not be used, then the effort to implement and collect it will be wasted. Moreover, patients will anticipate that the time required to complete a PRO will translate to an impact on their management plan and will more readily complete additional PROs if previous measures expediently affected their care.⁹

Barriers to patient-reported outcome implementation and future directions

Given the potential benefits to PRO use, why are they not implemented routinely? In practice, there are multiple barriers that thwart the adoption of PROs into both health care systems and individual practices. The integration of PROs into large health care systems languishes partly because of technological and operational barriers.⁹ For instance, the manual distribution, collection, and transcription of handwritten information requires substantial investitures of time, which is magnified by the number of patients whose care is provided within a large health system. One approach to the technological barrier includes the creation of an electronic platform integrating with patient portals. Such a platform would obviate the need to manually collect and transcribe documents, and could import data directly into provider documentation and flowsheets. However, the programming time and costs are substantial upfront, and without clear data that this could lead to improved outcomes or decreased costs downstream there may be reluctance to devote resources to this. In clinical practice, the already significant demands on providers’ time mitigates enthusiasm to add additional tasks. Providers also could face annual licensing agreements, fees on a per-study basis, or royalties associated with particular PROs, and at the individual practice level, there may not be appropriate expertise to select and implement routine PRO monitoring. To address this, efforts are being made to simplify the process of incorporating PROs. For example, given the relatively large number of heterogeneous PROs, the PROMIS project1 endeavors to clarify which PROs constitute the best measure for each construct and condition.⁹ The PROMIS measures also are provided publicly and are available without license or fee.

Areas particularly well situated for growth in the use of PRO measures include comparative effectiveness studies and pragmatic clinical trials. PRO-derived data may promote a shift from explanatory randomized controlled trials to pragmatic randomized controlled trials because these data emphasize patient-centered care and are more broadly generalizable to clinical settings. Furthermore, the derivation of data directly from the health care delivery system through PROs, such as two-way text messages, increases the relevance and cost effectiveness of clinical trials. Given the current medical climate, pressures continue to mount to identify cost-efficient and efficacious medical therapies.¹⁰ In this capacity, PROs facilitate the understanding of changes in HRQL domains subject to treatment choices. PROs further consider the comparative symptom burden and side effects associated with competing treatment strategies.¹¹ Finally, PROs also have enabled the procurement of data from patient-powered research networks. Although this concept has not yet been applied to esophageal diseases, one example of this in the GI field is the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America Partners project, which has built an internet cohort consisting of approximately 14,200 inflammatory bowel disease patients who are monitored with a series of PROs.¹² An endeavor such as this should be a model for esophageal conditions in the future.
 

Conclusions

PROs, as a structured means of directly assessing symptoms, help facilitate a provider’s understanding from a patient’s perspectives. Multiple PROs have been developed to characterize constructs pertinent to esophageal diseases and symptoms. These vary in methodologic rigor, but multiple well-constructed PROs exist for symptom domains such as dysphagia and heartburn, and can be used to monitor symptoms over time and assess treatment efficacy. Implementation of esophageal PROs, both in large health systems and in routine clinical practice, is not yet standard and faces a number of barriers. However, the potential benefits are substantial and include increased patient-centeredness, more accurate and timely disease monitoring, and applicability to comparative effectiveness studies, pragmatic clinical trials, and patient-powered research networks.
 

References

1. Spiegel B., Hays R., Bolus R., et al. Development of the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) gastrointestinal symptom scales. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1804-14.

2. Chassany O., Shaheen N.J., Karlsson M., et al. Systematic review: symptom assessment using patient-reported outcomes in gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2012;47:1412-21.

3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79. Available from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034633%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC1629006

Accessed May 23, 2017

4. Lipscomb J. Cancer outcomes research and the arenas of application. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;2004:1-7.

5. Patel D.A., Sharda R., Hovis K.L., et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in dysphagia: a systematic review of instrument development and validation. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30:1-23.

6. Vakil N.B., Halling K., Becher A., et al. Systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments for gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25:2-14.

7. Bedell A., Taft T.H., Keefer L. Development of the Northwestern Esophageal Quality of Life Scale: a hybrid measure for use across esophageal conditions. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:493-9.

8. Farnik M., Pierzchala W. Instrument development and evaluation for patient-related outcomes assessments. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2012;3:1-7.

