User login
What To Do With Lipoprotein(a)?
Case: 45-year-old woman comes to clinic and requests lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] testing. She has a family history of early coronary disease (mother age 50, sister age 48) and has hypertension with home blood pressure readings of 130-140/70-75. She had a lipid panel checked last year which showed a total cholesterol of 210 mg/dL, LDL 145 mg/dL, HDL 45 mg/dL, and triglycerides of 100 mg/dL. She does not smoke and is currently taking irbesartan, chlorthalidone, sertraline, a multivitamin, and vitamin D.
What do you recommend?
There has been a great deal of media attention on testing for Lp(a). Many of my patients are requesting testing although many of them do not need it. This patient is an exception. I think Lp(a) testing would help inform her medical care. She has a family history of early coronary disease in her mother and sister, but her own lipid profile is not worrisome.
Her 10-year cardiovascular disease risk is 2%. The cardiac risk calculator does not incorporate family history; I think this is a situation where testing for Lp(a)(as well as apolipoprotein B) can be helpful. If her Lp(a) is elevated, it helps reassess her risk and that information would be helpful in targeting aggressive interventions for other CV risk factors, including optimal blood pressure control. In her case, pushing for a goal systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg and making sure she is doing regular exercise and eating a heart-healthy diet. The current consensus statement on Lp(a) recommends that patients with elevated levels have aggressive lifestyle and cardiovascular risk management.1
Currently, there are no medical treatments available for high Lp(a) for primary prevention. Apheresis has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with familial hyperlipidemia who have LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL, Lp(a) ≥ 60 mg/dL, and coronary or other artery disease.
PCSK9 inhibitors have shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in patients who have established coronary artery disease and high Lp(a) levels, albeit with limited data. Unlike statins, which increase Lp(a) levels, PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) levels.2 There are promising early results in a phase 2 trial of the oral drug muvalaplin lowering Lp(a) levels by up to 85% for the highest dose, but there are no peer-reviewed articles confirming these results and no outcome trials at this time.
In patients who are already recognized as high risk, especially those with established coronary artery disease, measuring Lp(a) levels offer little benefit. These patients should already be receiving aggressive medical therapy to reach blood pressure targets if hypertensive, maximal lifestyle modifications, and statin therapy.
If these patients need more therapy because of continued coronary events, despite maximal conventional medical therapy, then adding a PCSK9 inhibitor would be appropriate whether or not a patient has a high Lp(a) level. Once Lp(a) targeted therapies are available and show clinical benefit, then the role of Lp(a) measurement and treatment in this population will be clearer.
Pearl: Most patients do not need Lp(a) testing. There are no FDA-approved treatments for high Lp(a) levels.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Kronenberg F et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: A European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3925-46.
2. Ruscica M et al. Lipoprotein(a) and PCSK9 inhibition: Clinical evidence Eur Heart J Suppl 2020;Nov 18(Suppl L):L53–L56.
Case: 45-year-old woman comes to clinic and requests lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] testing. She has a family history of early coronary disease (mother age 50, sister age 48) and has hypertension with home blood pressure readings of 130-140/70-75. She had a lipid panel checked last year which showed a total cholesterol of 210 mg/dL, LDL 145 mg/dL, HDL 45 mg/dL, and triglycerides of 100 mg/dL. She does not smoke and is currently taking irbesartan, chlorthalidone, sertraline, a multivitamin, and vitamin D.
What do you recommend?
There has been a great deal of media attention on testing for Lp(a). Many of my patients are requesting testing although many of them do not need it. This patient is an exception. I think Lp(a) testing would help inform her medical care. She has a family history of early coronary disease in her mother and sister, but her own lipid profile is not worrisome.
Her 10-year cardiovascular disease risk is 2%. The cardiac risk calculator does not incorporate family history; I think this is a situation where testing for Lp(a)(as well as apolipoprotein B) can be helpful. If her Lp(a) is elevated, it helps reassess her risk and that information would be helpful in targeting aggressive interventions for other CV risk factors, including optimal blood pressure control. In her case, pushing for a goal systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg and making sure she is doing regular exercise and eating a heart-healthy diet. The current consensus statement on Lp(a) recommends that patients with elevated levels have aggressive lifestyle and cardiovascular risk management.1
Currently, there are no medical treatments available for high Lp(a) for primary prevention. Apheresis has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with familial hyperlipidemia who have LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL, Lp(a) ≥ 60 mg/dL, and coronary or other artery disease.
PCSK9 inhibitors have shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in patients who have established coronary artery disease and high Lp(a) levels, albeit with limited data. Unlike statins, which increase Lp(a) levels, PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) levels.2 There are promising early results in a phase 2 trial of the oral drug muvalaplin lowering Lp(a) levels by up to 85% for the highest dose, but there are no peer-reviewed articles confirming these results and no outcome trials at this time.
In patients who are already recognized as high risk, especially those with established coronary artery disease, measuring Lp(a) levels offer little benefit. These patients should already be receiving aggressive medical therapy to reach blood pressure targets if hypertensive, maximal lifestyle modifications, and statin therapy.
If these patients need more therapy because of continued coronary events, despite maximal conventional medical therapy, then adding a PCSK9 inhibitor would be appropriate whether or not a patient has a high Lp(a) level. Once Lp(a) targeted therapies are available and show clinical benefit, then the role of Lp(a) measurement and treatment in this population will be clearer.
Pearl: Most patients do not need Lp(a) testing. There are no FDA-approved treatments for high Lp(a) levels.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Kronenberg F et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: A European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3925-46.
2. Ruscica M et al. Lipoprotein(a) and PCSK9 inhibition: Clinical evidence Eur Heart J Suppl 2020;Nov 18(Suppl L):L53–L56.
Case: 45-year-old woman comes to clinic and requests lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] testing. She has a family history of early coronary disease (mother age 50, sister age 48) and has hypertension with home blood pressure readings of 130-140/70-75. She had a lipid panel checked last year which showed a total cholesterol of 210 mg/dL, LDL 145 mg/dL, HDL 45 mg/dL, and triglycerides of 100 mg/dL. She does not smoke and is currently taking irbesartan, chlorthalidone, sertraline, a multivitamin, and vitamin D.
What do you recommend?
There has been a great deal of media attention on testing for Lp(a). Many of my patients are requesting testing although many of them do not need it. This patient is an exception. I think Lp(a) testing would help inform her medical care. She has a family history of early coronary disease in her mother and sister, but her own lipid profile is not worrisome.
Her 10-year cardiovascular disease risk is 2%. The cardiac risk calculator does not incorporate family history; I think this is a situation where testing for Lp(a)(as well as apolipoprotein B) can be helpful. If her Lp(a) is elevated, it helps reassess her risk and that information would be helpful in targeting aggressive interventions for other CV risk factors, including optimal blood pressure control. In her case, pushing for a goal systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg and making sure she is doing regular exercise and eating a heart-healthy diet. The current consensus statement on Lp(a) recommends that patients with elevated levels have aggressive lifestyle and cardiovascular risk management.1
Currently, there are no medical treatments available for high Lp(a) for primary prevention. Apheresis has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with familial hyperlipidemia who have LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL, Lp(a) ≥ 60 mg/dL, and coronary or other artery disease.
PCSK9 inhibitors have shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in patients who have established coronary artery disease and high Lp(a) levels, albeit with limited data. Unlike statins, which increase Lp(a) levels, PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) levels.2 There are promising early results in a phase 2 trial of the oral drug muvalaplin lowering Lp(a) levels by up to 85% for the highest dose, but there are no peer-reviewed articles confirming these results and no outcome trials at this time.
In patients who are already recognized as high risk, especially those with established coronary artery disease, measuring Lp(a) levels offer little benefit. These patients should already be receiving aggressive medical therapy to reach blood pressure targets if hypertensive, maximal lifestyle modifications, and statin therapy.
If these patients need more therapy because of continued coronary events, despite maximal conventional medical therapy, then adding a PCSK9 inhibitor would be appropriate whether or not a patient has a high Lp(a) level. Once Lp(a) targeted therapies are available and show clinical benefit, then the role of Lp(a) measurement and treatment in this population will be clearer.
Pearl: Most patients do not need Lp(a) testing. There are no FDA-approved treatments for high Lp(a) levels.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Kronenberg F et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: A European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3925-46.
2. Ruscica M et al. Lipoprotein(a) and PCSK9 inhibition: Clinical evidence Eur Heart J Suppl 2020;Nov 18(Suppl L):L53–L56.
Gabapentin: The Hope, the Harm, the Myth, the Reality
Since gabapentin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of partial-onset seizures and postherpetic neuralgia, it has been used in many different ways, many off-label indications, and with several recent safety warnings.
Early Problems
After FDA approval in 1993 (for partial seizures), gabapentin was promoted by its maker (Park-Davis) for off-label indications, especially for pain. There was no FDA approval for that indication and the studies the company had done were deemed to have been manipulated in a subsequent lawsuit.1 Gabapentin became the nonopioid go-to medication for treatment of pain despite underwhelming evidence.
Studies on Neuropathy
In the largest trial of gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Rauck and colleagues found no significant difference in pain relief between gabapentin and placebo.2 A Cochrane review of gabapentin for neuropathic pain concluded that about 30%-40% of patients taking gabapentin for diabetic neuropathy achieved meaningful pain relief with gabapentin use, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6.6.3 The review also concluded that for postherpetic neuralgia (an FDA-approved indication) 78% of patients had moderate to substantial benefit with gabapentin (NNT 4.8 for moderate benefit).
Side Effects of Gabapentin
From the Cochrane review, the most common side effects were: dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral edema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%). The number needed to harm for gabapentin was 7.5 The two side effects listed here that are often overlooked that I want to highlight are peripheral edema and gait disturbance. I have seen these both fairly frequently over the years. A side effect not found in the Cochrane review was weight gain. Weight gain with gabapentin was reported in a meta-analysis of drugs that can cause weight gain.4
New Warnings
In December 2019, the FDA released a warning on the potential for serious respiratory problems with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with certain risk factors: opioid use or use of other drugs that depress the central nervous system, COPD, and other severe lung diseases.5 Rahman and colleagues found that compared with nonuse, gabapentinoid use was associated with increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.50).6
Off-Label Uses
Primary care professionals frequently use gabapentin for two off-label indications that are incorporated into practice guidelines. Ryan et al. studied gabapentin in patients with refractory, unexplained chronic cough.7 In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, gabapentin improved cough-specific quality of life compared with placebo (P = .004; NNT 3.58). Use of gabapentin for treatment of unexplained, refractory cough has been included in several chronic cough practice guidelines.8,9
Gabapentin has been studied for the treatment of restless legs syndrome and has been recommended as an option to treat moderate to severe restless legs syndrome in the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Guidelines.10
Pearl of the Month:
Gabapentin is used widely for many different pain syndromes. The best evidence is for postherpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy. Be aware of the side effects and risks of use in patients with pulmonary disease and who are taking CNS-depressant medications.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Landefeld CS, Steinman MA. The Neurontin legacy: marketing through misinformation and manipulation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(2):103-6.
2. Rauck R et al. A randomized, controlled trial of gabapentin enacarbil in subjects with neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pain Pract. 2013;13(6):485-96.
3. Wiffen PJ et al. Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6(6):CD007938.
4. Domecq JP et al. Clinical review: Drugs commonly associated with weight change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb;100(2):363-70.
