February 24, 2012 | 1:22 pm

Untreatable Gonorrhea – The Next Infectious Threat

Posted by Albert Fuchs, M.D.

Follow me on or

Photo by Wikipedia/CDC/Joe Millar

Our old nemesis, the clap, is in the news again this month.

Gonorrhea is the second most common sexually transmitted disease in the US, with more than 600,000 cases annually. In men it usually causes pain on urination, penile discharge, or sore throat. In women it may not cause symptoms or may cause painful urination, vaginal discharge, or sore throat. If untreated, gonorrhea can spread to the fallopian tubes, joints, and heart valves. I know that most readers simply can’t hear enough about penile discharge (especially if they’re reading this over lunch), I’ve included a microscopic image of exactly that. The gonorrhea bacteria are visible as the small dark dots.

With the discovery of penicillin in the 1940s the treatment of gonorrhea was revolutionized. But ever since that major victory gonorrhea has won several important battles. Gonorrhea developed resistance to sulfanilamide in the 1940s and to penicillins and tetracyclines in the 1980s. When I trained in internal medicine in the mid 1990s, Cipro (an antibiotic in the family called fluoroquinolones) was the preferred treatment for gonorrhea. In the 2000s some fluoroquinolone-resistant strains of gonorrhea appeared and by 2007 resistance was widespread.

Third generation cephalosporins are now the last antibiotic family to which gonorrhea is susceptible. But, as a decade ago with fluoroquinolones, sensitivity to cephalosporins is slowly decreasing, especially in the western US. Though no strain in the US has become resistant yet, a strain isolated from a patient in Japan in 2009 was highly resistant to cephalosporins.

The downward creeping cephalosporin sensitivity of gonorrhea prompted CDC researchers to sound the alarm in an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month. The editorial warns that if the early signs of decreasing sensitivity are analogous to what we observed with fluoroquinolones in the ‘90s, then we may be only a few years away from strains of gonorrhea that are untreatable by any antibiotics.

The authors make sound recommendations to accelerate development of new antibiotics and increase surveillance of gonorrhea antibiotic sensitivity. But it’s entirely possible that these efforts will fail, and that the only defense against gonorrhea will be from a vaccine which is not expected any time soon.

I’ve written before about the emerging problem of bacterial antibiotic resistance. Our grandchildren may study the period from the 1940s to the 2040s as the antibiotic century. Unless antibiotic development stays a step ahead of the wily microorganisms we may reach a time when sexually transmitted infections are managed the way they were a hundred years ago – promoting the use of condoms and corny public health posters encouraging men to keep their flies zipped.

Learn more:

CDC Warns Untreatable Gonorrhea is On the Way (Chicago Tribune)
Gonorrhea Could Join Growing List of Untreatable Diseases (Scientific American)
Antibiotic-Resistant Gonorrhea (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
The Emerging Threat of Untreatable Gonococcal Infection (New England Journal of Medicine)
Gonorrhea (U.S. National Library of Medicine)

Important legal mumbo jumbo:
Anything you read on the web should be used to supplement, not replace, your doctor’s advice.  Anything that I write is no exception.  I’m a doctor, but I’m not your doctor.

February 17, 2012 | 3:47 pm

Relearning What We Knew: Antibiotics Don’t Help In Sinus Infections

Posted by Albert Fuchs, M.D.

As good as antibiotics for sinusitis

Most of us are personally familiar with the symptoms of a sinus infection – congested nose, cough, fever, pain in the forehead or cheeks, and general misery. It’s impossible not to feel sympathetic for patients with sinus infections, and it’s understandable that they want to do whatever it takes to feel better as soon as possible. And for many doctors and patients “as soon as possible” means “antibiotics”. In fact, almost one fifth of antibiotic prescriptions are given for patients with sinus infections (sinusitis).

Here’s where the story gets complicated. Doctors have known for a long time that sinus infections almost always improve even without antibiotics. Originally we thought that the reason for this was because most cases of sinusitis were caused by viruses, which are unaffected by antibiotics. It was thought that only the minority of cases of sinusitis that were caused by bacteria required antibiotics. But it turned out that even most cases of bacterial sinusitis improved on their own, with most people feeling better in ten days regardless of antibiotics.

