Is a 2-day course of oral dexamethasone more effective than 5 days of oral prednisone in improving symptoms and preventing relapse in children with acute asthma?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Is a 2-day course of oral dexamethasone more effective than 5 days of oral prednisone in improving symptoms and preventing relapse in children with acute asthma?

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone, a long-acting corticosteroid successfully used in acute treatment of croup, may prevent more relapses than prednisone in asthmatic children.

POPULATION STUDIED: The authors studied known asthmatic persons (defined by 2 or more episodes of wheezing treated with b-agonists with or without steroids) aged 2 to 18 years presenting to a children’s health hospital emergency department (ED) with an acute asthma exacerbation requiring more than 1 albuterol nebulizer treatment. Nursing staff assessed asthma severity based on either peak expired flow rates or a validated asthma severity scoring system. Children were excluded for recent oral corticosteroid treatment, history of intubation, recent varicella exposure, stridor, possible foreign body, and certain chronic diseases. During an 11-month period, 628 subjects enrolled, of whom 533 (85%) completed the study. Two thirds were men, 84% were black, and the average age was between 6 and 7 years. Fifty-six percent of the children were classified as moderate asthma severity at presentation; the remainder was evenly distributed between mild and severe.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: This controlled trial assigned children to receive oral prednisone (2 mg/kg, maximum 60 mg, n= 261) on odd days and dexamethasone (0.6 mg/kg, maximum 16 mg, n=272) on even days. The first dose was given in the ED; the prednisone group was sent home with a prescription for 4 daily doses, the dexamethasone group was given a prepackaged dose for the following day. Children who vomited 2 doses of steroid or were directly admitted to the hospital from the ED were dropped from the study.This was a quasirandomized study, in that children were placed on one drug on even days and the other steroid on odd days. As a result, the allocation to the specific treatment groups was not concealed. Although patient severity is unlikely to have varied systematically on even and odd days, a large potential exists for a bias to be introduced into this study. Nurses who believed one treatment was superior to another could have systematically altered enrollment of children into the study based on the treatment of that day. These 2 issues—lack of randomization and concealed allocation—could invalidate the results of the study. The majority of subjects were black. Asthma prevalence, morbidity, and mortality are higher among black children, especially those in urban settings.1 There is also some evidence of physiologic predisposition in this population, namely, higher serum immunoglobulin E levels and increased airway responsiveness.2 However, no literature suggests that there is a difference in asthma treatment response between black children and children of other races or ethnicities.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome was rate of relapse within 10 days of discharge from the ED. Secondary outcomes were rate of hospitalization, frequency of vomiting, medication compliance, persistence of symptoms, and work or school days missed.

RESULTS: By evaluating the children who completed the study, the authors determined that the relapse rates were similar between the 2 groups, 7.4% in the dexamethasone group and 6.9% in the prednisone group (P = NS). Intention-to-treat analysis also found no difference between treatments. The number of admissions after relapse and the prevalence of persistent symptoms was also similar between the 2 groups. More children in the prednisone group missed 2 or more school days (P =.05), and more parents in this group reported not giving the medication at home (P =.004).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

For acute pediatric asthma, symptom improvement and relapse rate are similar whether our patients receive 2 doses of dexamethasone or 5 doses of oral prednisone. Given equal effectiveness, fewer school days missed, less vomiting, and fewer doses, dexamethasone may be preferable. However, we hesitate to make any recommendations for changes in practice based on this study, given the severe limitations in study design.

Author and Disclosure Information

Edward A. Rose, MD, MSA
Kendra Schwartz, MD, MSPH
Wayne State University Department of Family Medicine Detroit, Michigan E-mail: erose@med.wayne.edu

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 50(11)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
993
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Edward A. Rose, MD, MSA
Kendra Schwartz, MD, MSPH
Wayne State University Department of Family Medicine Detroit, Michigan E-mail: erose@med.wayne.edu

Author and Disclosure Information

Edward A. Rose, MD, MSA
Kendra Schwartz, MD, MSPH
Wayne State University Department of Family Medicine Detroit, Michigan E-mail: erose@med.wayne.edu

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone, a long-acting corticosteroid successfully used in acute treatment of croup, may prevent more relapses than prednisone in asthmatic children.