9. Wagle N.W.. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). N Engl J Med Catal. 2016; :1-2. Available from:

http://catalyst.nejm.org/implementing-proms-patient-reported-outcome-measures/. Accessed July 14, 2017

10. Richesson R.L., Hammond W.E., Nahm M., et al. Electronic health records based phenotyping in next-generation clinical trials: a perspective from the NIH Health Care Systems Collaboratory. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2013;20: e226-e231.

11. Coon C.D., McLeod L.D. Patient-reported outcomes: current perspectives and future directions. Clin Ther. 2013;35:399-401.

12. Chung A.E., Sandler R.S., Long M.D., et al. Harnessing person-generated health data to accelerate patient-centered outcomes research: The Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America PCORnet Patient Powered Research Network (CCFA Partners)

J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2016;23:485-90.

13. Darling G., Eton D.T., Sulman J., et al. Validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy esophageal cancer subscale. Cancer. 2006;107:854-63.

14. Lagergren P., Fayers P., Conroy T., et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OG25, to assess health-related quality of life in patients with cancer of the oesophagus, the oesophago-gastric junction and the stomach. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:2066-73.

15. Blazeby J.M., Conroy T., Hammerlid E., et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of an EORTC questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OES18, to assess quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1384-94.

16. Chen A.Y., Frankowski R., Bishop-Leone J., et al. The development and validation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer: the M. D. Anderson dysphagia inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:870-6.

17. McHorney C.A., Bricker D.E., Robbins J., et al. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: II. item reduction and preliminary scaling. Dysphagia. 2000;15:122-33.

18. Wallace K.L., Middleton S., Cook I.J. Development and validation of a self-report symptom inventory to assess the severity of oral-pharyngeal dysphagia. Gastroenterology. 2000;118:678-87.

19. McHorney C.A., Robbins J.A., Lomax K., et al. The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: III. Documentation of reliability and validity. Dysphagia. 2002;17:97-114.

20. Urbach D.R., Tomlinson G.A., Harnish J.L., et al. A measure of disease-specific health-related quality of life for achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1668-76.

21. Eckardt V., Aignherr C., Bernhard G. Predictors of outcome in patients with achalasia treated by pneumatic dilation. Gastroenterology. 1992;103:1732-8.

22. Dellon E.S., Irani A.M., Hill M.R., et al. Development and field testing of a novel patient-reported outcome measure of dysphagia in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:634-42.

23. Franciosi J.P., Hommel K., DeBrosse C.W., et al. Development of a validated patient-reported symptom metric for pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis: qualitative methods. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011;11:126.

24. Schoepfer A.M., Straumann A., Panczak R., et al. Development and validation of a symptom-based activity index for adults with eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2014;147:1-24.

25. Grudell A.B., Alexander J.A., Enders F.B., et al. Validation of the Mayo Dysphagia Questionnaire. Dis Esophagus. 2007;20:202-5.

26. Rothman M., Farup C., Steward W., et al. Symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease: Development of a questionnaire for use in clinical trials. Dig Dis Sci. 2001;46:1540-9.

27. Spiegel B.M., Roberts L., Mody R., et al. The development and validation of a nocturnal gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptom severity and impact questionnaire for adults. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;32:591-602.

28. Bardhan K.D., Stanghellini V., Armstrong D., et al. International validation of ReQuest in patients with endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:891-8.

29. Van Zanten S.V., Armstrong D., Barkun A., et al. Symptom overlap in patients with upper gastrointestinal complaints in the Canadian confirmatory acid suppression test (CAST) study: Further psychometric validation of the reflux disease questionnaire. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25:1087-97.

30. Armstrong D., Moayyedi P., Hunt R., et al. M1870 resolution of persistent GERD symptoms after a change in therapy: EncomPASS - a cluster-randomized study in primary care. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(Suppl 1):A-435.

31. Jones R., Junghard O., Dent J., et al. Developement of the GerdQ, a tool for the diagnosis and management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;30:1030-8.


Dr. Reed is a senior fellow and Dr. Dillon is an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill. Dr. Dellon has received research funding from Adare, Allakos, GSK, Meritage, Miraca, Nutricia, Celgene/Receptos, Regeneron, and Shire; he has been a consultant for Adare, Alivio, Allakos, AstraZeneca, Banner, Calypso, Enumeral, EsoCap, Celgene/Receptos, GSK, Regeneron, Robarts, and Shire; and has received an educational grant from Banner and Holoclara.