5. 12-19-2019 FDA Drug Safety Communication. FDA warns about serious breathing problems with seizure and nerve pain medicines gabapentin (Neurontin, Gralise, Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica, Lyrica CR).
6. Rahman AA et al. Gabapentinoids and risk for severe exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Feb;177(2):144-54.
7. Ryan NM et al. Gabapentin for refractory chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380(9853):1583-9.
8. Gibson P et al. Treatment of unexplained chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016 Jan;149(1):27-44.
9. De Vincentis A et al. Chronic cough in adults: recommendations from an Italian intersociety consensus. Aging Clin Exp Res 2022;34:1529.
10. Aurora RN et al. The treatment of restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movement disorder in adults — an update for 2012: Practice parameters with an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analyses: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline. Sleep 2012;35:1039.
Since gabapentin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of partial-onset seizures and postherpetic neuralgia, it has been used in many different ways, many off-label indications, and with several recent safety warnings.
Early Problems
After FDA approval in 1993 (for partial seizures), gabapentin was promoted by its maker (Park-Davis) for off-label indications, especially for pain. There was no FDA approval for that indication and the studies the company had done were deemed to have been manipulated in a subsequent lawsuit.1 Gabapentin became the nonopioid go-to medication for treatment of pain despite underwhelming evidence.
Studies on Neuropathy
In the largest trial of gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Rauck and colleagues found no significant difference in pain relief between gabapentin and placebo.2 A Cochrane review of gabapentin for neuropathic pain concluded that about 30%-40% of patients taking gabapentin for diabetic neuropathy achieved meaningful pain relief with gabapentin use, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6.6.3 The review also concluded that for postherpetic neuralgia (an FDA-approved indication) 78% of patients had moderate to substantial benefit with gabapentin (NNT 4.8 for moderate benefit).
Side Effects of Gabapentin
From the Cochrane review, the most common side effects were: dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral edema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%). The number needed to harm for gabapentin was 7.5 The two side effects listed here that are often overlooked that I want to highlight are peripheral edema and gait disturbance. I have seen these both fairly frequently over the years. A side effect not found in the Cochrane review was weight gain. Weight gain with gabapentin was reported in a meta-analysis of drugs that can cause weight gain.4
New Warnings
In December 2019, the FDA released a warning on the potential for serious respiratory problems with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with certain risk factors: opioid use or use of other drugs that depress the central nervous system, COPD, and other severe lung diseases.5 Rahman and colleagues found that compared with nonuse, gabapentinoid use was associated with increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.50).6
Off-Label Uses
Primary care professionals frequently use gabapentin for two off-label indications that are incorporated into practice guidelines. Ryan et al. studied gabapentin in patients with refractory, unexplained chronic cough.7 In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, gabapentin improved cough-specific quality of life compared with placebo (P = .004; NNT 3.58). Use of gabapentin for treatment of unexplained, refractory cough has been included in several chronic cough practice guidelines.8,9
Gabapentin has been studied for the treatment of restless legs syndrome and has been recommended as an option to treat moderate to severe restless legs syndrome in the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Guidelines.10
Pearl of the Month:
Gabapentin is used widely for many different pain syndromes. The best evidence is for postherpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy. Be aware of the side effects and risks of use in patients with pulmonary disease and who are taking CNS-depressant medications.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Landefeld CS, Steinman MA. The Neurontin legacy: marketing through misinformation and manipulation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(2):103-6.
2. Rauck R et al. A randomized, controlled trial of gabapentin enacarbil in subjects with neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pain Pract. 2013;13(6):485-96.
3. Wiffen PJ et al. Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6(6):CD007938.
4. Domecq JP et al. Clinical review: Drugs commonly associated with weight change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb;100(2):363-70.
5. 12-19-2019 FDA Drug Safety Communication. FDA warns about serious breathing problems with seizure and nerve pain medicines gabapentin (Neurontin, Gralise, Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica, Lyrica CR).
6. Rahman AA et al. Gabapentinoids and risk for severe exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Feb;177(2):144-54.
7. Ryan NM et al. Gabapentin for refractory chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380(9853):1583-9.
8. Gibson P et al. Treatment of unexplained chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016 Jan;149(1):27-44.
9. De Vincentis A et al. Chronic cough in adults: recommendations from an Italian intersociety consensus. Aging Clin Exp Res 2022;34:1529.
10. Aurora RN et al. The treatment of restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movement disorder in adults — an update for 2012: Practice parameters with an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analyses: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline. Sleep 2012;35:1039.
Since gabapentin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of partial-onset seizures and postherpetic neuralgia, it has been used in many different ways, many off-label indications, and with several recent safety warnings.
Early Problems
After FDA approval in 1993 (for partial seizures), gabapentin was promoted by its maker (Park-Davis) for off-label indications, especially for pain. There was no FDA approval for that indication and the studies the company had done were deemed to have been manipulated in a subsequent lawsuit.1 Gabapentin became the nonopioid go-to medication for treatment of pain despite underwhelming evidence.
Studies on Neuropathy
In the largest trial of gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Rauck and colleagues found no significant difference in pain relief between gabapentin and placebo.2 A Cochrane review of gabapentin for neuropathic pain concluded that about 30%-40% of patients taking gabapentin for diabetic neuropathy achieved meaningful pain relief with gabapentin use, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6.6.3 The review also concluded that for postherpetic neuralgia (an FDA-approved indication) 78% of patients had moderate to substantial benefit with gabapentin (NNT 4.8 for moderate benefit).
Side Effects of Gabapentin
From the Cochrane review, the most common side effects were: dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral edema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%). The number needed to harm for gabapentin was 7.5 The two side effects listed here that are often overlooked that I want to highlight are peripheral edema and gait disturbance. I have seen these both fairly frequently over the years. A side effect not found in the Cochrane review was weight gain. Weight gain with gabapentin was reported in a meta-analysis of drugs that can cause weight gain.4
New Warnings
In December 2019, the FDA released a warning on the potential for serious respiratory problems with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with certain risk factors: opioid use or use of other drugs that depress the central nervous system, COPD, and other severe lung diseases.5 Rahman and colleagues found that compared with nonuse, gabapentinoid use was associated with increased risk for severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.50).6
Off-Label Uses
Primary care professionals frequently use gabapentin for two off-label indications that are incorporated into practice guidelines. Ryan et al. studied gabapentin in patients with refractory, unexplained chronic cough.7 In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, gabapentin improved cough-specific quality of life compared with placebo (P = .004; NNT 3.58). Use of gabapentin for treatment of unexplained, refractory cough has been included in several chronic cough practice guidelines.8,9
Gabapentin has been studied for the treatment of restless legs syndrome and has been recommended as an option to treat moderate to severe restless legs syndrome in the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Guidelines.10
Pearl of the Month:
Gabapentin is used widely for many different pain syndromes. The best evidence is for postherpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy. Be aware of the side effects and risks of use in patients with pulmonary disease and who are taking CNS-depressant medications.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Landefeld CS, Steinman MA. The Neurontin legacy: marketing through misinformation and manipulation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(2):103-6.
2. Rauck R et al. A randomized, controlled trial of gabapentin enacarbil in subjects with neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pain Pract. 2013;13(6):485-96.
3. Wiffen PJ et al. Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6(6):CD007938.
4. Domecq JP et al. Clinical review: Drugs commonly associated with weight change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb;100(2):363-70.
5. 12-19-2019 FDA Drug Safety Communication. FDA warns about serious breathing problems with seizure and nerve pain medicines gabapentin (Neurontin, Gralise, Horizant) and pregabalin (Lyrica, Lyrica CR).
6. Rahman AA et al. Gabapentinoids and risk for severe exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Feb;177(2):144-54.
7. Ryan NM et al. Gabapentin for refractory chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380(9853):1583-9.
8. Gibson P et al. Treatment of unexplained chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016 Jan;149(1):27-44.
9. De Vincentis A et al. Chronic cough in adults: recommendations from an Italian intersociety consensus. Aging Clin Exp Res 2022;34:1529.
10. Aurora RN et al. The treatment of restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movement disorder in adults — an update for 2012: Practice parameters with an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analyses: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline. Sleep 2012;35:1039.
Statins: So Misunderstood
Recently, a patient of mine was hospitalized with chest pain. She was diagnosed with an acute coronary syndrome and started on a statin in addition to a beta-blocker, aspirin, and clopidogrel. After discharge, she had symptoms of dizziness and recurrent chest pain and her first thought was to stop the statin because she believed that her symptoms were statin-related side effects. I will cover a few areas where I think that there are some misunderstandings about statins.
Statins Are Not Bad For the Liver
When lovastatin first became available for prescription in the 1980s, frequent monitoring of transaminases was recommended. Patients and healthcare professionals became accustomed to frequent liver tests to monitor for statin toxicity, and to this day, some healthcare professionals still obtain liver function tests for this purpose.
But is there a reason to do this? Pfeffer and colleagues reported on the results of over 112,000 people enrolled in the West of Scotland Coronary Protection trial and found that the percentage of patients with any abnormal liver function test was similar (> 3 times the upper limit of normal for ALT) for patients taking pravastatin (1.4%) and for patients taking placebo (1.4%).1 A panel of liver experts concurred that statin-associated transaminase elevations were not indicative of liver damage or dysfunction.2 Furthermore, they noted that chronic liver disease and compensated cirrhosis were not contraindications to statin use.
In a small study, use of low-dose atorvastatin in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis improved transaminase values in 75% of patients and liver steatosis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores were significantly improved on biopsy in most of the patients.3 The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed the recommendation for routine regular monitoring of liver function for patients on statins in 2012.4
Statins Do Not Cause Muscle Pain in Most Patients
Most muscle pain occurring in patients on statins is not due to the statin although patient concerns about muscle pain are common. In a meta-analysis of 19 large statin trials, 27.1% of participants treated with a statin reported at least one episode of muscle pain or weakness during a median of 4.3 years, compared with 26.6% of participants treated with placebo.5 Muscle pain for any reason is common, and patients on statins may stop therapy because of the symptoms.
Cohen and colleagues performed a survey of past and current statin users, asking about muscle symptoms.6 Muscle-related side effects were reported by 60% of former statin users and 25% of current users.
Herrett and colleagues performed an extensive series of n-of-1 trials involving 200 patients who had stopped or were considering stopping statins because of muscle symptoms.7 Participants received either 2-month blocks of atorvastatin 20 mg or 2-month blocks of placebo, six times. They rated their muscle symptoms on a visual analogue scale at the end of each block. There was no difference in muscle symptom scores between the statin and placebo periods.
Wood and colleagues took it a step further when they planned an n-of-1 trial that included statin, placebo, and no treatment.8 Each participant received four bottles of atorvastatin 20 mg, four bottles of placebo, and four empty bottles. Each month they used treatment from the bottles based on a random sequence and reported daily symptom scores. The mean symptom intensity score was 8.0 during no-tablet months, 15.4 during placebo months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months), and 16.3 during statin months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months; P = .39, compared with placebo).
