Patients with mild CSM may be treated surgically or nonoperatively, whereas those with moderate-severe disease are treated operatively. Due to the long-term disability that may result from a delay in diagnosis and management, prompt referral to a spine surgeon is recommended for any patient suspected of having CSM. This review provides information and guidelines for practitioners to develop an actionable awareness of CSM. © Copyright 2020 by the American Board of Family Medicine.Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-based therapy is often used for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, this approach is under scrutiny because of ICS overuse in patients for whom it is not recommended and because of concerns about adverse events, particularly pneumonia, with long-term ICS use. Evidence suggests ICS may be beneficial in specific patients, namely, those with high blood eosinophil counts (eg, ≥300 cells/µL) or who are at a high risk of exacerbations. According to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2020 ABCD assessment tool, these patients belong in group D. For these patients, recommended initial treatment includes ICS in combination with long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) when blood eosinophil counts are ≥300 cells/µL or LABA + long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when patients are highly symptomatic, that is, with greater dyspnea and/or exercise limitation. Follow-up treatments for patients with persistent dyspnea and/or exacerbations may include LABA + ICS, LABA + LAMA, or LABA + LAMA + ICS, with use of ICS being guided by blood eosinophil counts. In this review, differences in the inflammatory mechanism underlying COPD and asthma and the role of ICS treatment in COPD are summarized. Furthermore, findings from recent clinical trials where use of ICS-based dual or triple therapy in COPD was compared with LABA + LAMA therapy and trials in which ICS withdrawal was evaluated in patients with COPD are reviewed. Finally, a step-by-step guide for ICS withdrawal in patients who are unlikely to benefit from this treatment is proposed. A video of the author discussing the overall takeaway of the review article could be downloaded from the link provided https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq7Sr5jqPDI. © Copyright 2020 by the American Board of Family Medicine.BACKGROUND Thyroid disorders are among the most commonly treated conditions by the United States health care system. The number of patients reporting thyroid hormone use has increased in recent years, but it is unknown if there have been differential increases in the number of treated individuals within different demographic groups. Previous research has also not evaluated how expenditures for different thyroid hormone medications have changed in recent years. METHODS Using data from the 1997 through 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we calculated the proportion of adults reporting thyroid hormone prescriptions by 3 demographic variables (age, sex, and race) and determined expenditures from thyroid hormone prescriptions by medication type (overall, generic, Synthroid or Cytomel, and other brand). RESULTS Between 1997 and 2016, the proportion of adults who reported thyroid hormone use increased from 4.1% (95% CI, 3.7-4.4) to 8.0% (95% CI, 7.5-8.5). Most of the growth in thyroid hormone use occurred among adults aged >65, and use was also more common among females and non-Hispanic whites. Expenditures from thyroid hormones increased from $1.1 billion (95% CI, 0.9-1.3) in 1997 to $3.2 billion dollars (95% CI, 2.9-3.6) in 2016. Generic thyroid hormone prescriptions comprised 18.1% of all thyroid hormone prescriptions in 2004 (95% CI, 15.8-20.4) and 80.8% of all thyroid hormone prescriptions (95% CI, 78.4-83.2) in 2016. CONCLUSIONS Thyroid hormone use nearly doubled over the last 20 years, and increased use was associated with being older, female, and non-Hispanic white. During the same time period, thyroid hormone expenditures almost tripled. © Copyright 2020 by the American Board of Family Medicine.BACKGROUND Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising is prevalent and affects patient care. Previous research that examined its effect on the patient-provider relationship predates many changes in the advertising and medical landscape that have occurred in the last decade, such as the rise in online promotion and the push for value-based medicine. METHODS We conducted a nationally representative mail-push-to-web survey of 1744 US adults in 2017 to explore how patients view the effects of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising on patient-provider interactions. RESULTS Most respondents (76%) said they were likely to ask a health care provider about advertised drugs; 26% said they had already done so. Among the 26% of respondents who talked to a health care provider about a specific prescription drug they saw advertised, 16% said they received a prescription for the advertised drug. Few respondents (5%) reported that advertising had caused conflict with a health care provider, 16% said it had caused them to question their provider’s advice, and 23% said they were likely to look for a different provider if their provider refused to prescribe a requested brand name drug. DISCUSSION These results suggest that direct-to-consumer advertising is driving some patients to discuss specific products with their health care providers but that most patients do not believe advertising has a negative influence on the patient-provider interaction itself. © Copyright 2020 by the American Board of Family Medicine.BACKGROUND Despite widespread recognition that adherence to clinical preventive guidelines improves patient outcomes, clinicians struggle to implement guideline changes in a timely manner. VX-445 datasheet Multiple factors influence guideline adoption and effective implementation. However, few studies evaluate their collective and inter-related effects. This qualitative study provides a comprehensive picture of the interplay between multiple factors on uptake of new or changed preventive guidelines. METHODS Semistructured interviews conducted in 2018 with a diverse sample of clinicians and practice leaders sought to understand patient, clinician, practice, health system, environment, and guideline factors of influence. An immersion-crystallization approach was used to identify emergent themes. RESULTS Interviewees expressed motivation to adhere to guidelines but also valued sharing decisions with patients. Personal biases and fears affected both clinician and patient guideline adoption. Practices facilitated implementation through workflow optimization and encouraging a culture of evidence-based practice while a key health system function was to maintain electronic health record alerts.