POPULATION STUDIED: The authors studied known asthmatic persons (defined by 2 or more episodes of wheezing treated with b-agonists with or without steroids) aged 2 to 18 years presenting to a children’s health hospital emergency department (ED) with an acute asthma exacerbation requiring more than 1 albuterol nebulizer treatment. Nursing staff assessed asthma severity based on either peak expired flow rates or a validated asthma severity scoring system. Children were excluded for recent oral corticosteroid treatment, history of intubation, recent varicella exposure, stridor, possible foreign body, and certain chronic diseases. During an 11-month period, 628 subjects enrolled, of whom 533 (85%) completed the study. Two thirds were men, 84% were black, and the average age was between 6 and 7 years. Fifty-six percent of the children were classified as moderate asthma severity at presentation; the remainder was evenly distributed between mild and severe.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: This controlled trial assigned children to receive oral prednisone (2 mg/kg, maximum 60 mg, n= 261) on odd days and dexamethasone (0.6 mg/kg, maximum 16 mg, n=272) on even days. The first dose was given in the ED; the prednisone group was sent home with a prescription for 4 daily doses, the dexamethasone group was given a prepackaged dose for the following day. Children who vomited 2 doses of steroid or were directly admitted to the hospital from the ED were dropped from the study.This was a quasirandomized study, in that children were placed on one drug on even days and the other steroid on odd days. As a result, the allocation to the specific treatment groups was not concealed. Although patient severity is unlikely to have varied systematically on even and odd days, a large potential exists for a bias to be introduced into this study. Nurses who believed one treatment was superior to another could have systematically altered enrollment of children into the study based on the treatment of that day. These 2 issues—lack of randomization and concealed allocation—could invalidate the results of the study. The majority of subjects were black. Asthma prevalence, morbidity, and mortality are higher among black children, especially those in urban settings.1 There is also some evidence of physiologic predisposition in this population, namely, higher serum immunoglobulin E levels and increased airway responsiveness.2 However, no literature suggests that there is a difference in asthma treatment response between black children and children of other races or ethnicities.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome was rate of relapse within 10 days of discharge from the ED. Secondary outcomes were rate of hospitalization, frequency of vomiting, medication compliance, persistence of symptoms, and work or school days missed.

RESULTS: By evaluating the children who completed the study, the authors determined that the relapse rates were similar between the 2 groups, 7.4% in the dexamethasone group and 6.9% in the prednisone group (P = NS). Intention-to-treat analysis also found no difference between treatments. The number of admissions after relapse and the prevalence of persistent symptoms was also similar between the 2 groups. More children in the prednisone group missed 2 or more school days (P =.05), and more parents in this group reported not giving the medication at home (P =.004).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

For acute pediatric asthma, symptom improvement and relapse rate are similar whether our patients receive 2 doses of dexamethasone or 5 doses of oral prednisone. Given equal effectiveness, fewer school days missed, less vomiting, and fewer doses, dexamethasone may be preferable. However, we hesitate to make any recommendations for changes in practice based on this study, given the severe limitations in study design.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone, a long-acting corticosteroid successfully used in acute treatment of croup, may prevent more relapses than prednisone in asthmatic children.

POPULATION STUDIED: The authors studied known asthmatic persons (defined by 2 or more episodes of wheezing treated with b-agonists with or without steroids) aged 2 to 18 years presenting to a children’s health hospital emergency department (ED) with an acute asthma exacerbation requiring more than 1 albuterol nebulizer treatment. Nursing staff assessed asthma severity based on either peak expired flow rates or a validated asthma severity scoring system. Children were excluded for recent oral corticosteroid treatment, history of intubation, recent varicella exposure, stridor, possible foreign body, and certain chronic diseases. During an 11-month period, 628 subjects enrolled, of whom 533 (85%) completed the study. Two thirds were men, 84% were black, and the average age was between 6 and 7 years. Fifty-six percent of the children were classified as moderate asthma severity at presentation; the remainder was evenly distributed between mild and severe.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: This controlled trial assigned children to receive oral prednisone (2 mg/kg, maximum 60 mg, n= 261) on odd days and dexamethasone (0.6 mg/kg, maximum 16 mg, n=272) on even days. The first dose was given in the ED; the prednisone group was sent home with a prescription for 4 daily doses, the dexamethasone group was given a prepackaged dose for the following day. Children who vomited 2 doses of steroid or were directly admitted to the hospital from the ED were dropped from the study.This was a quasirandomized study, in that children were placed on one drug on even days and the other steroid on odd days. As a result, the allocation to the specific treatment groups was not concealed. Although patient severity is unlikely to have varied systematically on even and odd days, a large potential exists for a bias to be introduced into this study. Nurses who believed one treatment was superior to another could have systematically altered enrollment of children into the study based on the treatment of that day. These 2 issues—lack of randomization and concealed allocation—could invalidate the results of the study. The majority of subjects were black. Asthma prevalence, morbidity, and mortality are higher among black children, especially those in urban settings.1 There is also some evidence of physiologic predisposition in this population, namely, higher serum immunoglobulin E levels and increased airway responsiveness.2 However, no literature suggests that there is a difference in asthma treatment response between black children and children of other races or ethnicities.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome was rate of relapse within 10 days of discharge from the ED. Secondary outcomes were rate of hospitalization, frequency of vomiting, medication compliance, persistence of symptoms, and work or school days missed.