Statins Are Likely Helpful In the Very Elderly
Should we be using statins for primary prevention in our very old patients? For many years the answer was generally “no” on the basis of a lack of evidence. Patients in their 80s often were not included in clinical trials. The much used American Heart Association risk calculator stops at age 79. Given the prevalence of coronary artery disease in patients as they reach their 80s, wouldn’t primary prevention really be secondary prevention? Xu and colleagues in a recent study compared outcomes for patients who were treated with statins for primary prevention with a group who were not. In the patients aged 75-84 there was a risk reduction for major cardiovascular events of 1.2% over 5 years, and for those 85 and older the risk reduction was 4.4%. Importantly, there were no significantly increased risks for myopathies and liver dysfunction in either age group.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Pfeffer MA et al. Circulation. 2002;105(20):2341-6.
2. Cohen DE et al. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97(8A):77C-81C.
3. Hyogo H et al. Metabolism. 2008;57(12):1711-8.
4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Important safety label changes to cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. 2012 Feb 28.
5. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Lancet. 2022;400(10355):832-45.
6. Cohen JD et al. J Clin Lipidol. 2012;6(3):208-15.
7. Herrett E et al. BMJ. 2021 Feb 24;372:n1355.
8. Wood FA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):2182-4.
9. Xu W et al. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177(6):701-10.
Recently, a patient of mine was hospitalized with chest pain. She was diagnosed with an acute coronary syndrome and started on a statin in addition to a beta-blocker, aspirin, and clopidogrel. After discharge, she had symptoms of dizziness and recurrent chest pain and her first thought was to stop the statin because she believed that her symptoms were statin-related side effects. I will cover a few areas where I think that there are some misunderstandings about statins.
Statins Are Not Bad For the Liver
When lovastatin first became available for prescription in the 1980s, frequent monitoring of transaminases was recommended. Patients and healthcare professionals became accustomed to frequent liver tests to monitor for statin toxicity, and to this day, some healthcare professionals still obtain liver function tests for this purpose.
But is there a reason to do this? Pfeffer and colleagues reported on the results of over 112,000 people enrolled in the West of Scotland Coronary Protection trial and found that the percentage of patients with any abnormal liver function test was similar (> 3 times the upper limit of normal for ALT) for patients taking pravastatin (1.4%) and for patients taking placebo (1.4%).1 A panel of liver experts concurred that statin-associated transaminase elevations were not indicative of liver damage or dysfunction.2 Furthermore, they noted that chronic liver disease and compensated cirrhosis were not contraindications to statin use.
In a small study, use of low-dose atorvastatin in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis improved transaminase values in 75% of patients and liver steatosis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores were significantly improved on biopsy in most of the patients.3 The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed the recommendation for routine regular monitoring of liver function for patients on statins in 2012.4
Statins Do Not Cause Muscle Pain in Most Patients
Most muscle pain occurring in patients on statins is not due to the statin although patient concerns about muscle pain are common. In a meta-analysis of 19 large statin trials, 27.1% of participants treated with a statin reported at least one episode of muscle pain or weakness during a median of 4.3 years, compared with 26.6% of participants treated with placebo.5 Muscle pain for any reason is common, and patients on statins may stop therapy because of the symptoms.
Cohen and colleagues performed a survey of past and current statin users, asking about muscle symptoms.6 Muscle-related side effects were reported by 60% of former statin users and 25% of current users.
Herrett and colleagues performed an extensive series of n-of-1 trials involving 200 patients who had stopped or were considering stopping statins because of muscle symptoms.7 Participants received either 2-month blocks of atorvastatin 20 mg or 2-month blocks of placebo, six times. They rated their muscle symptoms on a visual analogue scale at the end of each block. There was no difference in muscle symptom scores between the statin and placebo periods.
Wood and colleagues took it a step further when they planned an n-of-1 trial that included statin, placebo, and no treatment.8 Each participant received four bottles of atorvastatin 20 mg, four bottles of placebo, and four empty bottles. Each month they used treatment from the bottles based on a random sequence and reported daily symptom scores. The mean symptom intensity score was 8.0 during no-tablet months, 15.4 during placebo months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months), and 16.3 during statin months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months; P = .39, compared with placebo).
Statins Are Likely Helpful In the Very Elderly
Should we be using statins for primary prevention in our very old patients? For many years the answer was generally “no” on the basis of a lack of evidence. Patients in their 80s often were not included in clinical trials. The much used American Heart Association risk calculator stops at age 79. Given the prevalence of coronary artery disease in patients as they reach their 80s, wouldn’t primary prevention really be secondary prevention? Xu and colleagues in a recent study compared outcomes for patients who were treated with statins for primary prevention with a group who were not. In the patients aged 75-84 there was a risk reduction for major cardiovascular events of 1.2% over 5 years, and for those 85 and older the risk reduction was 4.4%. Importantly, there were no significantly increased risks for myopathies and liver dysfunction in either age group.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Pfeffer MA et al. Circulation. 2002;105(20):2341-6.
2. Cohen DE et al. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97(8A):77C-81C.
3. Hyogo H et al. Metabolism. 2008;57(12):1711-8.
4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Important safety label changes to cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. 2012 Feb 28.
5. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Lancet. 2022;400(10355):832-45.
6. Cohen JD et al. J Clin Lipidol. 2012;6(3):208-15.
7. Herrett E et al. BMJ. 2021 Feb 24;372:n1355.
8. Wood FA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):2182-4.
9. Xu W et al. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177(6):701-10.
Recently, a patient of mine was hospitalized with chest pain. She was diagnosed with an acute coronary syndrome and started on a statin in addition to a beta-blocker, aspirin, and clopidogrel. After discharge, she had symptoms of dizziness and recurrent chest pain and her first thought was to stop the statin because she believed that her symptoms were statin-related side effects. I will cover a few areas where I think that there are some misunderstandings about statins.
Statins Are Not Bad For the Liver
When lovastatin first became available for prescription in the 1980s, frequent monitoring of transaminases was recommended. Patients and healthcare professionals became accustomed to frequent liver tests to monitor for statin toxicity, and to this day, some healthcare professionals still obtain liver function tests for this purpose.
But is there a reason to do this? Pfeffer and colleagues reported on the results of over 112,000 people enrolled in the West of Scotland Coronary Protection trial and found that the percentage of patients with any abnormal liver function test was similar (> 3 times the upper limit of normal for ALT) for patients taking pravastatin (1.4%) and for patients taking placebo (1.4%).1 A panel of liver experts concurred that statin-associated transaminase elevations were not indicative of liver damage or dysfunction.2 Furthermore, they noted that chronic liver disease and compensated cirrhosis were not contraindications to statin use.
In a small study, use of low-dose atorvastatin in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis improved transaminase values in 75% of patients and liver steatosis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores were significantly improved on biopsy in most of the patients.3 The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed the recommendation for routine regular monitoring of liver function for patients on statins in 2012.4
Statins Do Not Cause Muscle Pain in Most Patients
Most muscle pain occurring in patients on statins is not due to the statin although patient concerns about muscle pain are common. In a meta-analysis of 19 large statin trials, 27.1% of participants treated with a statin reported at least one episode of muscle pain or weakness during a median of 4.3 years, compared with 26.6% of participants treated with placebo.5 Muscle pain for any reason is common, and patients on statins may stop therapy because of the symptoms.
Cohen and colleagues performed a survey of past and current statin users, asking about muscle symptoms.6 Muscle-related side effects were reported by 60% of former statin users and 25% of current users.
Herrett and colleagues performed an extensive series of n-of-1 trials involving 200 patients who had stopped or were considering stopping statins because of muscle symptoms.7 Participants received either 2-month blocks of atorvastatin 20 mg or 2-month blocks of placebo, six times. They rated their muscle symptoms on a visual analogue scale at the end of each block. There was no difference in muscle symptom scores between the statin and placebo periods.
Wood and colleagues took it a step further when they planned an n-of-1 trial that included statin, placebo, and no treatment.8 Each participant received four bottles of atorvastatin 20 mg, four bottles of placebo, and four empty bottles. Each month they used treatment from the bottles based on a random sequence and reported daily symptom scores. The mean symptom intensity score was 8.0 during no-tablet months, 15.4 during placebo months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months), and 16.3 during statin months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months; P = .39, compared with placebo).
Statins Are Likely Helpful In the Very Elderly
Should we be using statins for primary prevention in our very old patients? For many years the answer was generally “no” on the basis of a lack of evidence. Patients in their 80s often were not included in clinical trials. The much used American Heart Association risk calculator stops at age 79. Given the prevalence of coronary artery disease in patients as they reach their 80s, wouldn’t primary prevention really be secondary prevention? Xu and colleagues in a recent study compared outcomes for patients who were treated with statins for primary prevention with a group who were not. In the patients aged 75-84 there was a risk reduction for major cardiovascular events of 1.2% over 5 years, and for those 85 and older the risk reduction was 4.4%. Importantly, there were no significantly increased risks for myopathies and liver dysfunction in either age group.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Pfeffer MA et al. Circulation. 2002;105(20):2341-6.
2. Cohen DE et al. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97(8A):77C-81C.
3. Hyogo H et al. Metabolism. 2008;57(12):1711-8.
4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Important safety label changes to cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. 2012 Feb 28.
5. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Lancet. 2022;400(10355):832-45.
6. Cohen JD et al. J Clin Lipidol. 2012;6(3):208-15.
7. Herrett E et al. BMJ. 2021 Feb 24;372:n1355.
8. Wood FA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):2182-4.
9. Xu W et al. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177(6):701-10.
Listen to earn your patients’ trust
Recently, I had an interesting conversation while getting my hair cut. It gave me a great deal of insight into some of the problems we have right now with how medical information is shared and some of the disconnect our patients may feel.
The young woman who was cutting my hair asked me what I did for an occupation. I said that I was a physician. She said, “Can I please ask you an important question?” She asked me what my thoughts were about the COVID vaccine. She prefaced it with “I am so confused on whether I should get the vaccine. I have seen a number of TikTok videos that talk about nano particles in the COVID vaccine that can be very dangerous.”
I discussed with her how the COVID vaccine actually works and shared with her the remarkable success of the vaccine. I asked her what side effects she was worried about from the vaccine and what her fears were. She said that she had heard that a lot of people had died from the vaccine. I told her that severe reactions from the vaccine were very uncommon.
She then made a very telling comment: “I wish I could talk to a doctor about my concerns. I have been going to the same health center for the last 5 years and every time I go I see a different person.” She added, “I rarely have more than 5-10 minutes with the person that I am seeing and I rarely get the opportunity to ask questions.”
She thanked me for the information and said that she would be getting the COVID vaccine in the future. She said it is so hard to know where to get information now and the very different things that she heard confused her. She told me that she thought her generation got most of its information from short sound bites or TikTok and Instagram videos.
Why did she trust me? I still think that the medical profession is respected. We are all pressured to do more with less time. Conversations where we can listen and then respond go a long way. We can always listen and learn what information people need and will appreciate. I was also struck by how alone this person felt in our health care system. She did not have a relationship with any one person whom she could trust and reach out to with questions. Relationships with our patients go a long way to establishing trust.
Pearl
It takes time to listen to and answer our patients’ questions. We need to do that to fight the waves of misinformation our patients face.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
Recently, I had an interesting conversation while getting my hair cut. It gave me a great deal of insight into some of the problems we have right now with how medical information is shared and some of the disconnect our patients may feel.
The young woman who was cutting my hair asked me what I did for an occupation. I said that I was a physician. She said, “Can I please ask you an important question?” She asked me what my thoughts were about the COVID vaccine. She prefaced it with “I am so confused on whether I should get the vaccine. I have seen a number of TikTok videos that talk about nano particles in the COVID vaccine that can be very dangerous.”