So the prevailing teaching has long been that for acute sinusitis the best treatment is nasal decongestants and medications for the cough, pain, and fever. Only the tiny number of people who don’t improve in ten days should be prescribed antibiotics. Still, many doctors either don’t know this recommendation or acquiesce to patients’ expectations for antibiotics. I have certainly been guilty of this misuse of antibiotics many times. A sick patient pleading for antibiotics may be misguided, but he’s rarely in the mood for a lesson about the medical literature and the potential harms to society of antibiotic overuse.

Now, when you’re healthy, is a good time for that lesson, and a study in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association is the perfect reminder. The study enrolled 166 patients with an acute sinus infection. Half were randomly assigned to receive a ten day course of amoxicillin. The other half received placebo. Both groups were also offered nasal decongestants, cough suppressants, and medicines to reduce pain and fever. Every several days, the patients were interviewed about their symptoms, their satisfaction, and any adverse effects of treatment.

You can already guess the outcome. Both groups did equally well, without any earlier resolution of symptoms for the amoxicillin group. Some doctors concede that sinusitis resolves without antibiotics, but argue that patients feel better sooner if they receive antibiotics. This study debunked that argument. Even at day three there was no difference between the two groups.

The risk of all this antibiotic use is an acceleration of the increasing prevalence of multi-antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten to make all our antibiotics ineffective. So the next time you see me with a terrible sinus infection, let me recommend a good nasal decongestant, and let me reassure you that there’s nothing else I can do to get you well quicker. Time is your best friend. That’s why we call you patients.

Learn more:

Got A Sinus Infection? Antibiotics Probably Won’t Help (Shots, NPR’s Health Blog)
Sinus infection? Antibiotics won’t help (CNN Health)
Antibiotics Do Nothing to Cure Sinus Infections, Study Says: Most cases resolve on their own, and use of drugs can encourage resistance, researchers say (Chicago Tribune)
Amoxicillin for Acute Rhinosinusitis (Journal of the American Medical Association)
NDM-1: No Drug Matters (my most recent post about antibiotic resistance)

Important legal mumbo jumbo:
Anything you read on the web should be used to supplement, not replace, your doctor’s advice.  Anything that I write is no exception.  I’m a doctor, but I’m not your doctor.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 10, 2012 | 6:32 pm

Tai Chi Improves Balance in Patients with Parkinson’s

Posted by Albert Fuchs, M.D.

a tai chi class

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurologic disorder. Parkinson’s biggest initial impact is on how patients move. Patients have tremors and have difficulty initiating movement. They walk with short shuffling steps. Balance worsens and falls are common. Parkinson’s disease is treated with medications and rarely with brain surgery. Resistance-based exercise has been shown to slow the worsening of balance and strength in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but these exercises frequently require equipment and supervision.

Tai chi is an ancient Chinese martial art. Its emphasis on slow graceful movements, balance, and attention to breathing has made it a very popular form of exercise and meditation. Researchers thought that it would be a good way to improve balance in Parkinson’s patients. A study published in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine shows they were right.

The study enrolled 195 ambulatory Parkinson’s patients to three groups. Each group attended a sixty minute exercise class twice a week for six months. One group attended tai chi classes. A second group attended resistance-based strength training classes. A third group (the control group) did stretching.

All patients had objective measures of their balance and gait and kept a log of any falls. They were followed for three months after the end of their exercise classes.

As expected, the tai chi and strength training groups had better test results than the stretching group in measures of walking and strength. But he patients who did tai chi had better balance than the other two groups and also had fewer falls. The benefits persisted even three months after the end of the classes. And there were no serious adverse effects, which would be unheard of in a trial of a medication or surgery.

This reveals an appealing opportunity for Parkinson’s patients – exercises that require no equipment, can be learned and then practiced at home without assistance, and are relatively inexpensive. Though there is no evidence generalizing this finding to other causes of balance disorder, like strokes or Alzheimer’s disease, tai chi seems to me to be a very reasonable and harmless intervention in these disorders too.

