Volume 123, Issue 4

Context Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease that commonly affects joints. Although many treatment options exist, the most common, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), have been associated with pulmonary infections. These types of infections (specifically pneumonia) can be detrimental to RA patients. This leads providers to utilize other treatment modalities such as glucocorticoids (GCs). GCs are commonly utilized to treat RA; however, the role of GCs in the onset of pneumonia in RA patients is not fully understood. Objectives The goal of this study was to systematically review and statistically analyze pooled data documenting pneumonia as an adverse event in RA patients on DMARDs as a monotherapy vs RA patients on DMARDs and GCs as combination therapy utilizing the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) framework. Methods On August 1, 2021, a search was conducted and completed on six databases: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 12 researchers were involved with the search and screening of articles (K.E., P.R.; V.A., D.P.C.; C.B., D.C.; T.A., E.S.; S.H., L.B.; K.S., C.S.). Search terms were identified utilizing Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree and included “glucocorticoids,” “rheumatoid arthritis,” “pneumonia,” and “respiratory tract infections,” Inclusion criteria included human subjects over the age of 18 with seropositive RA, on a combination of GC (prednisone, methylprednisolone, or prednisolone) with DMARD (methotrexate [MTX], hydroxychloroquine [HCQ], or sulfasalazine [SSZ]) and developed pneumonia of bacterial, viral, or fungal origin. The control groups were on a DMARD monotherapy regimen. Articles were excluded if they were not in English, had less than 20 participants, were case reports or literature reviews, included animal subjects, and did not adhere to the established PICO framework. Five teams of two researchers individually sorted through abstracts of articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The same teams individually sorted through full-text articles of selected abstracts based on the same criteria. Conflicts between each team were resolved by a separate researcher. Odds ratios were utilized to quantify the effect sizes of combined studies from a random effects model. Chi-square tests and I2 statistics were utilized to analyze heterogeneity. Results A total of 3360 articles were identified from all databases, and 416 duplicate articles were removed. Thus, a total of 2944 articles abstracts were screened, of which 2819 articles either did not meet the inclusion criteria or did meet the exclusion criteria. A total of 125 articles were retrieved and assessed for full-text eligibility, of which only three observational articles were included for meta-analysis. Statistical results revealed that patients treated with DMARDs monotherapy are 95% (95% CI: 0.65–0.99) less likely to develop pneumonia compared to patients treated with a DMARD and GCs (p=0.002). Conclusions Our data suggest that RA patients have a higher probability of developing pneumonia on combination therapy with GCs, compared to monotherapy with DMARDs. To our knowledge, our findings are the first to systematically review and statistically evaluate the relationship between the use of GCs and show an increased chance of developing pneumonia.

Context Despite the increase of importance placed on research, both by residency program directors and the medical field at large, osteopathic medical students (OMS) have significantly fewer research experiences than United States (U.S.) allopathic medical students and non-U.S. international medical graduates. However, few studies have addressed this long-standing discrepancy, and none directly have focused on osteopathic medical students to assess their unique needs. The literature would benefit from identifying the barriers osteopathic medical students encounter when participating in research and understanding the currently available resources. Objectives To assess the barriers that OMS face when seeking research opportunities, identify resources currently available to osteopathic medical students at their respective schools, and investigate factors that contribute to an osteopathic medical student’s desire to pursue research opportunities. Additionally, to investigate osteopathic medical students’ confidence in research methodology. Methods A survey was created by the investigators and administered to participants over a three-month period via a GoogleForm. Research participants were surveyed for demographic information, as well as their involvement in research projects in the past, mentor availability, institutional resources, motivation to participate in research, individual barriers to participation, and confidence in their ability to do independent research. Responses were de-identified and analyzed using Microsoft Excel functions to count data and calculate percentages, as well as Pearson’s chi square analysis. Results After relevant exclusion, 668 responses were included. Of the students surveyed, 85.9% (574) indicated they currently and/or in the past were involved in research. More than half of the respondents that are not currently involved in research are interested in pursuing it (86.9%; 344). The primary barriers students reported facing include lack of time (57.8%; 386), feeling overwhelmed and unsure how to start (53.4%; 357), and lack of access to research (53%; 354). 34.7% (232) of students stated they either did not have resources from their school or were unsure whether these resources were available. The two most cited motivations to pursue research included boosting their residency application and/or interest in the area of study. Male gender and current research were associated with reported confidence in research ( [4, n=662]=10.6, p<0.05). Conclusions Findings from this study provide a synopsis of the barriers to research opportunities among osteopathic medical students. Notably, ⅓ of OMSs reported an absence or unawareness of available research resources at their osteopathic medical schools.