I discussed with her how the COVID vaccine actually works and shared with her the remarkable success of the vaccine. I asked her what side effects she was worried about from the vaccine and what her fears were. She said that she had heard that a lot of people had died from the vaccine. I told her that severe reactions from the vaccine were very uncommon.
She then made a very telling comment: “I wish I could talk to a doctor about my concerns. I have been going to the same health center for the last 5 years and every time I go I see a different person.” She added, “I rarely have more than 5-10 minutes with the person that I am seeing and I rarely get the opportunity to ask questions.”
She thanked me for the information and said that she would be getting the COVID vaccine in the future. She said it is so hard to know where to get information now and the very different things that she heard confused her. She told me that she thought her generation got most of its information from short sound bites or TikTok and Instagram videos.
Why did she trust me? I still think that the medical profession is respected. We are all pressured to do more with less time. Conversations where we can listen and then respond go a long way. We can always listen and learn what information people need and will appreciate. I was also struck by how alone this person felt in our health care system. She did not have a relationship with any one person whom she could trust and reach out to with questions. Relationships with our patients go a long way to establishing trust.
Pearl
It takes time to listen to and answer our patients’ questions. We need to do that to fight the waves of misinformation our patients face.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
Recently, I had an interesting conversation while getting my hair cut. It gave me a great deal of insight into some of the problems we have right now with how medical information is shared and some of the disconnect our patients may feel.
The young woman who was cutting my hair asked me what I did for an occupation. I said that I was a physician. She said, “Can I please ask you an important question?” She asked me what my thoughts were about the COVID vaccine. She prefaced it with “I am so confused on whether I should get the vaccine. I have seen a number of TikTok videos that talk about nano particles in the COVID vaccine that can be very dangerous.”
I discussed with her how the COVID vaccine actually works and shared with her the remarkable success of the vaccine. I asked her what side effects she was worried about from the vaccine and what her fears were. She said that she had heard that a lot of people had died from the vaccine. I told her that severe reactions from the vaccine were very uncommon.
She then made a very telling comment: “I wish I could talk to a doctor about my concerns. I have been going to the same health center for the last 5 years and every time I go I see a different person.” She added, “I rarely have more than 5-10 minutes with the person that I am seeing and I rarely get the opportunity to ask questions.”
She thanked me for the information and said that she would be getting the COVID vaccine in the future. She said it is so hard to know where to get information now and the very different things that she heard confused her. She told me that she thought her generation got most of its information from short sound bites or TikTok and Instagram videos.
Why did she trust me? I still think that the medical profession is respected. We are all pressured to do more with less time. Conversations where we can listen and then respond go a long way. We can always listen and learn what information people need and will appreciate. I was also struck by how alone this person felt in our health care system. She did not have a relationship with any one person whom she could trust and reach out to with questions. Relationships with our patients go a long way to establishing trust.
Pearl
It takes time to listen to and answer our patients’ questions. We need to do that to fight the waves of misinformation our patients face.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
What is the Best Approach to “Sinus Headaches”?
A 27-year-old woman presents requesting antibiotics for a sinus headache. She reports she has had 3-4 episodes a year with pain in her maxillary area and congestion. She has not had fevers with these episodes. She had the onset of this headache 6 hours ago. She has had resolution of the pain within 24 hours in the past with the use of antibiotics and decongestants. What would be the best treatment for her?
A. Amoxicillin
B. Amoxicillin/clavulanate
C. Amoxicillin + fluticasone nasal spray
D. Sumatriptan
The best treatment would be sumatriptan. This is very likely a variant of migraine headache and migraine-directed therapy is the best option. In regard to sinus headache, the International Headache Society (IHS) classification states that chronic sinusitis is not a cause of headache and facial pain unless it relapses into an acute sinusitis.1
The recurrent nature of the headaches in this patient suggests a primary headache disorder with migraine being the most likely. In a study of 2991 patients with self-diagnosed or physician-diagnosed “sinus headaches,” 88% of the patients met IHS criteria for migraine.2 In this study, most of the patients had symptoms suggesting sinus problems, with the most common symptoms being sinus pressure (84%), sinus pain (82%), and nasal congestion (63%). The likely cause for these symptoms in migraine patients is vasodilation of the nasal mucosa that can be part of the migraine event.
Foroughipour and colleagues found similar results.3 In their study, 58 patients with “sinus headache” were evaluated, with the final diagnosis of migraine in 40 patients (69%), tension-type headache in 16 patients (27%), and chronic sinusitis with recurrent acute episodes in 2 patients (3%). Recurrent antibiotic therapy had been given to 73% of the tension-type headache patients and 66% of the migraine patients.
Obermann et al. looked at how common trigeminal autonomic symptoms were in patients with migraine in a population-based study.4 They found of 841 patients who had migraine, 226 reported accompanying unilateral trigeminal autonomic symptoms (26.9%).
Al-Hashel et al. reported on how patients with frequent migraine are misdiagnosed and how long it takes when they present with sinus symptoms. A total of 130 migraine patients were recruited for the study; of these, 81.5% were misdiagnosed with sinusitis. The mean time delay of migraine diagnosis was almost 8 years.5
In a study by Dr. Elina Kari and Dr. John M. DelGaudio, patients who had a history of “sinus headaches” were treated as though all these headaches were migraines. Fifty-four patients were enrolled, and 38 patients completed the study. All patients had nasal endoscopy and sinus CT scans that were negative. They were then given migraine-directed treatment to use for their headaches. Of the 38 patient who completed the study, 31 patients (82%) had a significant reduction in headache pain with triptan use, and 35 patients (92%) had a significant response to migraine-directed therapy.6 An expert panel consisting of otolaryngologists, neurologists, allergists, and primary care physicians concluded that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines.7
These references aren’t new. This information has been known in the medical literature for more than 2 decades, but I believe that the majority of medical professionals are not aware of it. In my own practice I have found great success treating patients with sinus headache histories with migraine-directed therapy (mostly triptans) when they have return of their headaches.
Pearl: When your patients say they have another sinus headache, think migraine.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Jones NS. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9:439-44.
2. Schreiber CP et al. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1769-72.
3. Foroughipour M et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:1593-6.
4. Obermann M et al. Cephalalgia. 2007 Jun;27(6):504-9.
5. Al-Hashel JY et al. J Headache Pain. 2013 Dec 12;14(1):97.
6. Kari E and DelGaudi JM. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2235-9.
7. Levine HL et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Mar;134(3):516-23.
A 27-year-old woman presents requesting antibiotics for a sinus headache. She reports she has had 3-4 episodes a year with pain in her maxillary area and congestion. She has not had fevers with these episodes. She had the onset of this headache 6 hours ago. She has had resolution of the pain within 24 hours in the past with the use of antibiotics and decongestants. What would be the best treatment for her?
A. Amoxicillin
B. Amoxicillin/clavulanate
C. Amoxicillin + fluticasone nasal spray
D. Sumatriptan
The best treatment would be sumatriptan. This is very likely a variant of migraine headache and migraine-directed therapy is the best option. In regard to sinus headache, the International Headache Society (IHS) classification states that chronic sinusitis is not a cause of headache and facial pain unless it relapses into an acute sinusitis.1
The recurrent nature of the headaches in this patient suggests a primary headache disorder with migraine being the most likely. In a study of 2991 patients with self-diagnosed or physician-diagnosed “sinus headaches,” 88% of the patients met IHS criteria for migraine.2 In this study, most of the patients had symptoms suggesting sinus problems, with the most common symptoms being sinus pressure (84%), sinus pain (82%), and nasal congestion (63%). The likely cause for these symptoms in migraine patients is vasodilation of the nasal mucosa that can be part of the migraine event.
Foroughipour and colleagues found similar results.3 In their study, 58 patients with “sinus headache” were evaluated, with the final diagnosis of migraine in 40 patients (69%), tension-type headache in 16 patients (27%), and chronic sinusitis with recurrent acute episodes in 2 patients (3%). Recurrent antibiotic therapy had been given to 73% of the tension-type headache patients and 66% of the migraine patients.
Obermann et al. looked at how common trigeminal autonomic symptoms were in patients with migraine in a population-based study.4 They found of 841 patients who had migraine, 226 reported accompanying unilateral trigeminal autonomic symptoms (26.9%).
Al-Hashel et al. reported on how patients with frequent migraine are misdiagnosed and how long it takes when they present with sinus symptoms. A total of 130 migraine patients were recruited for the study; of these, 81.5% were misdiagnosed with sinusitis. The mean time delay of migraine diagnosis was almost 8 years.5
In a study by Dr. Elina Kari and Dr. John M. DelGaudio, patients who had a history of “sinus headaches” were treated as though all these headaches were migraines. Fifty-four patients were enrolled, and 38 patients completed the study. All patients had nasal endoscopy and sinus CT scans that were negative. They were then given migraine-directed treatment to use for their headaches. Of the 38 patient who completed the study, 31 patients (82%) had a significant reduction in headache pain with triptan use, and 35 patients (92%) had a significant response to migraine-directed therapy.6 An expert panel consisting of otolaryngologists, neurologists, allergists, and primary care physicians concluded that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines.7
These references aren’t new. This information has been known in the medical literature for more than 2 decades, but I believe that the majority of medical professionals are not aware of it. In my own practice I have found great success treating patients with sinus headache histories with migraine-directed therapy (mostly triptans) when they have return of their headaches.
Pearl: When your patients say they have another sinus headache, think migraine.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Jones NS. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9:439-44.
2. Schreiber CP et al. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1769-72.
3. Foroughipour M et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:1593-6.
4. Obermann M et al. Cephalalgia. 2007 Jun;27(6):504-9.
5. Al-Hashel JY et al. J Headache Pain. 2013 Dec 12;14(1):97.
6. Kari E and DelGaudi JM. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2235-9.
7. Levine HL et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Mar;134(3):516-23.
A 27-year-old woman presents requesting antibiotics for a sinus headache. She reports she has had 3-4 episodes a year with pain in her maxillary area and congestion. She has not had fevers with these episodes. She had the onset of this headache 6 hours ago. She has had resolution of the pain within 24 hours in the past with the use of antibiotics and decongestants. What would be the best treatment for her?
A. Amoxicillin
B. Amoxicillin/clavulanate
C. Amoxicillin + fluticasone nasal spray
D. Sumatriptan
The best treatment would be sumatriptan. This is very likely a variant of migraine headache and migraine-directed therapy is the best option. In regard to sinus headache, the International Headache Society (IHS) classification states that chronic sinusitis is not a cause of headache and facial pain unless it relapses into an acute sinusitis.1
The recurrent nature of the headaches in this patient suggests a primary headache disorder with migraine being the most likely. In a study of 2991 patients with self-diagnosed or physician-diagnosed “sinus headaches,” 88% of the patients met IHS criteria for migraine.2 In this study, most of the patients had symptoms suggesting sinus problems, with the most common symptoms being sinus pressure (84%), sinus pain (82%), and nasal congestion (63%). The likely cause for these symptoms in migraine patients is vasodilation of the nasal mucosa that can be part of the migraine event.
Foroughipour and colleagues found similar results.3 In their study, 58 patients with “sinus headache” were evaluated, with the final diagnosis of migraine in 40 patients (69%), tension-type headache in 16 patients (27%), and chronic sinusitis with recurrent acute episodes in 2 patients (3%). Recurrent antibiotic therapy had been given to 73% of the tension-type headache patients and 66% of the migraine patients.