RESULTS: By evaluating the children who completed the study, the authors determined that the relapse rates were similar between the 2 groups, 7.4% in the dexamethasone group and 6.9% in the prednisone group (P = NS). Intention-to-treat analysis also found no difference between treatments. The number of admissions after relapse and the prevalence of persistent symptoms was also similar between the 2 groups. More children in the prednisone group missed 2 or more school days (P =.05), and more parents in this group reported not giving the medication at home (P =.004).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

For acute pediatric asthma, symptom improvement and relapse rate are similar whether our patients receive 2 doses of dexamethasone or 5 doses of oral prednisone. Given equal effectiveness, fewer school days missed, less vomiting, and fewer doses, dexamethasone may be preferable. However, we hesitate to make any recommendations for changes in practice based on this study, given the severe limitations in study design.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 50(11)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 50(11)
Page Number
993
Page Number
993
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Is a 2-day course of oral dexamethasone more effective than 5 days of oral prednisone in improving symptoms and preventing relapse in children with acute asthma?
Display Headline
Is a 2-day course of oral dexamethasone more effective than 5 days of oral prednisone in improving symptoms and preventing relapse in children with acute asthma?
Sections
Disallow All Ads

Meningococcal vaccination for college freshmen

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Meningococcal vaccination for college freshmen
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Bröker, PhD
Chiron Behring GmbH & Co., Marburg, Germany

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
879
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Bröker, PhD
Chiron Behring GmbH & Co., Marburg, Germany

Author and Disclosure Information

Michael Bröker, PhD
Chiron Behring GmbH & Co., Marburg, Germany

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Page Number
879
Page Number
879
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Meningococcal vaccination for college freshmen
Display Headline
Meningococcal vaccination for college freshmen
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Article PDF Media

Handheld computers are fun, sometimes even useful

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Handheld computers are fun, sometimes even useful
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

John D. Clough, MD
Editor in Chief

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
819
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

John D. Clough, MD
Editor in Chief

Author and Disclosure Information

John D. Clough, MD
Editor in Chief

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Page Number
819
Page Number
819
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Handheld computers are fun, sometimes even useful
Display Headline
Handheld computers are fun, sometimes even useful
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Article PDF Media

Handheld computers in medicine: The future is not here yet

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Handheld computers in medicine: The future is not here yet
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

C. Martin Harris, MD
Chief Information Officer; Chairman, Information Technology Division; staff, Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Address: C. Martin Harris, MD, Board of Governors, H18, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
854, 856
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

C. Martin Harris, MD
Chief Information Officer; Chairman, Information Technology Division; staff, Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Address: C. Martin Harris, MD, Board of Governors, H18, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195

Author and Disclosure Information

C. Martin Harris, MD
Chief Information Officer; Chairman, Information Technology Division; staff, Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic

Address: C. Martin Harris, MD, Board of Governors, H18, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Page Number
854, 856
Page Number
854, 856
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Handheld computers in medicine: The future is not here yet
Display Headline
Handheld computers in medicine: The future is not here yet
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Information at hand: Using handheld computers in medicine

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Information at hand: Using handheld computers in medicine
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Peter J. Embi, MD
Oregon Health & Science University, Portland

Address: Peter J. Embi, MD, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Road, BICC, Portland, OR 97201; embip@ohsu.edu

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
840-842, 845-846, 848-849, 853
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Peter J. Embi, MD
Oregon Health & Science University, Portland

Address: Peter J. Embi, MD, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Road, BICC, Portland, OR 97201; embip@ohsu.edu

Author and Disclosure Information

Peter J. Embi, MD
Oregon Health & Science University, Portland

Address: Peter J. Embi, MD, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Road, BICC, Portland, OR 97201; embip@ohsu.edu

