Friday, February 22, 2013

Choosing Wisely

The American Academy of Family Physicians announced yesterday the addition of five more evidence-based recommendations to add to its original five from last April's initial Choosing Wisely campaign.  This is in addition to recommendations by 16 other medical specialty societies & organizations.  Even more recommendations are expected towards the end of this year, all in the name of providing evidence-based care.

I recommend that you familiarize yourself with them, at least the AAFP's version of 10 recommendations, prior to going to see your doctor.  Be prepared for old school thinking such that we've always done it that way so we'll continue to do it that way.  But also be prepared for push back if you ask something that has no outcome benefit.



This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

Nipples look swollen , breast feel heavy, viens in breast , mood swings , fatigue , could i be pregnant ?



This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

I'm on morphine sr if I take sennosides/docusate 2 pills maybe twice week is OK? Any other herbs help constipation induced by narcotics?



This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

Is my sexual anhedonia permanent? After 3 months on 10mg Citalopram I took 100mg over a 2-day span and quit. A month later I resumed 10mg and tapered.



This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.

Do It Because You Can or Do It Because You Should?

Those of us who practice medicine have been accused of being Luddites, slow to adopt technology and change.  How else can you explain the slow incorporation of electronic medical records (granted there are also cost issues, too).  Heck, washing hands is still a problem even today, centuries after Semmelweis.  And while some of us have jumped on the social media bandwagon, others of us can't differentiate between a tweet and a chirp.

And yet, at other times, we've jumped way ahead of the curve way before science has proven any benefit.  The use of fetal heart monitors is a good example as we still don't have any studies demonstrating outcome benefit.  And as published yesterday in JAMA, the use of robotic hysterectomy has increased dramatically w/o any demonstration of outcome benefit.  In fact, its use has increased cost of surgery w/o meaningful benefit.  

To arrive at their conclusion, the authors performed a cohort study on 264,758 women who had undergone hysterectomy for non-malignant reasons at over 400 hospitals from 2007 to 2010.  The percentage of robot-assisted surgeries jumped from nothing to 1 in 10, in just 3 short years.  If you looked more closely at only the hospitals that were actually equipped to perform robot-assisted surgeries, the climb in use was even steeper, from nothing to 1 in 5, almost 1 in 4, operations.  The good news is that (traditional) abdominal hysterectomies decreased in frequency during this same period of time.

Sure, there is tremendous benefit in shorter recovery times when comparing robot-assisted surgery to open abdominal approach.  But there's no outcome benefit when compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy which is also minimally invasive.  On the other hand, cost of robot-assisted surgery is dramatically higher than either laparoscopic and open surgeries.

In this day & age of cost containment & comparative outcome studies, it would behoove us to determine what benefit any given prescription or procedure provides over its competitors.  Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better.  Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do so.  Make an active choice to prescribe a medication, order a test, or perform a procedure, not because we can, but because we should.  And if you think about, this post is the surgical analog to yesterday's discussion about prescribing generic statins over brand name medications which have no outcome benefit.  




This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Generic Statins:1, Branded Statins: 0

Go look in your medicine cabinet.  There's a good chance that you've got a statin or cholesterol lowering medication buried in there among your Propecia & Viagra.  The big question is whether you're taking a generic or branded statin.  We've known for a while now that generic statins are generally just as good as their branded predecessors.  And yet, we continue to prescribe name brand statins which are more expensive w/o any improvement in outcome benefits.  Which begs the question why?

I suppose there are a few of us who can't lower our LDL enough with the highest dose of atorvastatin.  But let's be clear that that's the generic atorvastatin rather than the branded Lipitor which has no raison d'etre.  In this small fraction of the population, I could see a case being made for high dose Crestor (not yet available as generic rosuvastatin).  However, I'd also want to warn my patient that we're trading proven outcome benefits (lowering risk of cardiovascular events) for proven LDL lowering.

In fact, a review editorial was published last week in JAMA Internal Medicine in which the authors were even more hard line and found no reason whatsoever for prescribing the two newest brand only statins.  I suppose if the copay is the same to you regardless of which statin was prescribed, you might not care.  But remember that any expenses are traced back to corporate headquarters such that your insurance rate may be going up next year.  So perhaps it's not really free after all.




This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

You're Never Too Young to Get Healthy

If you're like most working Americans, you haven't saved much for your retirement.  But when asked, 3 out of 4 said that given the opportunity to go back in time, they'd save more the 2nd time around.  After all, who puts away 16.6% of their income each paycheck?  Well, here's some motivation: the average monthly check from Social Security is just $1,230.  Of course, if you don't plan to live past retirement, then why worry, right?

As a corollary, many of us think of poor health as something that happens in the future.  But instead of investing in our future, we make excuses like not having enough time now to eat right & exercise because we're too busy.  But in a prospective observational study published early online in Pediatrics, the authors concluded that the risk of dying before 55yo was associated w/obesity, smoking & diabetes in adolescents & young adults.

By following 9,245 participants aged 12-39yo in NHANES III for 12-18yrs, the authors noted that smoking increased risk of early death by 86% compared to non-smokers, as expected.  Those with a weight-to-height ratio (WHR) of >0.65 had more than double the risk of early death compared to those with WHR <0.5.  And those w/HgbA1c (a running 3 month average of sugar control) >6.5 had close to 4x risk of early death compared to those w/HgbA1c <5.7.

Of course, the relative risk noted above was derived after adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity & comorbidities.  Bottom line: we need to invest in our children's health if they are to avoid an early demise.  PS Remind them to save more money since they're going to live longer!



This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Can Statins Prevent Atrial Fibrillation, Too?