Obermann et al. looked at how common trigeminal autonomic symptoms were in patients with migraine in a population-based study.4 They found of 841 patients who had migraine, 226 reported accompanying unilateral trigeminal autonomic symptoms (26.9%).
Al-Hashel et al. reported on how patients with frequent migraine are misdiagnosed and how long it takes when they present with sinus symptoms. A total of 130 migraine patients were recruited for the study; of these, 81.5% were misdiagnosed with sinusitis. The mean time delay of migraine diagnosis was almost 8 years.5
In a study by Dr. Elina Kari and Dr. John M. DelGaudio, patients who had a history of “sinus headaches” were treated as though all these headaches were migraines. Fifty-four patients were enrolled, and 38 patients completed the study. All patients had nasal endoscopy and sinus CT scans that were negative. They were then given migraine-directed treatment to use for their headaches. Of the 38 patient who completed the study, 31 patients (82%) had a significant reduction in headache pain with triptan use, and 35 patients (92%) had a significant response to migraine-directed therapy.6 An expert panel consisting of otolaryngologists, neurologists, allergists, and primary care physicians concluded that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines.7
These references aren’t new. This information has been known in the medical literature for more than 2 decades, but I believe that the majority of medical professionals are not aware of it. In my own practice I have found great success treating patients with sinus headache histories with migraine-directed therapy (mostly triptans) when they have return of their headaches.
Pearl: When your patients say they have another sinus headache, think migraine.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Jones NS. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9:439-44.
2. Schreiber CP et al. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1769-72.
3. Foroughipour M et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:1593-6.
4. Obermann M et al. Cephalalgia. 2007 Jun;27(6):504-9.
5. Al-Hashel JY et al. J Headache Pain. 2013 Dec 12;14(1):97.
6. Kari E and DelGaudi JM. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2235-9.
7. Levine HL et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Mar;134(3):516-23.
Unexpectedly Helpful Effects of Drugs Used For Other Reasons
A 73-year-old man with hypertension is evaluated for right great toe pain. A tap of the toe reveals uric acid crystals. He has a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. His current medications are hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, and atorvastatin.
Which blood pressure medication would you recommend to replace his hydrochlorothiazide?
A. Furosemide
B. Chlorthalidone
C. Lisinopril
D. Losartan
E. Irbesartan
Losartan
Diuretics should be avoided if possible in a patient with gout, as they increase uric acid levels. Of the other three options, losartan offers the added benefit of lowering uric acid levels. Losartan has uricosuric effects — a property that is unique to losartan of the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) that have been studied.1,2 The uric acid lowering appears to be a probenecid-like effect.
Losartan has also been evaluated to see whether using it in combination with a thiazide diuretic can reduce the rise in uric acid that occurs with thiazides. Matsumura and colleagues looked at data from the COMFORT trial, focusing on the effect of combining losartan with hydrochlorothiazide on uric acid levels.3 They looked at a group of 118 patients on an ARB other than losartan plus a diuretic, who were then randomly assigned to losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or continuation of another ARB plus a diuretic. Blood pressure control was the same between groups, but the patients who received the losartan combination had lower uric acid levels (P = .01).
Ferreira and colleagues looked at the difference in uric acid lowering between high-dose (150 mg/day) vs low-dose losartan (50 mg/day).4 Compared with low-dose, high-dose losartan reduced serum uric acid by 0.27 (0.34 to 0.21) mg/dL, P < .001.
SGLT2 inhibitors
SGLT2 inhibitors also lower uric acid. Suijik and colleagues conducted an analysis of two randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin and dapagliflozin), and concluded that SGLT2 inhibitors induce uric acid excretion, which is strongly linked to urinary glucose excretion.5
Metformin
Metformin is used as a firstline drug for the treatment of diabetes. It also has evidence for decreasing colonic polyps. Cho and colleagues looked at over 12,000 patients with diabetes over a 12-year period; 3775 underwent colonoscopies.6 They compared frequency of polyps in patients who were using metformin with those who were not treated with metformin. The polyp detection rate was lower in the metformin group than in the no metformin group (39.4% vs. 62.4%, P < .01).
Higurashi and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of metformin in nondiabetic patients for the prevention of colon polyps.7 The dose of metformin used in this study was very low (250 mg/day). There were significantly fewer adenomas in the metformin group (22 of 71 patients) than in the placebo group (32 of 62) (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.92, P = .016).
Thiazide diuretics
Thiazide diuretics have long been used to help prevent kidney stones in addition to treating hypertension. They decrease urinary calcium excretion, which may reduce kidney stones. Could this reduction in calcium excretion be good for bones?
Xiao and colleagues did a meta-analysis of 11 prospective studies involving 2,193,160 participants.8 Thiazide diuretic users had a significant 14% reduction in the risk of all fractures (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009) and an 18% reduction in the risk of hip fracture (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009). Kruse and colleagues found that long duration and continuity of thiazide exposure seemed to be important to obtain this protective effect on fracture risk.9
Pearls:
- Losartan, but not other ARBs, lowers uric acid levels and may be helpful in managing hypertension in gout patients; higher doses lower uric acid more.
- Metformin use appears to decrease colon polyp formation.
- Thiazide diuretics may reduce fracture risk while patients are taking them.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Würzner G et al. Comparative effects of losartan and irbesartan on serum uric acid in hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia and gout. J Hypertens. 2001 Oct;19(10):1855-60.
2. Puig JG et al. Effect of eprosartan and losartan on uric acid metabolism in patients with essential hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999 Jul;17(7):1033-9.
3. Matsumura K et al. Effect of losartan on serum uric acid in hypertension treated with a diuretic: The COMFORT study. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2015;37(3):192-6.
4. Ferreira JP et al. High- versus low-dose losartan and uric acid: An analysis from HEAAL. J Cardiol. 2023 Jul;82(1):57-61.
5. Suijk DLS et al. SGLT2 inhibition and uric acid excretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and normal kidney function. Soc Nephrol. 2022 May;17(5):663-71.
6. Youn Hee Cho et al. Does metformin affect the incidence of colonic polyps and adenomas in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus? Intestinal Res. 2014 Apr;12(2):139-45.
7. Higurashi T et al. Metformin for chemoprevention of metachronous colorectal adenoma or polyps in post-polypectomy patients without diabetes: A multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:475-83.
8. Xiao X et al. Thiazide diuretic usage and risk of fracture: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Osteoporos Int. 2018 Jul;29(7):1515-24.
9. Kruse C et al. Continuous and long-term treatment is more important than dosage for the protective effect of thiazide use on bone metabolism and fracture risk. J Intern Med. 2016 Jan;279(1):110-22.
A 73-year-old man with hypertension is evaluated for right great toe pain. A tap of the toe reveals uric acid crystals. He has a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. His current medications are hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, and atorvastatin.
Which blood pressure medication would you recommend to replace his hydrochlorothiazide?
A. Furosemide
B. Chlorthalidone
C. Lisinopril
D. Losartan
E. Irbesartan
Losartan
Diuretics should be avoided if possible in a patient with gout, as they increase uric acid levels. Of the other three options, losartan offers the added benefit of lowering uric acid levels. Losartan has uricosuric effects — a property that is unique to losartan of the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) that have been studied.1,2 The uric acid lowering appears to be a probenecid-like effect.
Losartan has also been evaluated to see whether using it in combination with a thiazide diuretic can reduce the rise in uric acid that occurs with thiazides. Matsumura and colleagues looked at data from the COMFORT trial, focusing on the effect of combining losartan with hydrochlorothiazide on uric acid levels.3 They looked at a group of 118 patients on an ARB other than losartan plus a diuretic, who were then randomly assigned to losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or continuation of another ARB plus a diuretic. Blood pressure control was the same between groups, but the patients who received the losartan combination had lower uric acid levels (P = .01).
Ferreira and colleagues looked at the difference in uric acid lowering between high-dose (150 mg/day) vs low-dose losartan (50 mg/day).4 Compared with low-dose, high-dose losartan reduced serum uric acid by 0.27 (0.34 to 0.21) mg/dL, P < .001.
SGLT2 inhibitors
SGLT2 inhibitors also lower uric acid. Suijik and colleagues conducted an analysis of two randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin and dapagliflozin), and concluded that SGLT2 inhibitors induce uric acid excretion, which is strongly linked to urinary glucose excretion.5
Metformin
Metformin is used as a firstline drug for the treatment of diabetes. It also has evidence for decreasing colonic polyps. Cho and colleagues looked at over 12,000 patients with diabetes over a 12-year period; 3775 underwent colonoscopies.6 They compared frequency of polyps in patients who were using metformin with those who were not treated with metformin. The polyp detection rate was lower in the metformin group than in the no metformin group (39.4% vs. 62.4%, P < .01).
Higurashi and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of metformin in nondiabetic patients for the prevention of colon polyps.7 The dose of metformin used in this study was very low (250 mg/day). There were significantly fewer adenomas in the metformin group (22 of 71 patients) than in the placebo group (32 of 62) (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.92, P = .016).
Thiazide diuretics
Thiazide diuretics have long been used to help prevent kidney stones in addition to treating hypertension. They decrease urinary calcium excretion, which may reduce kidney stones. Could this reduction in calcium excretion be good for bones?
Xiao and colleagues did a meta-analysis of 11 prospective studies involving 2,193,160 participants.8 Thiazide diuretic users had a significant 14% reduction in the risk of all fractures (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009) and an 18% reduction in the risk of hip fracture (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009). Kruse and colleagues found that long duration and continuity of thiazide exposure seemed to be important to obtain this protective effect on fracture risk.9
Pearls:
- Losartan, but not other ARBs, lowers uric acid levels and may be helpful in managing hypertension in gout patients; higher doses lower uric acid more.
- Metformin use appears to decrease colon polyp formation.
- Thiazide diuretics may reduce fracture risk while patients are taking them.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Würzner G et al. Comparative effects of losartan and irbesartan on serum uric acid in hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia and gout. J Hypertens. 2001 Oct;19(10):1855-60.
2. Puig JG et al. Effect of eprosartan and losartan on uric acid metabolism in patients with essential hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999 Jul;17(7):1033-9.
3. Matsumura K et al. Effect of losartan on serum uric acid in hypertension treated with a diuretic: The COMFORT study. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2015;37(3):192-6.
4. Ferreira JP et al. High- versus low-dose losartan and uric acid: An analysis from HEAAL. J Cardiol. 2023 Jul;82(1):57-61.
5. Suijk DLS et al. SGLT2 inhibition and uric acid excretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and normal kidney function. Soc Nephrol. 2022 May;17(5):663-71.
6. Youn Hee Cho et al. Does metformin affect the incidence of colonic polyps and adenomas in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus? Intestinal Res. 2014 Apr;12(2):139-45.
7. Higurashi T et al. Metformin for chemoprevention of metachronous colorectal adenoma or polyps in post-polypectomy patients without diabetes: A multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:475-83.
8. Xiao X et al. Thiazide diuretic usage and risk of fracture: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Osteoporos Int. 2018 Jul;29(7):1515-24.
9. Kruse C et al. Continuous and long-term treatment is more important than dosage for the protective effect of thiazide use on bone metabolism and fracture risk. J Intern Med. 2016 Jan;279(1):110-22.
A 73-year-old man with hypertension is evaluated for right great toe pain. A tap of the toe reveals uric acid crystals. He has a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. His current medications are hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, and atorvastatin.
