Friday, August 3, 2012

Fall Risk vs Major Bleeds While Anticoagulated

Earlier this year in April, I wrote (twice) about assessing stroke risk in atrial fibrillation & major bleeding risk while anticoagulated.  I tried to use a bit of cognitive behavioral therapy to point out rationale use of risk calculators to assist in determining those who would benefit from anticoagulation to prevent a stroke or pulmonary embolism.  It turns out that we can calculate stroke risk via CHA2DS2-VASc and bleeding risk via HAS-BLED.  However, we still tend to use high fall risk as our biggest excuse as to why we don't offer anticoagulation to more patients.  But if you look closely at the risk factors for HAS-BLED, neither history of fall(s) nor risk of falling is consider a risk factor for major bleeding.

Could it be that, counter-intuitive as it may be, falling does not make an impact on risk of major bleeding (however you may define this)?  In a prospective cohort study published in this month's American Journal of Medicine, the authors concluded that use of oral anticoagulation did not increase the risk of major bleeds in those patients at high risk for falling when monitored over the next 12mo.  

To arrive at their conclusion, the authors followed for one year 515 patients on warfarin, of whom 308 patients were considered at high risk of falls, assessed by a validated 2 question questionnaire: 1) did you fall last year? 2) did you notice any problem w/gait, balance & mobility.  Those answering yes to either question (or both) were considered at high risk for falling.  But in the end, there was no statistical significance in major bleeding between those who were considered at high risk for falling vs those considered low risk.

Bottom line, risk of falling has no impact on bleeding risk so given this current study & others, we need to avoid using fall risk as an excuse to avoid anticoagulation.  High risk HAS-BLED score exceeding CHA2DS2-Vasc score, I can understand.  But otherwise, we need to give our patients the best chance to avoid function loss (while not exposing them to excess bleeding risk).



Health
Top Blogs

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Better Vision = Lower Fracture Risk

As much as I try to ignore it, I'm getting older.  I put on old monovision prescription contact lenses yesterday morning while in a rush.  If ever I needed proof that I have presbyopia, I got it in spades.  My arms just weren't long enough for all the fine print & paperwork that I had to deal with.  Initially, I wasn't convinced a few months ago but I guess those bifocal contact lenses really do work!

I mention this because one of the risk factors for falls in the elderly is poor vision.  Well, in a retrospective study published in JAMA yesterday, the authors concluded that those elderly who underwent cataract surgery had a lower risk of hip fracture compared to those w/cataracts who did not have surgery.

The authors arrived at their conclusion by looking at a random sampling of 5% of Medicare beneficiaries and locating 1,113,640 w/cataracts.  They then compared those who'd undergone cataract surgery to those who hadn't, specifically with regards to hip fracture in the subsequent year.  Notably, they found a 16% reduction in risk in those who underwent cataract surgery compared to those w/cataract but elected against surgery.

Sure, this is only a retrospective observational study useful in developing hypotheses.  In this case, it's useful in supporting the basic premise that one needs to be able to see clearly in order to ambulate safely w/o injury.  It will be interesting to see if a prospective randomized double blind (pun intended) placebo controlled trial will support a causal relationship.  As for me, I'm searching desperately for my bifocal contact lenses!



Health
Top Blogs

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Competitive Cycling: Not So Good for Female Genital Structures Either

In women's road cycling, the individual time trial final is sometime today.  Just as with any sport, you can drop some serious cash on equipment, what with aero rims, carbon fiber frames, lightweight components, etc. If you think back a few years, the saddle was the topic du jour for the men as seat (time) was linked to erectile dysfunction.  Obviously, it's a bit more complicated than that as manufacturers attempted to come up with all manner of saddle options to address this new issue.

But when you think about it, pelvis is pelvis, whether female or male. Sure, we look different (viva la difference!) but when you sit on a bicycle saddle for long periods of time, you still risk neurovascular compromise, regardless of gender.  So in light of women's road cycling, I wanted to point out a study published 3 months ago in the Journal of Sexual Medicine in which seat position relative to handlebars affected perineal pressure & thus genital sensation in female cyclists.

In fact, the worse position was described as handlebars positioned lower than the saddle or vice versa, the saddle elevated above the handlebars.  Either way, the authors noted increase in perineal pressure & decrease in genital sensation in 48 female competitive cyclists who rode at least 10 miles/week 4 weeks/month.

This is one of those "disease oriented evidence" or DOE studies rather than "patient-oriented evidence that matters" or POEM studies that we in family medicine prefer.  But if your otherwise fit female cyclist complains about perineal numbness, you might do well to inquire as to the height of her handlebars relative to her saddle.  I'll bet that will garner you some brownie points!