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Page Number
840-842, 845-846, 848-849, 853
Page Number
840-842, 845-846, 848-849, 853
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Information at hand: Using handheld computers in medicine
Display Headline
Information at hand: Using handheld computers in medicine
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Living with fibromyalgia

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Living with fibromyalgia
Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
837
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Page Number
837
Page Number
837
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Living with fibromyalgia
Display Headline
Living with fibromyalgia
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Elusive syndromes: Treating the biologic basis of fibromyalgia and related syndromes

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Elusive syndromes: Treating the biologic basis of fibromyalgia and related syndromes
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Daniel J. Clauw, MD
Associate Professor of Medicine and Orthopaedics, Georgetown University Medical Center,Washington, DC

Address: Daniel J. Clauw, MD, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3800 Reservoir Rd, Washington, DC 20007

Dr. Clauw serves as a consultant for and has received grant or research support from Cypress Biosciences.

This article discusses therapies that are not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the use under discussion.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
830, 832-834
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Daniel J. Clauw, MD
Associate Professor of Medicine and Orthopaedics, Georgetown University Medical Center,Washington, DC

Address: Daniel J. Clauw, MD, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3800 Reservoir Rd, Washington, DC 20007

Dr. Clauw serves as a consultant for and has received grant or research support from Cypress Biosciences.

This article discusses therapies that are not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the use under discussion.

Author and Disclosure Information

Daniel J. Clauw, MD
Associate Professor of Medicine and Orthopaedics, Georgetown University Medical Center,Washington, DC

Address: Daniel J. Clauw, MD, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3800 Reservoir Rd, Washington, DC 20007

Dr. Clauw serves as a consultant for and has received grant or research support from Cypress Biosciences.

This article discusses therapies that are not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the use under discussion.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Page Number
830, 832-834
Page Number
830, 832-834
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Elusive syndromes: Treating the biologic basis of fibromyalgia and related syndromes
Display Headline
Elusive syndromes: Treating the biologic basis of fibromyalgia and related syndromes
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Who should receive hepatitis A vaccine?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Who should receive hepatitis A vaccine?
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Steven D. Mawhorter, MD
Department of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Steven D. Mawhorter, MD, Department of Infectious Diseases, S32, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; mawhors@ccf.org

This paper discusses treatments that are ‘‘off label,” ie, not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the use under discussion.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
825-827
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Steven D. Mawhorter, MD
Department of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Steven D. Mawhorter, MD, Department of Infectious Diseases, S32, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; mawhors@ccf.org

This paper discusses treatments that are ‘‘off label,” ie, not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the use under discussion.

Author and Disclosure Information

Steven D. Mawhorter, MD
Department of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Steven D. Mawhorter, MD, Department of Infectious Diseases, S32, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; mawhors@ccf.org

This paper discusses treatments that are ‘‘off label,” ie, not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the use under discussion.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 68(10)
Page Number
825-827
Page Number
825-827
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Who should receive hepatitis A vaccine?
Display Headline
Who should receive hepatitis A vaccine?
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Dermatologic Surgery Into the Next Millennium, IV

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Dermatologic Surgery Into the Next Millennium, IV

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Warmuth IP, Scarborough D, Bisaccia E

Issue
Cutis - 68(4)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
257-258
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Warmuth IP, Scarborough D, Bisaccia E

Author and Disclosure Information

Warmuth IP, Scarborough D, Bisaccia E

Article PDF
Article PDF

Issue
Cutis - 68(4)
Issue
Cutis - 68(4)
Page Number
257-258
Page Number
257-258
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Dermatologic Surgery Into the Next Millennium, IV
Display Headline
Dermatologic Surgery Into the Next Millennium, IV
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Does the manner in which information about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is presented affect screening rates?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Does the manner in which information about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is presented affect screening rates?

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of death due to cancer in men, but substantial controversy surrounds the role of PSA in screening asymptomatic patients. Although the test can help detect prostate cancer earlier, we currently lack evidence that this early detection will increase length or quality of life. The issues involved in the controversy include frequent false-positive results, potential for complications from treatment, and the frequency of slow-growing tumors that may never become clinically significant. In recognition of this complexity, the American Cancer Society and the American Urological Association revised their recommendations for men older than 50 years, calling for shared decision making in which the patient and physician discuss options and together make a decision that agrees with the patient’s individual health preferences. Of note, most other major organizations do not advocate routine PSA tests for screening. Previous research has shown that the way information about PSA testing is presented can influence the outcome of shared decision making. This study compared the effect of either a scripted discussion or videotape on men’s opinions about taking the PSA test.