Structural skeletal abnormalities are associated with primary immunodeficient (PID) patients. These abnormalities have not been well studied in PID with reference to osteopathic medicine tenets. Osteopathic structural examinations of PID patients with respect to these tenets and the diagnosis of somatic dysfunctions preventing the free flow of lymph fluids back into the circulation and the disruption of the skeletal microenvironment may have an impact on the status of the immune system in patients with a PID. A standardized evaluation was conducted in a patient with a phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase regulatory subunit 1 (PIK3R1) mutation who presented with skeletal abnormalities. A literature review was also conducted to determine the breadth of other PIDs with structural irregularities. Osteopathic structural clinical examinations (OSCEs) were performed by an osteopathic medical student, fellow, and attending after receiving informed consent from the patient. The findings were collected regionally noting severity, tissue texture changes, asymmetry, altered range of motion (ROM), and tenderness according to DO-Touch.NET physical examination and treatment form. A literature review was conducted utilizing various search engines and the textbook, Stiehm’s Immune Deficiencies, 4th edition. The significant findings found from the patient were right sidebending rotation cranial strain pattern with decreased left temporal bone motion, temporomandibular joint crepitus, and right deviation upon mandibular opening. The thoracolumbar region revealed tissue tenderness and restricted psoas ROM. Bilateral sacroiliac joint tenderness, right superior sheering, and anterior innominate rotation, along with left-on-left sacral flexion, were associated with valgus knees. The literature search showed multiple other PIDs outside of PIK3R1 that have associated skeletal and structural abnormalities. Irregular skeletal features found in immunodeficient patients may have an additive defect on the immunological responses due to somatic dysfunction impinging on the lymphatic flow to the central circulation. Other different immunodeficient patients suffer from boney structural abnormalities, which may lead to further immune hindrance caused by impingement of flow as well as bone marrow microenvironment impact on the peripheral immunological output. We present the first osteopathic examination with detailed findings of somatic dysfunction in a patient with PID. Future studies on PID patients should require more attention to structure and function, as found by a thorough osteopathic examination in order to unrestrict preformed cellular and humoral components back into the peripheral circulation.

Context Lymphatic treatments are gentle and passive techniques believed to enhance movement of lymph back into the central circulatory system. Animal studies provide supportive evidence, yet there are few studies in humans. Objectives The aim of this study is to investigate whether the osteopathic pedal pump protocol reduces volume in the lower limbs of healthy subjects. Methods A total of 30 first- and second-year medical students were recruited. Subjects were excluded from participating if they had acute asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure, active infections, fractures of the lower extremities, or metastatic cancer. A within-subjects study design with pre- and posttreatment measurement of lower limb volume was utilized. Pretreatment lower limb volume measurements were obtained utilizing a volumetric water gauge prior to myofascial thoracic inlet release and a 5 min pedal lymphatic pump protocol treatment. Posttreatment lower limb measurements were taken immediately following the protocol treatment. A telephone interview was conducted 2–3 days after the treatment to assess the participants’ experience of the treatment and whether the treatment elicited a subjective change from baseline. A paired t test was utilized to determine the statistical significance of volume displacement posttreatment. Results The mean change of pretreatment to posttreatment lower limb volume was −45.63 mL with a standard deviation of 37.65 mL. The change between the pretreatment and posttreatment volume measurements was statistically significant (p<0.001). The minimum displacement was +19 mL, and the maximum displacement was −167 mL. The majority of participants perceived the treatment as effective and enjoyable, were likely to recommend it to others, and were willing to have it performed on them at routine office visits if there was a need. Conclusions The osteopathic pedal pump technique, when utilized on those without leg lymphedema, reduces lower limb volume as measured by the volumetric water gauge. Further studies are warranted, especially in persons with excess lower-extremity edema, lymphedema or venous stasis.

Osteopathic medicine is a holistic, patient-specific approach. Explaining the impact of osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) has been problematic because many of its effects are nonlinear. Complex systems theory (CST) is explored as a mechanism of understanding the interplay of the body’s anatomy and physiology, an illness process, and the effects of OMM. Tensegrity is discussed as an example of an emergent property of the body’s systems that affects not only biomechanics but also pathophysiology. Previous explanations of osteopathic philosophy are reviewed. The Host + Disease=Illness paradigm is a way to think through the impact of host and disease factors on an illness state, and how targeted interventions may affect the illness. The Osteopathic 5 Models are another way to view the body’s complexity. The area of greatest restriction (AGR) screen can be understood to direct OMM in a way that respects complexity and enables asymmetric and nonlocal results to realize health potential. The impact of this framework is in coherently explaining the impact of osteopathic philosophy and OMM and exploring new approaches to research.

Context Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in children and often goes untreated. A major barrier to treatment is the stigma surrounding the disorder, including from the educational and scientific community. Person-centered language (PCL) is associated with positive health outcomes, and its implementation is recommended by multiple professional groups, but its use has not been quantified for ADHD. Objectives The goal of this study is to quantify the adherence to PCL among ADHD-related journal publications utilizing a cross-sectional study design. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional examination including a systematic search of PubMed, which encompasses MEDLINE, for ADHD-related articles from January 2014 to March 2021. All journals with at least 20 ADHD-related search returns, human research, and in the English language were included, totaling 5,308 articles from 88 journals. Articles were randomized, and the first 500 were screened for inclusion of prespecified, non-PCL terminology. After exclusion, 311 articles were retained. Results Of the 311 retained articles, 131 (42.1%) adhered to PCL guidelines. Among articles with non-PCL, stigmatizing language such as “problem(s) with [the/a] child or problem child” and “suffers from” was found most frequently— occurring in 47.6% (148/311) and 5.8% (18/311) of the articles, respectively. We found no significant association between PCL adherence and study characteristics. Conclusions Our findings revealed that over half of the current ADHD literature did not adhere to PCL guidelines. Adherence to PCL by the scientific and medical community will increase the overall efforts to mitigate stigma and increase support for individuals with ADHD.