Health
Top Blogs

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Diabetes Affects Female Sexual Function

I'm a guy, so I think a lot about sex.  I'm also older, so I don't think about sex as much as I once did in my youth, say only once every 5 minutes these days.  Given my predilection towards posts on male sexual function, one might think that I'm a misogynist.  Far from it (I hope!) as I think I'm more a typical physician: we address issues for which we have (easy) solutions.  We never really talked about depression until the SSRIs hit the market.  We never spoke about urge incontinence & overactive bladder until we developed viable antimuscarinics.  And we never asked about erectile dysfunction until the PDE-5 inhibitors arrived.

And so it is w/women.  We've only barely started looking into female sexual dysfunction.  Heck, we haven't even agreed upon ICD-9 terminology where it currently overlaps w/erectile dysfunction (302.72).  I mean, how can we treat something if we can't describe it enough to research it, much less develop treatment (protocols).

Luckily, we now have validated questionnaires with which to assess female sexual function, for instance the Female Sexual Function Index, which was used in a study published in next month's Obstetrics & Gynecology, commonly referred to as the Green Book.  The authors concluded that women w/diabetes are more likely to report lower overall sexual satisfaction.  In fact, insulin use was associated w/difficulty w/lubrication & orgasm.

2,270 women 40-80yo (avg 55yo) participated in this study with only 2 out of 5 non-Latina white.  In other words, there was a good bit of racial diversity in this group of women.  1 out of 5 women had diabetes, and of those, 1 out of 4 used insulin to control their diabetes.  Those women w/end-organ damage due to their diabetes, eg heart disease, stroke, kidney disease & peripheral neuropathy, reported decreased sexual function in at least one domain, sexual desire/interest, sexual arousal/lubrication/orgasm/pain, and sexual satisfaction.

Bottom line: because this was an observational study and clearly not a randomized controlled trial, we can only develop hypotheses from the conclusions, rather than draw causal relationships.  However, given that diabetes has a cause & effect relationship w/heart disease, stroke, kidney disease & peripheral neuropathy, it's not a big stretch of the imagination to add female sexual function to the list of reasons why women need better glycemic control.  And while we wait for such a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we can still advocate for better control on the basis of better health outcomes plus the possibility of an added bonus.



Health
Top Blogs

Monday, July 30, 2012

Guys, Lower Your Heart Disease Risk & Improve Your Erections

NBC has been presenting the London 2012 Olympic Games for the past few days now.  Admit it: you've been glued to your big screen TV or entranced by www.nbcolympics.com watching the competition.  Whichever the case may be, isn't it ironic that most of us are sedentary while we celebrate our countries' finest examples of physical fitness?  As it turns out, our lifestyle is directly related to our risk of heart disease.  For most of these young & extremely healthy athletes, heart disease is way off in the distance.  And if they can continue some manner of physical activity, their risk will be substantially lower than yours & mine.

Well, I've been pointing out the proof in the pudding w/numerous studies demonstrating how physical activity lowers our all-cause mortality.  But apparently that's not enough motivation.  So I'd like to point out a review article published last November in the Archives of Internal Medicine directed at male readers (and those whose partner(s), friends & family members are male) in which the authors concluded that lifestyle modifications to reduce cardiovascular risk factors improve sexual function in men w/erectile dysfunction.  Use of statins to lower cholesterol also led to improvements in sexual function.

The authors arrived at their conclusions after evaluating 740 participants from 4 countries in 6 clinical trials over a period of time ranging from as short as 8 weeks to as long as 2 years.  Of note, they objectively quantified sexual dysfunction with the validated International Index of Erectile Dysfunction (IIEF-5) questionnaire (full index in PDF).

However, it should be noted that this meta-analysis demonstrates one of those statistically significant but not necessarily clinically significant results.  For instance, while 4 points' change is clinically significant, the sum of lifestyle & medication to reduce CV risk resulted only in a statistically significant 2.7 point improvement.  When analyzed separately, lifestyle alone led a 2.4 point improvement while medication (statins) led to a 3.1 point improvement, both statistically significant but not necessarily clinically so.  

In comparison, phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors typically lead to a 7-10 point improvement, clearly consistent w/their clinical benefit.  But it should be noted that CV risk reduction improved ED even in those not response to PDE-5 inhibitors.  Better yet, there are no side effects from diet, exercise & maintaining an active lifestyle, all of which can be "used" in conjunction w/nitrates, something which can't be said for the popular oral medications.  And let's not forget to factor in cost savings (or expenditures), too!

Bottom line: don't just sit there, do something (whether you're watching the Olympic games, NFL, NBA, NASCAR, MLB, whatever)!



Health
Top Blogs

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

Carafate vs axid?



Health
Top Blogs

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

Does axid work better than zantac does?



Health
Top Blogs

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

Does boniva work better than miacalcin?



Health
Top Blogs

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

How safe is it to use miacalcin for osteoperosis treatment?



Health
Top Blogs

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

Is it safe for me to use hurricaine spray?



Health
Top Blogs

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

Is it safe to use Forteo now?



Health
Top Blogs