Which blood pressure medication would you recommend to replace his hydrochlorothiazide?
A. Furosemide
B. Chlorthalidone
C. Lisinopril
D. Losartan
E. Irbesartan
Losartan
Diuretics should be avoided if possible in a patient with gout, as they increase uric acid levels. Of the other three options, losartan offers the added benefit of lowering uric acid levels. Losartan has uricosuric effects — a property that is unique to losartan of the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) that have been studied.1,2 The uric acid lowering appears to be a probenecid-like effect.
Losartan has also been evaluated to see whether using it in combination with a thiazide diuretic can reduce the rise in uric acid that occurs with thiazides. Matsumura and colleagues looked at data from the COMFORT trial, focusing on the effect of combining losartan with hydrochlorothiazide on uric acid levels.3 They looked at a group of 118 patients on an ARB other than losartan plus a diuretic, who were then randomly assigned to losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or continuation of another ARB plus a diuretic. Blood pressure control was the same between groups, but the patients who received the losartan combination had lower uric acid levels (P = .01).
Ferreira and colleagues looked at the difference in uric acid lowering between high-dose (150 mg/day) vs low-dose losartan (50 mg/day).4 Compared with low-dose, high-dose losartan reduced serum uric acid by 0.27 (0.34 to 0.21) mg/dL, P < .001.
SGLT2 inhibitors
SGLT2 inhibitors also lower uric acid. Suijik and colleagues conducted an analysis of two randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin and dapagliflozin), and concluded that SGLT2 inhibitors induce uric acid excretion, which is strongly linked to urinary glucose excretion.5
Metformin
Metformin is used as a firstline drug for the treatment of diabetes. It also has evidence for decreasing colonic polyps. Cho and colleagues looked at over 12,000 patients with diabetes over a 12-year period; 3775 underwent colonoscopies.6 They compared frequency of polyps in patients who were using metformin with those who were not treated with metformin. The polyp detection rate was lower in the metformin group than in the no metformin group (39.4% vs. 62.4%, P < .01).
Higurashi and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of metformin in nondiabetic patients for the prevention of colon polyps.7 The dose of metformin used in this study was very low (250 mg/day). There were significantly fewer adenomas in the metformin group (22 of 71 patients) than in the placebo group (32 of 62) (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.92, P = .016).
Thiazide diuretics
Thiazide diuretics have long been used to help prevent kidney stones in addition to treating hypertension. They decrease urinary calcium excretion, which may reduce kidney stones. Could this reduction in calcium excretion be good for bones?
Xiao and colleagues did a meta-analysis of 11 prospective studies involving 2,193,160 participants.8 Thiazide diuretic users had a significant 14% reduction in the risk of all fractures (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009) and an 18% reduction in the risk of hip fracture (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009). Kruse and colleagues found that long duration and continuity of thiazide exposure seemed to be important to obtain this protective effect on fracture risk.9
Pearls:
- Losartan, but not other ARBs, lowers uric acid levels and may be helpful in managing hypertension in gout patients; higher doses lower uric acid more.
- Metformin use appears to decrease colon polyp formation.
- Thiazide diuretics may reduce fracture risk while patients are taking them.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Würzner G et al. Comparative effects of losartan and irbesartan on serum uric acid in hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia and gout. J Hypertens. 2001 Oct;19(10):1855-60.
2. Puig JG et al. Effect of eprosartan and losartan on uric acid metabolism in patients with essential hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999 Jul;17(7):1033-9.
3. Matsumura K et al. Effect of losartan on serum uric acid in hypertension treated with a diuretic: The COMFORT study. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2015;37(3):192-6.
4. Ferreira JP et al. High- versus low-dose losartan and uric acid: An analysis from HEAAL. J Cardiol. 2023 Jul;82(1):57-61.
5. Suijk DLS et al. SGLT2 inhibition and uric acid excretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and normal kidney function. Soc Nephrol. 2022 May;17(5):663-71.
6. Youn Hee Cho et al. Does metformin affect the incidence of colonic polyps and adenomas in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus? Intestinal Res. 2014 Apr;12(2):139-45.
7. Higurashi T et al. Metformin for chemoprevention of metachronous colorectal adenoma or polyps in post-polypectomy patients without diabetes: A multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:475-83.
8. Xiao X et al. Thiazide diuretic usage and risk of fracture: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Osteoporos Int. 2018 Jul;29(7):1515-24.
9. Kruse C et al. Continuous and long-term treatment is more important than dosage for the protective effect of thiazide use on bone metabolism and fracture risk. J Intern Med. 2016 Jan;279(1):110-22.
Guidelines Aren’t For Everybody
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
Pet Peeves About the State of Primary Care – Part 2
I have received lots of notes from readers about other pet peeves they have about practicing primary care in our current environment and wanted to share some of them. I appreciate all the emails I received on this topic.
- The rapid increase in the number of hospital administrators in the last 50 years
This has increased health system costs without providing any relief for practicing physicians, and often has led to policies that have been harmful and detrimental. This would be a great place to start cutting back to get true savings without affecting quality of care.
- Emergency physicians and specialists who refer my patient elsewhere for a service we provide in our office
It is expensive for patients to go to a specialty provider for a simple procedure that can be easily done in a primary care practice, or to be referred to see a specialist for a problem that does not need specialty care. This creates further problems accessing specialists.
- Online reviews of practices, including reviews from people who have never been patients
I am concerned about the accuracy and intent of online reviews. If a patient is upset because they did not receive an antibiotic or narcotic, they can vent their frustration in a review, when what the medical professional was actually doing was good medicine. More concerning to me is that some organizations use these reviews to determine compensation, promotion, and support. These reviews are not evidence based or accurately collected.
- Offices and organizations being dropped by insurance carriers
Insurance companies are running amok. They make their own rules, which can devastate practices and patients. They can change fees paid unilaterally, and drop practices without explanation or valid reasons. Patients suffer terribly because they now cannot see their long-time physicians or they have to pay much more to see them as they are suddenly “out of network.”
- The lack of appreciation by organizations as well as the general public of the enormous cost savings primary care professionals contribute to the healthcare system
There are many studies showing that patients who see a primary care physician save the system money and have better health outcomes. US adults who regularly see a primary care physician have 33% lower healthcare costs and 19% lower odds of dying prematurely than those who see only a specialist.1
In one study, for every $1 invested in primary care, there was $13 in savings in healthcare costs.2 I had a patient a few years ago complain about the “enormous” bill she received for a visit where I had done an annual exam, cryotherapy for three actinic keratoses, and a steroid injection for her ailing knee. The cost savings was well over $700 (the new patient cost for two specialty visits). There is no doubt that patients who have stable primary care save money themselves and for the whole medical system.
- The stress of being witness to a dysfunctional system
It is really hard to see the hurt and difficulty our patients go through on a daily basis while trying to navigate a broken system. We bear witness to them and listen to all the stories when things have gone wrong. This also takes its toll on us, as we are part of the system, and our patients’ frustrations sometimes boil over. We are also the ones who care for the whole patient, so every bad experience with a specialty clinic is shared with us.
Many thanks extended to those who wrote to share their ideas (Drs. Sylvia Androne, Bhawna Bahethi, Pierre Ghassibi, Richard Katz, Louis Kasunic, Rebecca Keenan, David Kosnosky, Gregory Miller, and James Wilkens).
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington, Seattle. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Forbes.com. Why Primary Care Matters, and What We Can Do To Increase It. 2023 Nov 27.
2. Washingtonpost.com. A Health Care Solution We Can’t Afford to Ignore: Primary Care.
I have received lots of notes from readers about other pet peeves they have about practicing primary care in our current environment and wanted to share some of them. I appreciate all the emails I received on this topic.
- The rapid increase in the number of hospital administrators in the last 50 years
This has increased health system costs without providing any relief for practicing physicians, and often has led to policies that have been harmful and detrimental. This would be a great place to start cutting back to get true savings without affecting quality of care.
- Emergency physicians and specialists who refer my patient elsewhere for a service we provide in our office
It is expensive for patients to go to a specialty provider for a simple procedure that can be easily done in a primary care practice, or to be referred to see a specialist for a problem that does not need specialty care. This creates further problems accessing specialists.
- Online reviews of practices, including reviews from people who have never been patients
I am concerned about the accuracy and intent of online reviews. If a patient is upset because they did not receive an antibiotic or narcotic, they can vent their frustration in a review, when what the medical professional was actually doing was good medicine. More concerning to me is that some organizations use these reviews to determine compensation, promotion, and support. These reviews are not evidence based or accurately collected.
- Offices and organizations being dropped by insurance carriers
Insurance companies are running amok. They make their own rules, which can devastate practices and patients. They can change fees paid unilaterally, and drop practices without explanation or valid reasons. Patients suffer terribly because they now cannot see their long-time physicians or they have to pay much more to see them as they are suddenly “out of network.”
- The lack of appreciation by organizations as well as the general public of the enormous cost savings primary care professionals contribute to the healthcare system
There are many studies showing that patients who see a primary care physician save the system money and have better health outcomes. US adults who regularly see a primary care physician have 33% lower healthcare costs and 19% lower odds of dying prematurely than those who see only a specialist.1
In one study, for every $1 invested in primary care, there was $13 in savings in healthcare costs.2 I had a patient a few years ago complain about the “enormous” bill she received for a visit where I had done an annual exam, cryotherapy for three actinic keratoses, and a steroid injection for her ailing knee. The cost savings was well over $700 (the new patient cost for two specialty visits). There is no doubt that patients who have stable primary care save money themselves and for the whole medical system.
- The stress of being witness to a dysfunctional system
It is really hard to see the hurt and difficulty our patients go through on a daily basis while trying to navigate a broken system. We bear witness to them and listen to all the stories when things have gone wrong. This also takes its toll on us, as we are part of the system, and our patients’ frustrations sometimes boil over. We are also the ones who care for the whole patient, so every bad experience with a specialty clinic is shared with us.
Many thanks extended to those who wrote to share their ideas (Drs. Sylvia Androne, Bhawna Bahethi, Pierre Ghassibi, Richard Katz, Louis Kasunic, Rebecca Keenan, David Kosnosky, Gregory Miller, and James Wilkens).
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington, Seattle. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Forbes.com. Why Primary Care Matters, and What We Can Do To Increase It. 2023 Nov 27.
2. Washingtonpost.com. A Health Care Solution We Can’t Afford to Ignore: Primary Care.
I have received lots of notes from readers about other pet peeves they have about practicing primary care in our current environment and wanted to share some of them. I appreciate all the emails I received on this topic.
- The rapid increase in the number of hospital administrators in the last 50 years
This has increased health system costs without providing any relief for practicing physicians, and often has led to policies that have been harmful and detrimental. This would be a great place to start cutting back to get true savings without affecting quality of care.
- Emergency physicians and specialists who refer my patient elsewhere for a service we provide in our office
It is expensive for patients to go to a specialty provider for a simple procedure that can be easily done in a primary care practice, or to be referred to see a specialist for a problem that does not need specialty care. This creates further problems accessing specialists.
- Online reviews of practices, including reviews from people who have never been patients
I am concerned about the accuracy and intent of online reviews. If a patient is upset because they did not receive an antibiotic or narcotic, they can vent their frustration in a review, when what the medical professional was actually doing was good medicine. More concerning to me is that some organizations use these reviews to determine compensation, promotion, and support. These reviews are not evidence based or accurately collected.
