Low bone mineral density in ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy? A systematic review

Purpose: Non-ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy are prone to low bone mineral density. In ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy, bone mineral density deficits are expected to be small or absent, but a consensus conclusion is lacking. In this systematic review bone mineral density in ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy (Gross Motor Function Classification Scales I–III) was studied.

Materials and methods: Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched. According to international guidelines, low bone mineral density was defined as Z-score?≤??2.0. In addition, we focused on Z-score?≤??1.0 because this may indicate a tendency towards low bone mineral density.

Results: We included 16 studies, comprising 465 patients aged 1–65?years. Moderate and conflicting evidence for low bone mineral density (Z-score?≤??2.0) was found for several body parts (total proximal femur, total body, distal femur, lumbar spine) in children with Gross Motor Function Classification Scales II and III. We found no evidence for low bone mineral density in children with Gross Motor Function Classification Scale I or adults, although there was a tendency towards low bone mineral density (Z-score?≤??1.0) for several body parts.

Conclusions: Although more high-quality research is needed, results indicate that deficits in bone mineral density are not restricted to non-ambulatory people with cerebral palsy.

• Implications for Rehabilitation

• Although more high-quality research is needed, including adults and fracture risk assessment, the current study indicates that deficits in bone mineral density are not restricted to non-ambulatory people with CP.

• Health care professionals should be aware that optimal nutrition, supplements on indication, and an active lifestyle, preferably with weight-bearing activities, are important in ambulatory people with CP, also from a bone quality point-of-view.

• If indicated, medication and fall prevention training should be prescribed.

     

Current therapeutical strategies for allergic rhinitis

Introduction: Allergic rhinitis is a common condition with increasing prevalence and is associated with several comorbid disorders such as bronchial asthma and atopic dermatitis. If allergen avoidance is not possible, allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causal treatment option.

Areas covered: This review focuses on current treatments and the future outlook for allergic rhinitis. Pharmacotherapy includes mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, glucocorticosteroids (GCSs), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and nasal decongestants. Nasal GCSs are currently regarded as the most effective treatment and are considered first-line therapy together with non-sedating antihistamines. The new formulation MP29-02 combines the nasal GCS fluticasone propionate with azelastine in one single spray and has achieved greater improvements than those under monotherapy with modern GCSs or antihistamines. Furthermore, this review discusses allergen immunotherapy alone and in combination with modern monoclonal antibodies.

Expert opinion: Despite the variety of medications for allergic rhinitis, ranging from general symptomatic agents like GCSs or decongestants, to more specific ones like histamine receptor or leukotriene blockers, to causal therapy like immunotherapy, many patients still experience treatment failures or unsatisfactory results. The ultimate goal may be to endotype every downstream pathway separately in order to offer patients individualized, targeted therapy with specific antibodies against the respective pathway.