Avulsion of the rectus femoris origin is a rare injury. The only previous report of this injury in professional American football has been limited to the kicking athlete.

To describe the incidence and treatment of proximal rectus femoris avulsion in the National Football League (NFL).

The NFL Injury Surveillance System (NFLISS) was reviewed for any proximal rectus femoris avulsion injuries from 1986 to 2006, including the type and mechanism of injury, player demographics, method of treatment, and time to return to play. The NFL team physicians and trainers were surveyed as to their experience with these injuries as well.

A total of 11 cases of proximal rectus femoris avulsion were identified starting in 1997. These injuries occurred in athletes in a variety of positions. All of these were treated nonoperatively, and the mean return to play was 69.2 days.

Rectus femoris avulsions are uncommon injuries in the NFL, occurring about once a year in the entire league (once magnetic resonance imaging facilitated correct diagnosis of these injuries). Conservative treatment of these injuries usually results in return to play after 6 to 12 weeks.

Proximal avulsions of the rectus femoris can be treated nonoperatively with a high degree of predictability for return to full, unrestricted participation in professional American football.

Nonoperative treatment for proximal avulsion of the rectus femoris in professional American football.

American Journal of Sports Medicine

Primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an immune-mediated bleeding disorder characterized by decreased platelet counts and an increased risk of bleeding. Multiple humoral and cellular immune abnormalities result in accelerated platelet destruction and suppressed platelet production in ITP. The diagnosis remains a clinical exclusion of other causes of thrombocytopenia. Treatment is not required except for patients with active bleeding, severe thrombocytopenia, or cases in need of invasive procedures. Corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, and anti-RhD immunoglobulin are the classical initial treatments for newly diagnosed ITP in adults, but these agents generally cannot induce a long-term response in most patients. Subsequent treatments for patients who fail the initial therapy include thrombopoietic agents, rituximab, fostamatinib, splenectomy, and several older immunosuppressive agents. Other potential therapeutic agents, such as inhibitors of Bruton's tyrosine kinase and neonatal Fc receptor, are currently under clinical evaluation. An optimized treatment strategy should aim at elevating the platelet counts to a safety level with minimal toxicity and improving patient health-related quality of life, and always needs to be tailored to the patients and disease phases. In this review, we address the concepts of adult ITP diagnosis and management and provide a comprehensive overview of current therapeutic strategies under general and specific situations.

How we treat primary immune thrombocytopenia in adults.

Journal of Hematology & Oncology

The number of people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and its complications worldwide is increasing at an alarming rate. Fortunately, our understanding of the benefits of glucose-lowering agents from the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist classes on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes is advancing; this means we now have new options to mitigate the risks of these complications in patients with T2D. The SGLT2 inhibitors have consistently demonstrated benefits on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure (HF) events in dedicated outcome trials. Large guidelines groups now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as a standard of care in patients with T2D and comorbid ASCVD, CKD and/ or HF. Evolving evidence additionally indicates kidney and HF benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in populations without diabetes. These agents likely provide heart and kidney benefits through multiple mechanisms, as their impact on heart and kidney outcomes cannot be fully explained by their direct metabolic effects. On-going work to elucidate the beneficial mechanisms at play with SGLT2 inhibitors will help further optimize these life-saving therapies in patients with and without T2D.

Clinical Evidence and Proposed Mechanisms for Cardiovascular and Kidney Benefits from Sodium-Glucose Co-transporter-2 Inhibitors.

TouchREVIEWS in endocrinology.

Persons with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a high residual risk of developing cardiovascular (CV) complications despite treatment with renin-angiotensin system blockers and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors. Overactivation of mineralocorticoid receptors plays a key role in the progression of renal and CV disease, mainly by promoting inflammation and fibrosis. Finerenone is a nonsteroidal selective mineralocorticoid antagonist. Recent clinical trials, such as FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD and the combined analysis FIDELITY have demonstrated that finerenone decreases albuminuria, risk of CKD progression, and CV risk in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and CKD. As a result, finerenone should thus be considered as part of a holistic approach to kidney and CV risk in persons with T2D and CKD. In this narrative review, the impact of finerenone treatment on the CV system in persons with type 2 diabetes and CKD is analyzed from a practical point of view.Key messages:Despite inhibition of renin-angiotensin system and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2, persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remain on high cardiovascular (CV) residual risk.Overactivation of mineralocorticoid receptors plays a key role in the progression of renal and CV disease, mainly by promoting inflammation and fibrosis that is not targeted by traditional treatments.Finerenone is a nonsteroidal selective mineralocorticoid antagonist that decreases not only albuminuria, but also the risk of CKD progression, and CV risk in subjects with T2D and CKD.

Cardiorenal benefits of finerenone: protecting kidney and heart.

Annals of Medicine

Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited.

In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed.

A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.

Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

Early Restrictive or Liberal Fluid Management for Sepsis-Induced Hypotension.

New England Journal of Medicine

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.&#xa0; DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

We included 11&#xa0;new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four&#xa0;ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).&#xa0; One previously reported ongoing RCT&#xa0;has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.&#xa0; Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included&#xa0;schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention),&#xa0;there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no&#xa0;difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need&#xa0;for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Toxic neuropathies result from exogenous substances damaging the peripheral nerves. There are numerous causes, including prescribed and recreational drugs, heavy metals, industrial agents and biological toxins. Timely recognition of these neuropathies gives better outcomes, as they usually improve or stabilise once the toxin is removed. Most toxic neuropathies are axonal, length-dependent and sensory predominant, although some have significant motor involvement or can present acutely or subacutely. Here, we outline our clinical approach and discuss the major causes of toxic neuropathy, while emphasising the clinical and neurophysiological features and the neuropathy phenotype. We also include an update on newer medications that can cause neuropathy, including immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

Nonoperative treatment for proximal avulsion of the rectus femoris in professional American football.

Full text links

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Nonoperative treatment for proximal avulsion of the rectus femoris in professional American football.

Full text links

Trending Papers

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app