- Offices and organizations being dropped by insurance carriers
Insurance companies are running amok. They make their own rules, which can devastate practices and patients. They can change fees paid unilaterally, and drop practices without explanation or valid reasons. Patients suffer terribly because they now cannot see their long-time physicians or they have to pay much more to see them as they are suddenly “out of network.”
- The lack of appreciation by organizations as well as the general public of the enormous cost savings primary care professionals contribute to the healthcare system
There are many studies showing that patients who see a primary care physician save the system money and have better health outcomes. US adults who regularly see a primary care physician have 33% lower healthcare costs and 19% lower odds of dying prematurely than those who see only a specialist.1
In one study, for every $1 invested in primary care, there was $13 in savings in healthcare costs.2 I had a patient a few years ago complain about the “enormous” bill she received for a visit where I had done an annual exam, cryotherapy for three actinic keratoses, and a steroid injection for her ailing knee. The cost savings was well over $700 (the new patient cost for two specialty visits). There is no doubt that patients who have stable primary care save money themselves and for the whole medical system.
- The stress of being witness to a dysfunctional system
It is really hard to see the hurt and difficulty our patients go through on a daily basis while trying to navigate a broken system. We bear witness to them and listen to all the stories when things have gone wrong. This also takes its toll on us, as we are part of the system, and our patients’ frustrations sometimes boil over. We are also the ones who care for the whole patient, so every bad experience with a specialty clinic is shared with us.
Many thanks extended to those who wrote to share their ideas (Drs. Sylvia Androne, Bhawna Bahethi, Pierre Ghassibi, Richard Katz, Louis Kasunic, Rebecca Keenan, David Kosnosky, Gregory Miller, and James Wilkens).
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington, Seattle. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Forbes.com. Why Primary Care Matters, and What We Can Do To Increase It. 2023 Nov 27.
2. Washingtonpost.com. A Health Care Solution We Can’t Afford to Ignore: Primary Care.
Diagnosing patients with sarcoidosis
A 40-year-old women is evaluated for liver abnormalities. She had elevated transaminases and alkaline phosphatase. A liver ultrasound showed multiple lesions. She underwent liver biopsy, which showed granulomas. What test results, if abnormal, would be most suggestive of sarcoidosis?
A. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate
B. C-reactive protein
C. Lymphocyte count
D. Antinuclear antibodies
The correct answer here is lymphocyte count. Sarcoidosis is in just about every differential diagnosis, as it can involve every organ system. I will share with you a few pearls I have learned over 30 years of taking care of patients with sarcoidosis. Lymphocyte counts drop with active sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis should always be part of the differential when you see lymphopenia. El Jammal et al. studied 90 patients referred for possible granulomatous hepatitis.1 Seventy-three patients had a final diagnosis of granulomatous hepatitis, and 38 of those patients had sarcoidosis. Lymphopenia had a high specificity (85.7%) for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, with a specificity of 100% in the patients under 50 years old.
Morell and colleagues looked at whether low lymphocyte counts and low lymphocyte percentage were markers of active sarcoidosis.2 Forty patients with biopsy-proven sarcoidosis were prospectively evaluated every 6 months. A low lymphocyte count and a low lymphocyte percentage (< 20%) were detected more frequently in patients with active sarcoidosis than in the patients with asymptomatic sarcoidosis (P < .02 and P < .0001).
Jones et al. looked at lymphopenia as a marker of sarcoidosis in patients presenting with uveitis.3 The study was a retrospective case-control study (112 patients with sarcoidosis-associated uveitis and 398 controls with other forms of uveitis). The mean lymphocyte count for patients with sarcoidosis was 1.43 vs. 2.04 for other causes of uveitis (P ≤ .0001).
Patients with sarcoidosis are at risk of hypercalciuria, hypercalcemia, and kidney stones. These are common in patients with sarcoidosis, with up to 50% of such patients having hypercalciuria. This is because in sarcoidosis patients 25(OH) vitamin D is converted in granulomas by activated macrophages to 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D, which is the active form of vitamin D.
Several studies have looked at the diagnostic utility of 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels in patients with suspected sarcoidosis. Rohmer and colleagues looked at whether 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels could help with the diagnosis of sarcoidosis as the cause of uveitis.4 They found that the level of 25(OH) vitamin D in sarcoidosis patients with uveitis was lower than in patients with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 34 vs. 43 nmol/mL (P < .02), whereas the 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D level was higher in patients with sarcoidosis than in those with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 132 vs. 108 pmol/L (P = .02). They looked at the 1,25(OH)2D/25(OH)D ratio; a ratio > 3.5 was strongly associated with an abnormal chest CT-scan (OR = 5.7, P = .003) and granulomas on bronchial biopsy (OR = 14.7, P = .007).
Kavathia et al. looked at whether elevated 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels predicted chronicity of sarcoidosis.5 A total of 59 sarcoidosis patients were recruited for the study. Higher serum 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels were associated with patients requiring repeated systemic immunosuppressive therapy or > 1 year of therapy. Increasing quartiles of serum 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D level were associated with increased odds of patients having chronic sarcoidosis (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.11-2.99, P = .019).
Because of the higher activated vitamin D levels in sarcoidosis patients, they are at risk for problems with vitamin D supplementation. I have seen two patients develop large numbers of kidney stones after receiving high-dose vitamin D. Sodhi and Aldrich reported on a cohort of 196 sarcoidosis patients who had received vitamin D and compared them with 196 control patients with sarcoidosis who were not receiving vitamin D.6 Hypercalcemia was more frequent in the group that received vitamin D (42.3%) than in the group that did not (18.3%, P < .0001). In this study, only a minority (23%) of patients receiving vitamin D had their 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D level checked.
Pearl: Lymphocyte count and 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels can be helpful tests in assessing sarcoidosis activity. Patients with sarcoidosis who receive vitamin D should have their 1.25(OH)2 vitamin D levels monitored.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. El Jammal et al. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2023 Sep 13;40(3):e2023031.
2. Morell F et al. Chest. 2002 Apr;121(4):1239-44.
3. Jones NP et al. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct;100(10):1393-6.
4. Rohmer J et al. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2020 Apr 2;28(3):341-7.
5. Kavathia D et al. Respir Med. 2010 Apr;104(4):564–70.
6. Sodhi A and Aldrich T. Am J Med Sci. 2016 Sep;352(3):252-7.
A 40-year-old women is evaluated for liver abnormalities. She had elevated transaminases and alkaline phosphatase. A liver ultrasound showed multiple lesions. She underwent liver biopsy, which showed granulomas. What test results, if abnormal, would be most suggestive of sarcoidosis?
A. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate
B. C-reactive protein
C. Lymphocyte count
D. Antinuclear antibodies
The correct answer here is lymphocyte count. Sarcoidosis is in just about every differential diagnosis, as it can involve every organ system. I will share with you a few pearls I have learned over 30 years of taking care of patients with sarcoidosis. Lymphocyte counts drop with active sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis should always be part of the differential when you see lymphopenia. El Jammal et al. studied 90 patients referred for possible granulomatous hepatitis.1 Seventy-three patients had a final diagnosis of granulomatous hepatitis, and 38 of those patients had sarcoidosis. Lymphopenia had a high specificity (85.7%) for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, with a specificity of 100% in the patients under 50 years old.
Morell and colleagues looked at whether low lymphocyte counts and low lymphocyte percentage were markers of active sarcoidosis.2 Forty patients with biopsy-proven sarcoidosis were prospectively evaluated every 6 months. A low lymphocyte count and a low lymphocyte percentage (< 20%) were detected more frequently in patients with active sarcoidosis than in the patients with asymptomatic sarcoidosis (P < .02 and P < .0001).
Jones et al. looked at lymphopenia as a marker of sarcoidosis in patients presenting with uveitis.3 The study was a retrospective case-control study (112 patients with sarcoidosis-associated uveitis and 398 controls with other forms of uveitis). The mean lymphocyte count for patients with sarcoidosis was 1.43 vs. 2.04 for other causes of uveitis (P ≤ .0001).
Patients with sarcoidosis are at risk of hypercalciuria, hypercalcemia, and kidney stones. These are common in patients with sarcoidosis, with up to 50% of such patients having hypercalciuria. This is because in sarcoidosis patients 25(OH) vitamin D is converted in granulomas by activated macrophages to 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D, which is the active form of vitamin D.
Several studies have looked at the diagnostic utility of 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels in patients with suspected sarcoidosis. Rohmer and colleagues looked at whether 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels could help with the diagnosis of sarcoidosis as the cause of uveitis.4 They found that the level of 25(OH) vitamin D in sarcoidosis patients with uveitis was lower than in patients with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 34 vs. 43 nmol/mL (P < .02), whereas the 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D level was higher in patients with sarcoidosis than in those with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 132 vs. 108 pmol/L (P = .02). They looked at the 1,25(OH)2D/25(OH)D ratio; a ratio > 3.5 was strongly associated with an abnormal chest CT-scan (OR = 5.7, P = .003) and granulomas on bronchial biopsy (OR = 14.7, P = .007).
Kavathia et al. looked at whether elevated 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels predicted chronicity of sarcoidosis.5 A total of 59 sarcoidosis patients were recruited for the study. Higher serum 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels were associated with patients requiring repeated systemic immunosuppressive therapy or > 1 year of therapy. Increasing quartiles of serum 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D level were associated with increased odds of patients having chronic sarcoidosis (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.11-2.99, P = .019).
Because of the higher activated vitamin D levels in sarcoidosis patients, they are at risk for problems with vitamin D supplementation. I have seen two patients develop large numbers of kidney stones after receiving high-dose vitamin D. Sodhi and Aldrich reported on a cohort of 196 sarcoidosis patients who had received vitamin D and compared them with 196 control patients with sarcoidosis who were not receiving vitamin D.6 Hypercalcemia was more frequent in the group that received vitamin D (42.3%) than in the group that did not (18.3%, P < .0001). In this study, only a minority (23%) of patients receiving vitamin D had their 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D level checked.
Pearl: Lymphocyte count and 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels can be helpful tests in assessing sarcoidosis activity. Patients with sarcoidosis who receive vitamin D should have their 1.25(OH)2 vitamin D levels monitored.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. El Jammal et al. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2023 Sep 13;40(3):e2023031.
2. Morell F et al. Chest. 2002 Apr;121(4):1239-44.
3. Jones NP et al. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct;100(10):1393-6.
4. Rohmer J et al. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2020 Apr 2;28(3):341-7.
5. Kavathia D et al. Respir Med. 2010 Apr;104(4):564–70.
6. Sodhi A and Aldrich T. Am J Med Sci. 2016 Sep;352(3):252-7.
A 40-year-old women is evaluated for liver abnormalities. She had elevated transaminases and alkaline phosphatase. A liver ultrasound showed multiple lesions. She underwent liver biopsy, which showed granulomas. What test results, if abnormal, would be most suggestive of sarcoidosis?
A. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate
B. C-reactive protein
C. Lymphocyte count
D. Antinuclear antibodies
The correct answer here is lymphocyte count. Sarcoidosis is in just about every differential diagnosis, as it can involve every organ system. I will share with you a few pearls I have learned over 30 years of taking care of patients with sarcoidosis. Lymphocyte counts drop with active sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis should always be part of the differential when you see lymphopenia. El Jammal et al. studied 90 patients referred for possible granulomatous hepatitis.1 Seventy-three patients had a final diagnosis of granulomatous hepatitis, and 38 of those patients had sarcoidosis. Lymphopenia had a high specificity (85.7%) for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, with a specificity of 100% in the patients under 50 years old.
