[Ophthalmic drug therapy in professional athletes-what is allowed, what is doping?]

At first sight, ophthalmic drugs are not necessarily suspected of being used as performance-enhancing agents in competitive sports. However, there are some restrictions that must be noted, especially when certain drugs are taken orally. A structured analysis of the doping relevance of ophthalmic drugs was performed on the basis of a literature review, taking into account the current guidelines of the National Anti-Doping Agency of Germany and the World Anti-Doping Agency. Use of the most common ophthalmological drug groups is possible without restrictions, especially in the case of topical application. An exception is the oral use of diuretics, which is prohibited at all times. For glucocorticoids, topical application to the eye is allowed, but oral application is prohibited in competition. A similar restriction applies to the use of epinephrin, for which all forms of systemic application are prohibited in competition. When taking beta-blockers, the sport being played is the determining factor: use is prohibited in billiards, archery, darts, golf, motor sports, shooting sports, skiing/snowboarding, ski jumping, freestyle aerials/half pipe, snowboard half pipe/big air, and underwater sports. For shooting and archery, beta-blockers are also prohibited outside of competitions. Athletes with pre-existing ophthalmological conditions should seek comprehensive advice from an ophthalmologist before using any medication, and together they should choose a permissible active ingredient, consider the appropriate route of application, and, if necessary, apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption. It is currently not known how many of the national and international athletes have to be treated with eye drops.

Variables associated with use of symptomatic medication during a headache attack in individuals with tension-type headache: a European study

Background

Pharmacological treatment of patients with tension-type headache (TTH) includes symptomatic (acute) and prophylactic (preventive) medication. No previous study has investigated variables associated to symptomatic medication intake in TTH. Our aim was to assess the association of clinical, psychological and neurophysiological outcomes with the use and timing of the use of symptomatic medication in TTH.

Methods

A longitudinal observational study was conducted. One hundred and sixty-eight (n = 168) patients with TTH participated. Pain features of the headache (intensity, frequency, duration), burden of headache (Headache Disability Inventory), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), anxiety/depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), trait/state anxiety levels (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and bilateral pressure pain thresholds on the temporalis, C5-C6 joint, second metacarpal and tibialis anterior were assessed. Symptomatic medication intake was also collected for a 6-months follow-up period. Differences between patients using or not using symptomatic medication, depending on self-perceived effectiveness, and time (early during an attack, i.e., the first 5 min, or when headache attack is intense) when the symptomatic medication was taken were calculated.

Results

One hundred and thirty-six (n = 136, 80%) reported symptomatic medication intake for headache (73% NSAIDs). Sixteen (12%) reported no pain relief, 81 (59%) experienced moderate relief and 39 (29%) total pain relief. Fifty-eight (43%) took ‘early medication’ whereas 78 (57%) took ‘late medication’. Patients taking symptomatic medication in general showed lower headache frequency and lower depressive levels than those patients not taking medication. Symptomatic medication was more effective in patients with lower headache history, frequency, and duration, and lower emotional burden. No differences in pressure pain sensitivity were found depending on the self-perceived effectiveness of medication. Patients taking ‘late symptomatic’ medication exhibited more widespread pressure pain sensitivity than those taking ‘early medication’.

Conclusions

This study found that the effectiveness of symptomatic medication was associated with better headache parameters (history, frequency, or duration) and lower emotional burden. Further, consuming early symptomatic medication at the beginning of a headache attack (the first 5 min) could limit widespread pressure pain sensitivity.

[Headache, abdominal and back pain in children and adolescents in Germany : Results from KiGGS Wave 2 and trends]

BACKGROUND

Pain not only causes suffering in children and adolescents, but also leads to school absenteeism, medication intake, medical treatment, and an increased risk of recurrent pain in adulthood.

OBJECTIVES

Based on data from the nationwide German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS Wave 2, 2014-2017), the 3‑month prevalence of recurrent headache, abdominal and back pain in girls and boys is reported, and is compared with the prevalence from the KiGGS baseline survey (2003-2006). The consequences of recurrent headache were also explored.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from >11,000 participants (KiGGS Wave 2) and from >12,000 (KiGGS baseline) participants aged between 3 and 17 years were analyzed. For 3‑ to 10-year-olds, parents/guardians answered the questions, while 11- to 17-year-olds provided information themselves.

RESULTS

In 3‑ to 10-year-olds, recurrent abdominal pain was most prevalent, affecting one third of girls and one quarter of boys. Headache was the most frequent type of pain in 11- to 17-year-olds, affecting almost every second girl and about every third boy. The 3‑month prevalence of recurrent headache, abdominal and back pain has increased in girls and boys, especially in the age groups 7 to 10 years and 11 to 13 years. Among recurrent headache sufferers, adolescents take medication almost twice as often as children.

CONCLUSIONS

Headache, abdominal, and back pain are still and with increasing prevalence very common symptoms in children and adolescents in Germany. Their prevention requires a holistic view of children's health in the psychosocial living environment, and healthcare context.

[Informal care for dementia according to type of service]

BACKGROUND

Dementia is a major challenge for society and its impact will grow in the future. Informal care is an essential part of dementia care. Previous studies considered informal care as a whole and not by its components.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the degree of association between specific informal care services and dementia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This analysis is based on data from the seventh wave of the AgeCoDe/AgeQualiDe study. Dementia was diagnosed based on the DSM-IV criteria. Severity of dementia was assessed and categorized by means of the Clinical Dementia Rating and eight individual informal care services were considered. Logistic regression models were used to assess associations.

RESULTS

Of the 864 participants 18% suffered from dementia (very mild: 4%; mild: 6%; moderate: 5%; severe: 3%). All informal care services were significantly associated with dementia, with an emphasis on "supervision", "regulation of financial matters" and "assistance in the intake of medication". Considering different degrees of dementia severity, similar results arose from the analyses. All three aforementioned services showed a pronounced association with all degrees of dementia severity, except for supervision and very mild dementia.

CONCLUSION

The provision of all types of informal care services is associated with dementia. The association is pronounced for services that can be more easily integrated into the daily routines of the informal caregiver. Policy makers who plan to integrate informal care into the general care arrangements for dementia should consider this.