Perhaps next we will learn that Krav Maga cures gallstones.

Learn more:

Tai Chi may help Parkinson’s patients regain balance (Los Angeles Times Booster Shots)
Slow movements of tai chi helped with balance, reduced falls in Parkinson’s disease study (Washington Post)
Tai Chi and Postural Stability in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease (New England Journal of Medicine)

Important legal mumbo jumbo:
Anything you read on the web should be used to supplement, not replace, your doctor’s advice.  Anything that I write is no exception.  I’m a doctor, but I’m not your doctor.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 3, 2012 | 8:34 am

Amputations in Diabetics Decline Dramatically

Posted by Albert Fuchs, M.D.

Diabetes can lead to numerous serious complications. It is a major risk factor for stroke and heart attack. Diabetes can damage the retina and is the leading cause of new cases of blindness in the US. It can damage the kidneys and is the greatest cause of need for dialysis. It can also cause nerve damage leading to numb or painful feet.

But few potential complications evoke as much fear in my patients as foot amputations. Though many injuries and accidents lead to amputations, diabetes is the most frequent cause of nontraumatic foot amputation. Diabetes leads to limb loss through multiple mechanisms. It leads to atherosclerosis, cholesterol plaques in arteries, which limit circulation to the limbs. It leads to nerve damage which can cause wounds to go unnoticed. And it weakens the immune response so that infected wounds are very difficult to treat.

The good news this week is that amputations due to diabetes have become much less frequent. A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and published in Diabetes Care reviews nontraumatic lower extremity amputations in diabetics between 1996 and 2008. In those twelve years the frequency of amputation in diabetics declined by two thirds.

Many helpful trends are responsible for all those saved feet. Diabetes is typically diagnosed earlier and treated more aggressively now than in the mid 90s. Several of the medications used for diabetes now were unavailable then. Atherosclerosis treatment also continues to improve with recognition of the importance blood pressure control and of cholesterol lowering with statins. The importance of meticulous foot care by diabetic patients is better understood, and the management of diabetic wounds by multidisciplinary teams is becoming the standard of care.

So in a week in which the news appears monolithically depressing I thought I’d spread some good news. Chances are you know someone with diabetes. Chances are that he will continue to lace both of his shoes for his whole life.

Learn more:

CDC report finds large decline in lower-limb amputations among U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes (CDC Press Release)
Lower-limb amputations have declined among diabetics (Los Angeles Times Booster Shots)
Rate of Leg, Foot Amputations Among Diabetics Drops: CDC (US News & World Report)
Declining Rates of Hospitalization for Nontraumatic Lower-Extremity Amputation in the Diabetic Population Aged 40 Years or Older (Diabetes Care)

Tangential Miscellany

Dr. Kevin Pho, the very well known physician blogger and outspoken advocate of social media in medicine, is publishing some of my posts.

Important legal mumbo jumbo:
Anything you read on the web should be used to supplement, not replace, your doctor’s advice.  Anything that I write is no exception.  I’m a doctor, but I’m not your doctor.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 27, 2012 | 6:46 pm

Major Study Examines Causes of Morgellons

Posted by Albert Fuchs, M.D.

CDC headquarters in Druid Hills, Ga. Photo by Wikipedia

The name Morgellons originated in 2002. That year a mother took her young son to doctors reporting that he was complaining of “bugs” in his skin. He had sores under his lips and the mother reported seeing fibers in these sores. She named her son’s illness Morgellons and started a website to raise awareness and research funding for the disorder. The boy’s doctors found no specific abnormality and believed that the mother was suffering from a psychiatric condition.

Since then many patients have presented to medical attention reporting disturbing skin sensations (sometimes described as something crawling on top of or under the skin), skin sores, and various forms of solid material coming out of their skin, frequently fibers or threads. Many of the physicians examining these patients believed that they suffered from delusional infestation (also known as delusional parasitosis), a disorder in which patients are convinced that they are infested with parasites or other germs. Delusional infestation (DI) has been described for over a century and is very difficult to treat. All tests checking for an infectious or allergic cause are of course negative, but patients are not reassured by the normal results. They are agitated that the physician has (again) failed to discover the cause. The patients never respond well to factual evidence arguing against their delusion and typically refuse psychiatric referral.