Morell and colleagues looked at whether low lymphocyte counts and low lymphocyte percentage were markers of active sarcoidosis.2 Forty patients with biopsy-proven sarcoidosis were prospectively evaluated every 6 months. A low lymphocyte count and a low lymphocyte percentage (< 20%) were detected more frequently in patients with active sarcoidosis than in the patients with asymptomatic sarcoidosis (P < .02 and P < .0001).
Jones et al. looked at lymphopenia as a marker of sarcoidosis in patients presenting with uveitis.3 The study was a retrospective case-control study (112 patients with sarcoidosis-associated uveitis and 398 controls with other forms of uveitis). The mean lymphocyte count for patients with sarcoidosis was 1.43 vs. 2.04 for other causes of uveitis (P ≤ .0001).
Patients with sarcoidosis are at risk of hypercalciuria, hypercalcemia, and kidney stones. These are common in patients with sarcoidosis, with up to 50% of such patients having hypercalciuria. This is because in sarcoidosis patients 25(OH) vitamin D is converted in granulomas by activated macrophages to 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D, which is the active form of vitamin D.
Several studies have looked at the diagnostic utility of 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels in patients with suspected sarcoidosis. Rohmer and colleagues looked at whether 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels could help with the diagnosis of sarcoidosis as the cause of uveitis.4 They found that the level of 25(OH) vitamin D in sarcoidosis patients with uveitis was lower than in patients with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 34 vs. 43 nmol/mL (P < .02), whereas the 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D level was higher in patients with sarcoidosis than in those with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 132 vs. 108 pmol/L (P = .02). They looked at the 1,25(OH)2D/25(OH)D ratio; a ratio > 3.5 was strongly associated with an abnormal chest CT-scan (OR = 5.7, P = .003) and granulomas on bronchial biopsy (OR = 14.7, P = .007).
Kavathia et al. looked at whether elevated 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels predicted chronicity of sarcoidosis.5 A total of 59 sarcoidosis patients were recruited for the study. Higher serum 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels were associated with patients requiring repeated systemic immunosuppressive therapy or > 1 year of therapy. Increasing quartiles of serum 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D level were associated with increased odds of patients having chronic sarcoidosis (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.11-2.99, P = .019).
Because of the higher activated vitamin D levels in sarcoidosis patients, they are at risk for problems with vitamin D supplementation. I have seen two patients develop large numbers of kidney stones after receiving high-dose vitamin D. Sodhi and Aldrich reported on a cohort of 196 sarcoidosis patients who had received vitamin D and compared them with 196 control patients with sarcoidosis who were not receiving vitamin D.6 Hypercalcemia was more frequent in the group that received vitamin D (42.3%) than in the group that did not (18.3%, P < .0001). In this study, only a minority (23%) of patients receiving vitamin D had their 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D level checked.
Pearl: Lymphocyte count and 1,25(OH)2 vitamin D levels can be helpful tests in assessing sarcoidosis activity. Patients with sarcoidosis who receive vitamin D should have their 1.25(OH)2 vitamin D levels monitored.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. El Jammal et al. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2023 Sep 13;40(3):e2023031.
2. Morell F et al. Chest. 2002 Apr;121(4):1239-44.
3. Jones NP et al. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct;100(10):1393-6.
4. Rohmer J et al. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2020 Apr 2;28(3):341-7.
5. Kavathia D et al. Respir Med. 2010 Apr;104(4):564–70.
6. Sodhi A and Aldrich T. Am J Med Sci. 2016 Sep;352(3):252-7.
My pet peeves about the current state of primary care
For this month’s column, I wanted to share some frustrations I have had about the current state of primary care. We all find those things that are going on in medicine that seem crazy and we just have to find a way to adapt to them. It is good to be able to share some of these thoughts with a community as distinguished as you readers. I know some of these are issues that you all struggle with and I wanted to give a voice to them. I wish I had answers to fix them.
Faxes from insurance companies
I find faxes from insurance companies immensely annoying. First, it takes time to go through lots of unwanted faxes but these faxes are extremely inaccurate. Today I received a fax telling me I might want to consider starting a statin in my 64-year-old HIV patient who has hypertension. He has been on a statin for 10 years.
Another fax warned me to not combine ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in a patient who was switched from an ACE inhibitor in July to an ARB because of a cough. The fax that was sent to me has a documented end date for the ACE inhibitor before the start date of the ARB.
We only have so much time in the day and piles of faxes are not helpful.
Speaking of faxes: Why do physical therapy offices and nursing homes fax the same form every day? Physicians do not always work in clinic every single day and it increases the workload and burden when you have to sort through three copies of the same fax. I once worked in a world where these would be sent by mail, and mailed back a week later, which seemed to work just fine.
Misinformation
Our patients have many sources of health information. Much of the information they get comes from family, friends, social media posts, and Internet sites. The accuracy of the information is often questionable, and in some cases, they are victims of intentional misinformation.
It is frustrating and time consuming to counter the bogus, unsubstantiated information patients receive. It is especially difficult when patients have done their own research on proven therapies (such as statins) and do not want to use them because of the many websites they have looked at that make unscientific claims about the dangers of the proposed therapy. I share evidence-based websites with my patients for their research; my favorite is medlineplus.gov.
Access crisis
The availability of specialty care is extremely limited now. In my health care system, there is up to a 6-month wait for appointments in neurology, cardiology, and endocrinology. This puts the burden on the primary care professional to manage the patient’s health, even when the patient really needs specialty care. It also increases the calls we receive to interpret the echocardiograms, MRIs, or lab tests ordered by specialists who do not share the interpretation of the results with their patients.
What can be done to improve this situation? Automatic consults in the hospital should be limited. Every patient who has a transient ischemic attack with a negative workup does not need neurology follow-up. The same goes for patients who have chest pain but a negative cardiac workup in the hospital – they do not need follow-up by a cardiologist, nor do those who have stable, well-managed coronary disease. We have to find a way to keep our specialists seeing the patients whom they can help the most and available for consultation in a timely fashion.
Please share your pet peeves with me. I will try to give them voice in the future. Hang in there, you are the glue that keeps this flawed system together.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
For this month’s column, I wanted to share some frustrations I have had about the current state of primary care. We all find those things that are going on in medicine that seem crazy and we just have to find a way to adapt to them. It is good to be able to share some of these thoughts with a community as distinguished as you readers. I know some of these are issues that you all struggle with and I wanted to give a voice to them. I wish I had answers to fix them.
Faxes from insurance companies
I find faxes from insurance companies immensely annoying. First, it takes time to go through lots of unwanted faxes but these faxes are extremely inaccurate. Today I received a fax telling me I might want to consider starting a statin in my 64-year-old HIV patient who has hypertension. He has been on a statin for 10 years.
Another fax warned me to not combine ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in a patient who was switched from an ACE inhibitor in July to an ARB because of a cough. The fax that was sent to me has a documented end date for the ACE inhibitor before the start date of the ARB.
We only have so much time in the day and piles of faxes are not helpful.
Speaking of faxes: Why do physical therapy offices and nursing homes fax the same form every day? Physicians do not always work in clinic every single day and it increases the workload and burden when you have to sort through three copies of the same fax. I once worked in a world where these would be sent by mail, and mailed back a week later, which seemed to work just fine.
Misinformation
Our patients have many sources of health information. Much of the information they get comes from family, friends, social media posts, and Internet sites. The accuracy of the information is often questionable, and in some cases, they are victims of intentional misinformation.
It is frustrating and time consuming to counter the bogus, unsubstantiated information patients receive. It is especially difficult when patients have done their own research on proven therapies (such as statins) and do not want to use them because of the many websites they have looked at that make unscientific claims about the dangers of the proposed therapy. I share evidence-based websites with my patients for their research; my favorite is medlineplus.gov.
Access crisis
The availability of specialty care is extremely limited now. In my health care system, there is up to a 6-month wait for appointments in neurology, cardiology, and endocrinology. This puts the burden on the primary care professional to manage the patient’s health, even when the patient really needs specialty care. It also increases the calls we receive to interpret the echocardiograms, MRIs, or lab tests ordered by specialists who do not share the interpretation of the results with their patients.
What can be done to improve this situation? Automatic consults in the hospital should be limited. Every patient who has a transient ischemic attack with a negative workup does not need neurology follow-up. The same goes for patients who have chest pain but a negative cardiac workup in the hospital – they do not need follow-up by a cardiologist, nor do those who have stable, well-managed coronary disease. We have to find a way to keep our specialists seeing the patients whom they can help the most and available for consultation in a timely fashion.
Please share your pet peeves with me. I will try to give them voice in the future. Hang in there, you are the glue that keeps this flawed system together.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
For this month’s column, I wanted to share some frustrations I have had about the current state of primary care. We all find those things that are going on in medicine that seem crazy and we just have to find a way to adapt to them. It is good to be able to share some of these thoughts with a community as distinguished as you readers. I know some of these are issues that you all struggle with and I wanted to give a voice to them. I wish I had answers to fix them.
Faxes from insurance companies
I find faxes from insurance companies immensely annoying. First, it takes time to go through lots of unwanted faxes but these faxes are extremely inaccurate. Today I received a fax telling me I might want to consider starting a statin in my 64-year-old HIV patient who has hypertension. He has been on a statin for 10 years.
Another fax warned me to not combine ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in a patient who was switched from an ACE inhibitor in July to an ARB because of a cough. The fax that was sent to me has a documented end date for the ACE inhibitor before the start date of the ARB.
We only have so much time in the day and piles of faxes are not helpful.
Speaking of faxes: Why do physical therapy offices and nursing homes fax the same form every day? Physicians do not always work in clinic every single day and it increases the workload and burden when you have to sort through three copies of the same fax. I once worked in a world where these would be sent by mail, and mailed back a week later, which seemed to work just fine.
Misinformation
Our patients have many sources of health information. Much of the information they get comes from family, friends, social media posts, and Internet sites. The accuracy of the information is often questionable, and in some cases, they are victims of intentional misinformation.
It is frustrating and time consuming to counter the bogus, unsubstantiated information patients receive. It is especially difficult when patients have done their own research on proven therapies (such as statins) and do not want to use them because of the many websites they have looked at that make unscientific claims about the dangers of the proposed therapy. I share evidence-based websites with my patients for their research; my favorite is medlineplus.gov.
Access crisis
The availability of specialty care is extremely limited now. In my health care system, there is up to a 6-month wait for appointments in neurology, cardiology, and endocrinology. This puts the burden on the primary care professional to manage the patient’s health, even when the patient really needs specialty care. It also increases the calls we receive to interpret the echocardiograms, MRIs, or lab tests ordered by specialists who do not share the interpretation of the results with their patients.
What can be done to improve this situation? Automatic consults in the hospital should be limited. Every patient who has a transient ischemic attack with a negative workup does not need neurology follow-up. The same goes for patients who have chest pain but a negative cardiac workup in the hospital – they do not need follow-up by a cardiologist, nor do those who have stable, well-managed coronary disease. We have to find a way to keep our specialists seeing the patients whom they can help the most and available for consultation in a timely fashion.
Please share your pet peeves with me. I will try to give them voice in the future. Hang in there, you are the glue that keeps this flawed system together.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.