Validation of the GALS musculoskeletal screening exam for use in primary care: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: As the proportion of the Canadian population > or =65 grows, so too does the prevalence of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. Approximately 20% of visits to family physicians occur as a result of MSK complaints. The GALS (Gait, Arms, Legs, and Spine) screening examination was developed to assist in the detection of MSK abnormalities. Although MSK exams are primarily performed by rheumatologists or other MSK specialists, expanding their use in primary health care may improve the detection of MSK conditions allowing for earlier treatment. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the use of the GALS locomotor screen in primary care by comparing the results of assessments of family physicians with those of rheumatologists. The secondary goal was to examine the incidence of MSK disorders and assess the frequency with which new diagnoses not previously documented in patients' charts were identified. METHODS: Patients > or =65 years old recruited from an academic family health centre were examined by a rheumatologist and a family physician who recorded the appearance of each participant's gait and the appearance and movement of the arms, legs and spine by deeming them normal or abnormal. GALS scores were compared between physicians with the proportion of observed (Pobs), positive (Ppos) and negative (Pneg) agreement being the primary outcomes. Kappa statistics were also calculated. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the number of "new" diagnoses by comparing rheumatologists' findings with each patient's family practice chart. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients consented to participate (92 with previously diagnosed MSK conditions). Results showed reasonable agreement between family physicians and rheumatologists; Pobs = 0.698, Ppos = 0.614 and Pneg = 0.752. The coefficient of agreement (estimated Kappa) was 0.3675 for the composite GALS score. For individual components of the GALS exam, the highest agreement between family physicians and rheumatologists was in the assessment of gait and arm movement. CONCLUSION: Previously reported increases in undiagnosed signs and symptoms of musculoskeletal conditions have highlighted the need for a simple yet sensitive screening exam for the identification of musculoskeletal abnormalities. Results of this study suggest that family physicians can efficiently use the GALS examination in the assessment of populations with a high proportion of musculoskeletal issues.

Are oral bisphosphonates effective in improving lumbar bone mineral density in breast cancer survivors with osteopenia or osteoporosis?

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer survivors with osteoporosis or osteopenia are commonly encountered in primary care and gynaecology practices. Our objective was to determine whether treatment with oral bisphosphonates (alendronate or cyclic etidronate) was more effective than calcium with vitamin D in improving lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) within one year in breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Breast cancer survivors with at least one year of clinical follow-up were identified from the prospective observational Canadian Database of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia (CANDOO). Analysis of covariance was used to examine the effects of bisphosphonate therapy on change in lumbar spine BMD at one year compared with the effects of calcium with vitamin D (analysis adjusted for baseline L2-L4 BMD, current tamoxifen use, number of prevalent vertebral fractures [VFs], and time since diagnosis of breast cancer, and age). RESULTS: Eighteen patients took calcium and vitamin D, 25 took cyclic etidronate, and 27 took oral alendronate. Adjusted one-year BMD increases for alendronate and cyclic etidronate compared to calcium and vitamin D were as follows: alendronate 4.53% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26%, 7.81%, P = 0.008), and cyclic etidronate 1.85% (-1.55%, 5.25%, P = 0.280). BMD increases were significantly greater in patients with prevalent VF compared to those without VF (P = 0.025). In contrast, time since diagnosis of breast cancer was significantly associated with a decrease in BMD (P = 0.002). We were unable to detect any effect of current tamoxifen use, baseline lumbar spine BMD, or age on changes in BMD at one year. CONCLUSION: Treatment with alendronate was associated with significantly greater improvements in lumbar spine BMD within one year in breast cancer survivors when compared with treatment with cyclic etidronate or calcium and vitamin D.

Pharmacological treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review.

The purpose of this study was to review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies currently available for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).A literature search using MEDLINE from 1966 through to April 2005 and a hand search of abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) meetings for 2001 through to 2004 were performed. References of articles retrieved were also searched. The MEDLINE search yielded 570 citations and 157 abstracts from ACR were identified. Eighty-four studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs); 53 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (pharmacological treatment of AS and RCT) and were included in this review. Statistical pooling of data was not performed because of the disparate outcome measures used. Eight RCTs found nonselective NSAIDs and two RCTs found cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2-selective NSAIDs to be superior to placebo for relief of pain and improvement in physical function. Twenty-nine RCTs showed comparable efficacy and safety between nonselective NSAIDs. One RCT showed no difference between methylprednisolone 1g and 375 mg. Seven RCTs assessing the efficacy of sulfasalazine (sulphasalazine) and two RCTs of methotrexate provided contradictory evidence as to their benefit for treatment of AS. One RCT showed intravenous pamidronate 60 mg to be more effective than 10mg intravenously for the treatment of axial pain. All six RCTs of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha agents demonstrated superiority to placebo for the treatment of axial and peripheral symptoms. Nonselective as well as COX-2-selective NSAIDs can be used for pain control in patients with AS. Other proven treatment options include sulfasalazine for the treatment of peripheral joint symptoms, while limited evidence supports the use of pamidronate or methotrexate, which require further studies. Anti-TNFalpha agents have been found very effective for the treatment of both peripheral and axial symptoms in patients with AS, but their use is limited by cost and uncertainty over long-term efficacy and safety.