The generally recommended approach in DI is for the dermatologist or primary-care physician to build a trusting relationship by acknowledging the patient’s distressing symptoms and the disruption that the symptoms cause in the patient’s life. (This is neither patronizing nor dishonest. Patients with DI are frequently quite fixated on their symptoms and the disease frequently strains relationships and careers.) Rather than confront patients with the diagnosis of DI, doctors are encouraged to use the synonymous but less judgmental term “unexplained dermopathy”. Occasionally physicians are able to convince patients to try antipsychotic medications by offering them as a way to decrease the skin symptoms and explaining that others with the same disease have done well with this medication. Some patients achieve relief with these medications, though it’s not clear how frequently.

So DI is a particularly difficult condition to treat, because a defining characteristic of the condition is the unwillingness to accept the diagnosis. That makes the doctor-patient relationship very difficult, since the physician needs to earn the patient’s trust without being fully transparent. Imagine if one of the universal characteristics of diabetes was the refusal to believe that one has diabetes.

Add to these difficulties the wonders of the internet. Patients with Morgellons, feeling wrongly dismissed by doctors who diagnosed them with DI and confident that their disease is caused by an infection or an environmental exposure, have used the web to organize and lobby Congress for a study to determine the cause of their affliction. So between 2006 and 2008 the Centers for Disease Control did just that, in the largest study of Morgellons to date. The findings of the study was published this week in PLoS ONE and summarized on the CDC website.

The study enrolled 115 patients in Northern California with symptoms matching Morgellons. Patients were put through a systematized and extensive diagnostic work up, including a detailed demographic survey, a comprehensive history and physical examination, photographs of the whole body and of individual skin lesions, skin biopsies, analysis of any foreign material found on the skin, and numerous lab tests of blood, urine, and hair.

The results show that Morgellons (or unexplained dermopathy) is rare, affecting about 4 people in 100,000. Three quarters of patients are female, and three quarters are Caucasian. Most are middle-aged. The exhaustive evaluation failed to find a common infectious or environmental cause of the disorder. Significantly, the patients’ residences don’t cluster geographically, which would be expected with an infectious illness.

The skin lesions varied substantially and didn’t demonstrate one homogenous type. The location of the skin lesions was fascinating. Most arm lesions were on the back of the arms with sparing of the front surfaces. Back lesions usually spared the center of the back. Lesions that originated in the skin would be expected to be more uniform in distribution. A disease that originates with scratching otherwise healthy skin will show lesions where people preferentially scratch. Skin biopsies showed mostly the consequences of chronic scratching, bug bites, or the effects of chronic sun damage that is common in California. The fibers were mostly cotton fibers common in clothes.

Psychological testing showed abnormal attention to bodily symptoms in two thirds of patients. Half had recreational drugs detected in their hair samples.

The authors conclude:

This unexplained dermopathy was rare among this population of Northern California residents, but associated with significantly reduced health-related quality of life. No common underlying medical condition or infectious source was identified, similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation.

In the absence of an established cause or treatment, patients with this unexplained dermopathy may benefit from receipt of standard therapies for co-existing medical conditions and/or those recommended for similar conditions such delusional infestation.

This is very helpful information obtained through much meticulous work. But how will it be received? What happens when the internet, a global engine of transparency and information sharing, collides with a disorder that reacts poorly to the truth?

Learn more:

CDC Study Finds Fibers Aren’t Cause of Morgellons (Wall Street Journal Health Blog)
Morgellons not caused by infectious agent, CDC researchers say (Los Angeles Times Booster Shots)
CDC Study of an Unexplained Dermopathy (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
Clinical, Epidemiologic, Histopathologic and Molecular Features of an Unexplained Dermopathy (PLoS ONE)
Morgellons (Wikipedia)

Important legal mumbo jumbo:
Anything you read on the web should be used to supplement, not replace, your doctor’s advice.  Anything that I write is no exception.  I’m a doctor, but I’m not your doctor.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 20, 2012 | 7:44 pm

How Frequently Should You Have Your Bone Density Checked?

