Search

Introduction Despite the prevalence of corticosteroid injections in athletes, little is known about their efficacy in triathletes. We aim to assess attitudes, use, subjective effectiveness, and time to return to sport with corticosteroid injections compared to alternative methods in triathletes with knee pain. Methods This is an observational study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Triathletes answered a 13-question survey posted to three triathlon-specific websites. Results Sixty-one triathletes responded, 97% of whom experienced knee pain at some point in their triathlete career; 63% with knee pain received a corticosteroid injection as treatment (average age 51 years old). The most popular attitude (44.3%) regarding corticosteroid injections was "tried them, with good improvement". Most found the cortisone injection helpful for two to three months (28.6%), or more than one year (28.6%); of individuals who found the injections useful for more than one year, four-eight (50%) had received multiple injections during that same period. After injection, 80.6% returned to sport within one month. The average age of people using alternative treatment methods was 39 years old; most returned to sport within one month (73.7%). Compared to alternative methods, there was an ~80% higher odds of returning to sport within one month using corticosteroid injections; however, this relationship was not significant (OR=1.786, p=0.480, 95% CI:0.448-7.09). Conclusion This is the first study to examine corticosteroid use in triathletes. Corticosteroid use is more common in older triathletes and results in subjective pain improvement. A strong association does not exist for a quicker return to sport using corticosteroid injections compared to alternative methods. Triathletes should be counseled on the timing of injections, duration of side effects, and be aware of potential risks.

This article discusses exertional compartment syndrome (ECS), a condition characterized by muscle pain during activity and relief with rest, particularly in the lower extremities. The exact cause of ECS is unclear, but it is believed to be related to increased compartment pressure and decreased blood flow. Diagnosis of ECS is confirmed through compartment pressure measurements (CPMs), although the protocols and criteria for diagnosing ECS are imprecise. Treatment options for ECS, such as fasciotomy or activity modification, are not clearly defined, and outcomes can vary. The article highlights the potential role of abnormal hip motions in contributing to ECS and emphasizes the importance of clinical history and physical examination in recognizing the condition. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and amplified family caregiving obligations for many clinical investigators and other biomedical researchers. Unpredictable access to daycare, schools, assisted living facilities, informal networks, and [...]

Skeletal fragility and high fracture rates are common in CKD. A key component of bone loss in CKD with secondary hyperparathyroidism is high bone turnover and cortical bone deterioration through both cortical porosity and cortical thinning. We hypothesized that RANKL drives high bone resorption within cortical bone leading to the development of cortical porosity in CKD (study 1) and that systemic inhibition of RANKL would mitigate the skeletal phenotype of CKD (study 2). In study 1, we assessed the skeletal properties of male and female Dmp1-cre RANKLfl/fl (cKO) and control genotype (Ranklfl/fl ; Con) mice after 10 wk of adenine-induced CKD (AD; 0.2% dietary adenine). All AD mice regardless of sex or genotype had elevated blood urea nitrogen and high PTH. Con AD mice in both sexes had cortical porosity and lower cortical thickness as well as high osteoclast-covered trabecular surfaces and higher bone formation rate. cKO mice had preserved cortical bone microarchitecture despite high circulating PTH as well as no CKD-induced increases in osteoclasts. In study 2, male mice with established AD CKD were either given a single injection of an anti-RANKL antibody (5 mg/kg) 8 wk post-induction of CKD or subjected to 3×/wk dosing with risedronate (1.2 μg/kg) for 4 wk. Anti-RANKL treatment significantly reduced bone formation rate as well as osteoclast surfaces at both trabecular and cortical pore surfaces; risedronate treatment had little effect on these bone parameters. In conclusion, these studies demonstrate that bone-specific RANKL is critical for the development of high bone formation/high osteoclasts and cortical bone loss in CKD with high PTH. Additionally, systemic anti-RANKL ligand therapy in established CKD may help prevent the propagation of cortical bone loss via suppression of bone turnover. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly advancing field that is beginning to enter the practice of medicine. Primary care is a cornerstone of medicine and deals with challenges such as physician shortage and burnout which impact patient care. AI and its application via digital health is increasingly presented as a possible solution. However, there is a scarcity of research focusing on primary care physician (PCP) attitudes toward AI. This study examines PCP views on AI in primary care. We explore its potential impact on topics pertinent to primary care such as the doctor-patient relationship and clinical workflow. By doing so, we aim to inform primary care stakeholders to encourage successful, equitable uptake of future AI tools. Our study is the first to our knowledge to explore PCP attitudes using specific primary care AI use cases rather than discussing AI in medicine in general terms. Methods: From June to August 2023, we conducted a survey among 47 primary care physicians affiliated with a large academic health system in Southern California. The survey quantified attitudes toward AI in general as well as concerning two specific AI use cases. Additionally, we conducted interviews with 15 survey respondents. Results: Our findings suggest that PCPs have largely positive views of AI. However, attitudes often hinged on the context of adoption. While some concerns reported by PCPs regarding AI in primary care focused on technology (accuracy, safety, bias), many focused on people-and-process factors (workflow, equity, reimbursement, doctor-patient relationship). Conclusion: Our study offers nuanced insights into PCP attitudes towards AI in primary care and highlights the need for primary care stakeholder alignment on key issues raised by PCPs. AI initiatives that fail to address both the technological and people-and-process concerns raised by PCPs may struggle to make an impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]