Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Prevention and Treatment.

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy occurs in up to 50% of patients with diabetes mellitus and increases the risk of diabetic foot ulcers and infections. Consistent screening and clear communication are essential to decrease disparities in assessment of neuropathic symptoms and diagnosis. Physicians should address underlying risk factors such as poor glycemic control, vitamin B12 deficiency, elevated blood pressure, and obesity to reduce the likelihood of developing neuropathy. First-line drug therapy for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy includes duloxetine, gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin; however, these medications do not restore sensation to affected extremities. Evidence for long-term benefit and safety of first-line treatment options is lacking. Second-line drug therapy includes nortriptyline, imipramine, venlafaxine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, topical lidocaine, and topical capsaicin. Periodic, objective monitoring of medication response is critical because patients may not obtain desired pain reduction, adverse effects are common, and serious adverse effects can occur. Opioids should generally be avoided. Nondrug therapies with low- to moderate-quality evidence include exercise and neuromodulation with spinal cord stimulation or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Peripheral transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation is well tolerated and inexpensive, but benefits are modest. Other treatments, such as acupuncture, alpha-lipoic acid, acetyl-L-carnitine, cannabidiol, and onabotulinumtoxinA need further study in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Development of a Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Genetics Curriculum for Community Health Workers: KEEP IT (Keeping Each other Engaged Program via IT) Community Health Worker Training.

We developed a curriculum for community health workers (CHWs) using an innovative, community-engaged focus group and Delphi process approach. Equipping CHWs with knowledge of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) and genetics could help enhance identification of women at risk for HBOC, referral, and navigation through genetic services. We conducted focus groups with five CHWs and a three-round Delphi process with eight experts. In the first round of the Delphi process, participants rated and commented on draft curriculum modules. The second round involved live video discussion to highlight points of confusion and concern in the modules. The curriculum was revised and refined based on quantitative and qualitative data and reassessed by the experts in Round 3. Ultimately, agreement was achieved on eight of 10 modules when assessing for clarity of learning objectives, seven out of 10 when assessing for adult learning theory, and nine out of 10 when assessing for participants' ability to learn desired knowledge. We plan to virtually deliver this curriculum to CHWs to enhance their HBOC and genomic competencies. By equipping CHWs to understand and participate in genomics education, we can enable more equitable participation in genomics-informed clinical care and research. Beyond this curriculum, the Delphi methodology can further be used to design content for new CHW curriculums.

Implementation of risk assessment process for breast cancer risk in primary care.

Background: Current cancer prevention guidelines recommend assessing breast cancer risk using validated risk calculators such as Tyrer-Cuzick and assessing genetic testing eligibility with NCCN. Women at high-risk of breast cancer may be recommended to undergo additional or earlier screening. Risk assessment is not consistently implemented in the primary care setting resulting in increased morbidity and mortality in unidentified high-risk individuals. Methods: A single-arm interventional study was conducted in an academic primary care clinic for women 25-50 years old presenting for primary care appointments. Pre-visit workflows evaluated breast cancer risk using the Cancer Risk Assessment (CRA) Tool and information was provided to the clinician with guideline-based recommendations. Post-visit questionnaires and chart review were conducted. Results: The survey response rate was 24.5% (144/587) with 80.3% of responses completed online (94/117). The average age of respondents was 35.8 years with 50.4% White and 35.9% Black. There were no differences in response rate based on race. Risk discussion was documented in the medical record in 15.4% of cases with a higher rate of documentation in high-risk patient based on risk assessment as compared with average risk respondents (34.6% vs. 9.7%, p<0.01). In the high-risk women identified 11.4% (4/35) were seen by the high-risk breast clinic, and 5.7% (2/35) were referred for genetic evaluation. None had previously obtained MRI screening or genetic testing. Conclusions: There is limited identification and evaluation of women at high risk for breast cancer. Pre-visit surveys can be used as a tool to assess breast cancer risk in the primary care setting; however additional strategies are needed to implement systematic risk assessment and facilitate appropriate treatment based on risk level.