Posted by Albert Fuchs, M.D.

A machine to measure bone density to check for osteoporosis in the elderly and other vulnerable subjects. Photo by Wikipedia/Kevin Vrrrreeeeeeeeee

Breaking a bone is frequently a catastrophic injury for an older patient. A hip fracture or a vertebral fracture frequently leads to a permanent decrease in mobility which starts an inexorable decline in health and independence. For that reason, fracture prevention is a critical part of the care of older people.

Osteoporosis, which is severely decreased bone density, is a major risk factor for fractures, especially in women over 65. Osteoporosis is also treatable, and there is good evidence that treating osteoporosis with bisphosphonates (a family of medicines which includes Fosamax, Actonel, and Boniva) prevents fractures.

So we know that testing bone density is important in women over 65. But we don’t know how frequently we should be recommending the test. Medicare pays for the test every two years, and in the absence of scientific information about how frequently the test is valuable, that has become the accepted default.

This week’s New England Journal of Medicine published a study that helps shed some light on the question. Almost 5,000 women 67 years of age older who did not have osteoporosis at the beginning of the study were enrolled. The women had periodic bone density studies for up to 15 years. The goal of the study was to find the length of time between tests that would safely detect most cases of osteoporosis before a fracture occurred.

Not surprisingly the safe testing interval depends a lot on the initial bone density. For women with advanced osteopenia*, a testing interval of only 1 year was required to detect osteoporosis in time. For women with moderate osteopenia, retesting in 4 years was adequate. Women with mild osteopenia or normal bone density could wait 15 years before the next test. The intervals also varied with the age of the women, with younger women losing bone density more slowly than older women.

These findings should be validated in large studies before put to use. But if the general theme is right, women in their 60s with normal bone density can safely defer their next test for a decade.

Learn more:

Patients With Normal Bone Density Can Delay Retests, Study Suggests (NY Times)
Many Older Women May Not Need Frequent Bone Scans (Shots, NPR’s health blog)
How Often Should Women Be Screened for Osteoporosis? (Wall Street Journal health blog)
Bone-Density Testing Interval and Transition to Osteoporosis in Older Women (New England Journal of Medicine article)
Medications for Osteoporosis (my summary in 2008)

* Definition of various levels of bone density according to T score
Bone Density         T score
Normal               greater than -1
Mild osteopenia       between -1 and -1.5
Moderate osteopenia between -1.5 and -2
Advanced osteopenia between -2 and -2.5
Osteoporosis           less than -2.5

Important legal mumbo jumbo:
Anything you read on the web should be used to supplement, not replace, your doctor’s advice.  Anything that I write is no exception.  I’m a doctor, but I’m not your doctor.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 13, 2012 | 9:51 am

Why Losing Weight Is So Hard

Posted by Albert Fuchs, M.D.

I’ve written many times that losing weight is the second hardest thing I ask my patients to do. (Breaking an addiction like smoking or alcoholism is the hardest.) The frustrating thing is how little we know about how to lose weight successfully. But we are learning more all the time about why losing weight is so difficult.

Much about dieting and weight loss is poorly understood, but let’s first lay out some facts that are well established.

Weight loss and weight gain are caused by an imbalance between calories ingested and calories burned. That’s not controversial. If you eat fewer calories than you use in exercising, you will lose weight. If you eat more, you will gain. How many calories it takes to simply maintain one’s weight varies between individuals and the mechanisms behind that variation are still being explored, but for every person there is a number of ingested calories below which weight loss will happen. That means that if someone else is in control of what you eat (for example in a prison in a totalitarian country) and doesn’t provide you enough food, you will lose weight.

That makes it sound fairly simple, right? If you eat less, you lose weight. Since eating is a volitional behavior, overweight people should simply choose to eat less, and their failure to do so simply reflects poor judgment or weak willpower.