POPULATION STUDIED: The investigators approached all men older than 50 years who were presenting for an annual preventive care evaluation at a large health maintenance organization (HMO). The participants (n=176) were sequentially assigned to 1 of 4 interventions: usual care, a discussion about risks and benefits of PSA, a shared decision-making video, or the video plus discussion. Baseline characteristics including age, education, marital status, ethnicity (more than 70% white), history of friend or family member with prostate cancer, and previous PSA testing did not differ among groups. Approximately 40% of those contacted to participate in 1 of the 3 interventions refused, but recruitment rates did not differ among the intervention groups.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: The investigators used a nonrandomized unblinded 2x2 factorial comparison of the discussion and video formats that yielded the 4 groups described above. A previous study evaluated and described the 25-minute video, and the lecture-format discussion closely followed the content of the video.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: Measured responses in all groups included whether they wanted PSA testing, their level of confidence in their decision, and levels of knowledge and concern about prostate cancer. Those in the intervention groups also rated the amount, clarity, and perceived balance and fairness of the presentations. The study did not measure the actual incidence of subsequent PSA testing.

RESULTS: Almost all (97%) in the usual care group opted for testing. Discussion decreased the testing rate to 82% (P <.05), and members of the video (63%) and video/discussion (50%) groups chose testing even less frequently (P <.05 for difference between the discussion-only and either video group). All of the interventions (other than usual care) significantly increased knowledge about prostate cancer (3.4-3.9 correct responses to 5 questions vs 1.6, P <.001) and decreased confidence in the decision regarding PSA. Subjects in the usual care group expressed more concern about prostate cancer than those in the intervention groups. Less than 1% of subjects felt negative about participating in the interventions. Eighty-two percent considered the presentation balanced; 8% felt it was slanted in favor of screening; and 11% felt it was slanted against having PSA testing.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Incorporating a detailed, balanced presentation on PSA testing, using either discussion or a videotape, into a health maintenance visit can give men better knowledge about prostate cancer and result in lower rates of PSA screening, and the method of presenting the information may further affect the patient’s decision. Forty to 50% of men in this study decided against PSA testing after watching an informational video.

Author and Disclosure Information

Andrew R. Lockman, MD
University of Virginia Charlottesville E-mail: alockman@virginia.edu

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 50(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
898
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Andrew R. Lockman, MD
University of Virginia Charlottesville E-mail: alockman@virginia.edu

Author and Disclosure Information

Andrew R. Lockman, MD
University of Virginia Charlottesville E-mail: alockman@virginia.edu

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of death due to cancer in men, but substantial controversy surrounds the role of PSA in screening asymptomatic patients. Although the test can help detect prostate cancer earlier, we currently lack evidence that this early detection will increase length or quality of life. The issues involved in the controversy include frequent false-positive results, potential for complications from treatment, and the frequency of slow-growing tumors that may never become clinically significant. In recognition of this complexity, the American Cancer Society and the American Urological Association revised their recommendations for men older than 50 years, calling for shared decision making in which the patient and physician discuss options and together make a decision that agrees with the patient’s individual health preferences. Of note, most other major organizations do not advocate routine PSA tests for screening. Previous research has shown that the way information about PSA testing is presented can influence the outcome of shared decision making. This study compared the effect of either a scripted discussion or videotape on men’s opinions about taking the PSA test.

POPULATION STUDIED: The investigators approached all men older than 50 years who were presenting for an annual preventive care evaluation at a large health maintenance organization (HMO). The participants (n=176) were sequentially assigned to 1 of 4 interventions: usual care, a discussion about risks and benefits of PSA, a shared decision-making video, or the video plus discussion. Baseline characteristics including age, education, marital status, ethnicity (more than 70% white), history of friend or family member with prostate cancer, and previous PSA testing did not differ among groups. Approximately 40% of those contacted to participate in 1 of the 3 interventions refused, but recruitment rates did not differ among the intervention groups.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: The investigators used a nonrandomized unblinded 2x2 factorial comparison of the discussion and video formats that yielded the 4 groups described above. A previous study evaluated and described the 25-minute video, and the lecture-format discussion closely followed the content of the video.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: Measured responses in all groups included whether they wanted PSA testing, their level of confidence in their decision, and levels of knowledge and concern about prostate cancer. Those in the intervention groups also rated the amount, clarity, and perceived balance and fairness of the presentations. The study did not measure the actual incidence of subsequent PSA testing.

RESULTS: Almost all (97%) in the usual care group opted for testing. Discussion decreased the testing rate to 82% (P <.05), and members of the video (63%) and video/discussion (50%) groups chose testing even less frequently (P <.05 for difference between the discussion-only and either video group). All of the interventions (other than usual care) significantly increased knowledge about prostate cancer (3.4-3.9 correct responses to 5 questions vs 1.6, P <.001) and decreased confidence in the decision regarding PSA. Subjects in the usual care group expressed more concern about prostate cancer than those in the intervention groups. Less than 1% of subjects felt negative about participating in the interventions. Eighty-two percent considered the presentation balanced; 8% felt it was slanted in favor of screening; and 11% felt it was slanted against having PSA testing.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Incorporating a detailed, balanced presentation on PSA testing, using either discussion or a videotape, into a health maintenance visit can give men better knowledge about prostate cancer and result in lower rates of PSA screening, and the method of presenting the information may further affect the patient’s decision. Forty to 50% of men in this study decided against PSA testing after watching an informational video.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of death due to cancer in men, but substantial controversy surrounds the role of PSA in screening asymptomatic patients. Although the test can help detect prostate cancer earlier, we currently lack evidence that this early detection will increase length or quality of life. The issues involved in the controversy include frequent false-positive results, potential for complications from treatment, and the frequency of slow-growing tumors that may never become clinically significant. In recognition of this complexity, the American Cancer Society and the American Urological Association revised their recommendations for men older than 50 years, calling for shared decision making in which the patient and physician discuss options and together make a decision that agrees with the patient’s individual health preferences. Of note, most other major organizations do not advocate routine PSA tests for screening. Previous research has shown that the way information about PSA testing is presented can influence the outcome of shared decision making. This study compared the effect of either a scripted discussion or videotape on men’s opinions about taking the PSA test.

POPULATION STUDIED: The investigators approached all men older than 50 years who were presenting for an annual preventive care evaluation at a large health maintenance organization (HMO). The participants (n=176) were sequentially assigned to 1 of 4 interventions: usual care, a discussion about risks and benefits of PSA, a shared decision-making video, or the video plus discussion. Baseline characteristics including age, education, marital status, ethnicity (more than 70% white), history of friend or family member with prostate cancer, and previous PSA testing did not differ among groups. Approximately 40% of those contacted to participate in 1 of the 3 interventions refused, but recruitment rates did not differ among the intervention groups.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: The investigators used a nonrandomized unblinded 2x2 factorial comparison of the discussion and video formats that yielded the 4 groups described above. A previous study evaluated and described the 25-minute video, and the lecture-format discussion closely followed the content of the video.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: Measured responses in all groups included whether they wanted PSA testing, their level of confidence in their decision, and levels of knowledge and concern about prostate cancer. Those in the intervention groups also rated the amount, clarity, and perceived balance and fairness of the presentations. The study did not measure the actual incidence of subsequent PSA testing.

RESULTS: Almost all (97%) in the usual care group opted for testing. Discussion decreased the testing rate to 82% (P <.05), and members of the video (63%) and video/discussion (50%) groups chose testing even less frequently (P <.05 for difference between the discussion-only and either video group). All of the interventions (other than usual care) significantly increased knowledge about prostate cancer (3.4-3.9 correct responses to 5 questions vs 1.6, P <.001) and decreased confidence in the decision regarding PSA. Subjects in the usual care group expressed more concern about prostate cancer than those in the intervention groups. Less than 1% of subjects felt negative about participating in the interventions. Eighty-two percent considered the presentation balanced; 8% felt it was slanted in favor of screening; and 11% felt it was slanted against having PSA testing.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Incorporating a detailed, balanced presentation on PSA testing, using either discussion or a videotape, into a health maintenance visit can give men better knowledge about prostate cancer and result in lower rates of PSA screening, and the method of presenting the information may further affect the patient’s decision. Forty to 50% of men in this study decided against PSA testing after watching an informational video.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 50(10)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 50(10)
Page Number
898
Page Number
898
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Does the manner in which information about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is presented affect screening rates?
Display Headline
Does the manner in which information about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is presented affect screening rates?
Sections
Disallow All Ads