Wrong.

Permit me a brief digression about control systems. I think about them a lot because of my engineering background. Our body has many mechanisms that very tightly regulate certain biological parameters, like the sodium concentration in our blood, or the amount of light that is shining on our retinas. Many of these mechanisms are entirely out of our conscious control. For example, if we walk into a brighter environment our pupils automatically constrict, letting less light hit our retinas. That happens without our attention or knowledge.

The control of our breathing is a very interesting example. Our breathing is usually not under our conscious control. Our brain monitors the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our blood from moment to moment. When the level of CO2 increases we take a breath, lowering the CO2 level. The cycle repeats continuously even in our sleep. Without our attention or intention the CO2 level in our blood is kept within a fairly narrow range. But anyone who plays a wind instrument or sings can tell you that breathing is also volitional. You can take a breath purposefully between sentences and blow through a horn exactly when you want to. So which is it? Is breathing voluntary or not?

The answer depends on the time scale. From second to second you can control your breathing. You can hold your breath for a few seconds or you can hyperventilate for a few seconds. But over minutes you will not be able to override the drive to keep your CO2 at a certain level. That is, if you try to hold your breath or slow down your breathing over minutes, your CO2 will slowly climb and your urge to breathe faster will eventually prove to be irresistible. Similarly if you try to hyperventilate over minutes, your CO2 will fall and your urge to slow your breathing will eventually overwhelm your conscious control. So breathing is voluntary over seconds but entirely involuntary over minutes or longer.

Are you getting a sense of how this may relate to control of weight?

Long ago researchers began suspecting that there were control mechanisms responsible for maintaining weight within some range. Just as there is an internal set point for our blood sodium concentration that the kidneys maintain, and a set point for our CO2 concentration maintained by our breathing, researchers argued that there must be an internal set point for our weight. A set point simply means a normal level of some measure that a control mechanism tries to achieve – the temperature that the thermostat is set to, for example.

I first discovered the idea of a possible weight set point in a fascinating paper by Seth Roberts, a psychologist. He cites much evidence that weight must be controlled by an internal set point. For instance, many people occasionally fast for a day. This results in a small weight loss. Without an internal set point for weight, that weight loss would be permanent or would fade very slowly. But weight loss after a fast usually disappears within a few days, suggesting that hunger is increased for the subsequent few days until the weight renormalizes.

The general idea is that the quantity of fat stores in our body is monitored by our brain (perhaps using hormones released by fat cells) and compared to some set point. Whenever our weight (or fat stores) falls below this set point various hormonal mechanisms increase hunger and decrease physical activity. Research is currently attempting to unfold the details of these mechanisms. The current understanding and consequences of this theory is explained in a illuminating article in the New York Times Magazine – The Fat Trap. If you’re trying to lose weight, I urge you to read it.

The article cites several studies including a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in October. The study enrolled 50 overweight or obese adults and for 10 weeks put them on a very low calorie diet. They lost an average of 30 lb. Before the study and periodically for a year after, the levels of hormones thought to mediate hunger and satiety were measured. The subjects were also asked for their subjective levels of hunger and appetite.

The results showed that the hormones that cause hunger and weight gain increased after the weight loss and remained increased a full year later, even after most subjects had partially regained their lost weight. More sobering is the fact that the subjects’ self-reported sense of hunger rose after the weight loss and didn’t return to baseline levels throughout the one year study.

The authors state that the result

“supports the view that there is an elevated body-weight set point in obese persons and that efforts to reduce weight below this point are vigorously resisted… suggesting that the high rate of relapse among obese people who have lost weight has a strong physiological basis and is not simply the result of the voluntary resumption of old habits.”

For now, this isn’t a particularly helpful discovery, but it helps explain a lot. It explains, for example, why the myriad diets on the market all have approximately the same lousy long-term success rates. It also explains that eating, like breathing, and like refraining from scratching that patch of eczema, is a voluntary behavior only on short time scales. I can choose whether to have a snack now or not, but I can’t choose to fast for three days or to eat much less than my caloric needs for a month.

Overweight people have a “weight thermostat” that is turned up too high. We need researchers to to find a medical solution to reset this set point or to break one of the mechanisms that mediate hunger.

The best we have to offer overweight patients at this point is the advice to diet and exercise, though in the long term this seems to be effective only for a small minority of patients. For the morbidly obese, surgery for weight loss is an increasingly evidence-based option.

Perhaps the best advice we can learn from this is to at least encourage patients not to gain more weight. We now know that losing it will be much more difficult and that maintaining the current weight after weight gain and loss will be harder than never gaining in the first place.

Learn more:

The Fat Trap (New York Times Magazine)
Long-Term Persistence of Hormonal Adaptations to Weight Loss (New England Journal of Medicine article)
What Makes Food Fattening? A Pavlovian Theory of Weight Control (Seth Roberts, unpublished paper)
My previous posts on weight loss

Important legal mumbo jumbo:
Anything you read on the web should be used to supplement, not replace, your doctor’s advice.  Anything that I write is no exception.  I’m a doctor, but I’m not your doctor.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 6, 2012 | 5:54 pm

Home Exercises or Chiropractic Care Beat Medications for Neck Pain

Posted by Albert Fuchs, M.D.

Neck pain is a very common problem. Many of us have woken up with a painful neck and found that we couldn’t turn our head because of painful muscle spasm. Doctors use various treatments for neck pain. Pain medication, spinal manipulation by a chiropractor, and physical therapy for stretching exercises are all popular remedies, but there is very little scientific evidence to support any of them. I frequently used to prescribe anti-inflammatory pain medications as an initial treatment, but not anymore.

This issue of Annals of Internal Medicine published a study that sheds some light on the issue. Researchers recruited 272 patients suffering from neck pain for at least two weeks. They were randomized to three groups, each of which were assigned a different treatment for 12 weeks.

One group was prescribed medication by a physician. Medications included anti-inflammatory pain medicines (like ibuprofen or naproxen), acetaminophen (Tylenol), muscle relaxants, and even narcotics if the doctor thought they were indicated. The second group saw a chiropractor once or twice per week for spinal manipulation. The third group met twice with physical therapists who taught them to do home exercises. They were asked to continue the exercises for the 12 weeks of treatment.

All patients were followed for a year after the start of the study to periodically measure their pain and range of motion.

Surprisingly, both the home exercise group and the chiropractic spinal manipulation group did much better than the medication group. And there was not a significant difference in outcomes between the home exercise group and the chiropractor group.

So the next time you get a crick in your neck, check out the home exercises in the supplement to the Annals study. If you can’t figure them out yourself, get a physical therapist to teach them to you. Or see a chiropractor. And I’ll still prescribe pain medicine if pressed but first I’ll recommend the more effective treatments.

Learn more:

For Neck Pain, Chiropractic and Exercise Are Better Than Drugs (NY Times, Well column)
Neck Pain? Skip the Pills, Just Stretch Like a Chicken (Wall Street Journal, Health & Wellness)
Is Spinal Manipulation an Effective Treatment for Neck Pain? (Annals of Internal Medicine, Summaries for Patients)
Neck exercises (Annals of Internal Medicine, supplement)
Spinal Manipulation, Medication, or Home Exercise With Advice for Acute and Subacute Neck Pain (Annals of Internal Medicine article)
Pain in the Neck: Many (Marginally Different) Treatment Choices (Annals of Internal Medicine editorial)

Tangential Miscellany

Five years ago, I had the inexplicable and probably misguided idea that what the world really needed was one more physician blogger. In the interim I’ve been delighted to build a readership of people who send me frequent ideas for stories and lots of feedback about my posts. This is my 300th post, and I wouldn’t keep doing it without the wonderful encouragement and praise from all of you. Thank you very much for reading.

Important legal mumbo jumbo:
Anything you read on the web should be used to supplement, not replace, your doctor’s advice.  Anything that I write is no exception.  I’m a doctor, but I’m not your doctor.

0 Comments — Leave your comment