So here I am putting the final touches on a series of presentations that I've been asked to give over the next several months.  One of the topics is on atrial fibrillation & stroke prevention.  Currently, we can decrease by two thirds the risk of stroke due to atrial fibrillation if we can convince our patients to take their anticoagulant as directed.  But those two words "as directed" are the key between life and death.

I hate to be so melodramatic about adherence, but when it comes to taking traditional warfarin, you have to be very obsessive about taking your medication at the same time daily, eating the same amount of vitamin K rich foods (you don't have to avoid your leafy greens, just be sure to eat about the same serving size daily), and present yourself for monitoring on a regular basis.

The benefit of the new oral anticoagulants is the lack of impact nutrition has on their efficacy and the lack of need for laboratory monitoring.  However, the ease of use of these new medications, eg Eliquis, Pradaxa & Xarelto, comes at a price (literally) as they're all available only by brand, and thus are much more expensive than warfarin which is available generically.

With that in mind, how about avoiding the development of atrial fibrillation in the first place?  We can't do much about age as a risk factor but we can address the issue of high blood pressure or hypertension.  And since there is a link between heart disease and atrial fibrillation, perhaps lowering cholesterol might help in some way.  As it turns out, a prospective observational study was published this month in the American Journal of Medicine in which the authors concluded that statin use in elderly w/hypertension was associated w/lower risk of developing atrial fibrillation.

In the study, 27,002 patients (avg 73yo) w/hypertension were followed for 9 years.  While CHADS2 score is typically used to calculate risk of suffering a stroke, it was used in this study to determine who might benefit from statin treatment (or not).  As it turned out, statin use was associated w/19% lower risk of developing atrial fibrillation.  More importantly, those with a CHADS2 score >2 reported a 31% lower risk w/statin use while no statin benefit was found in those w/CHADS2 score of 1.

So while there remains plenty of argument for the use of statins in coronary artery disease management and possibly even cancer, its use should not be taken lightly in light of concern over possible development of diabetes.



This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.

Search only trustworthy HONcode health websites:

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Quick Fix for Diabetic Neuropathy? Part 2

Soon after last Thanksgiving, I wrote about a study published in the American Journal of Pharmacy Benefits suggesting a quick fix for peripheral neuropathy: Metanx.  Far be it for me to denigrate any publication but I can't say that AJPB is on my Top 10 list of journals that I regularly read.  On the other hand, I do glance over my monthly eTOC (electronic table of contents) for the American Journal of Medicine.  And guess what I found?  A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial concluded that 24 weeks of Metanx improved symptoms of diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Sure, the manufacturer of Metanx sponsored the trial, but it's not easy to sway the results of an RCT, at least not if it's under peer-review, so says my simpleton brain as I wear rose-tinted glasses.  And just to be clear, I don't own any stock or receive any remuneration from PamLab, nor does anyone related to me.  I just happen to find it intriguing that there is hope for this debilitating condition.  And better yet, w/minimal side effects.  Of course, I'd like it even more if larger studies (this latest one only included 214 diabetics split into two groups) for longer periods of time that weren't sponsored by the manufacturer came to similar conclusions.  

In case you like to play the part of the devil's advocate, check out the accompanying editorial that breaks down the trial and offers up ideas on what to do next.









Health
Top Blogs

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Diclofenac: Pain Relief or Heart Disease Risk?

I use a lot of analogies in explaining medical issues to my patients.  Case in point is the double edged sword which cuts both ways.  In other words, it can be used for both good & bad.  A good example of this double edged sword is the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) class of pain relievers.  They do a great job of relieving pain & reducing both inflammation & fever.  However, they do so no without risk such as gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, and even gastrointestinal hemorrhage.  They can also injure the kidneys and increase blood pressure so clearly, their use needs to be monitored closely.

Another analogy that I like to use is that of the car industry.  Try as Detroit might, I can't believe that one manufacturer, eg Ford, Chevy or Dodge, stands head & shoulders above the other two.  Same goes for Honda, Nissan & Toyota in Japan.  They all make good products.  It just comes down to individual preferences.  Well, the same goes for all the different drugs in the NSAID class.  In general, they each reduce pain, fever & inflammation.  But of course, some individuals may perceive more benefit from one than another.

However, within this NSAID class, there are differences as to risk for heart disease.  As noted in a nice review published in PLoS Medicine, the authors noted that rofecoxib, diclofenac & etoricoxib rank highest risk for heart disease compared to non-use while naproxen is ranked as low risk.  Despite this widespread knowledge, diclofenac & etoricoxib accounted for one of every three NSAID pills sold in 15 countries worldwide regardless of income level.  In fact, higher risk diclofenac was considered an essential medication by 74 countries while lower risk naproxen was considered essential in only 27 countries.

In other words, government officials in charge of policy are ignoring evidence-based medicine.  Luckily for you & me, we have a choice here in the States.  We have ready access to lower risk naproxen (while higher risk diclofenac is still available to those few individuals who don't respond to any other NSAID).



Health
Top Blogs

Friday, February 15, 2013

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

What does it mean to have gallblaader removed laproscopically, and will the sludge be sent ti lab?



Health
Top Blogs

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

In wich way can fish oil benefit my health ??



Health
Top Blogs

Q&A Session at HealthTap.com

Will taking milk thistle & fish oil at the same time affect me? have fatty liver 26 male



Health
Top Blogs

Fluke or Trend? Calcium vs Heart Disease Part 4

When it rains, it pours.  Just a week ago, I commented on a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine in which the authors concluded that consumption of calcium supplements was associated w/heart disease in men.  Of course, the devil is in the details, as dietary calcium was not associated w/heart disease in either women or men.

In a prospective longitudinal cohort study published in BMJ earlier this week, the authors concluded that high calcium consumption was associated w/greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease but not stroke.  The nutritional supplement manufacturers jumped all over this study, and perhaps rightly so, because it was originally designed to look at mammography & breast cancer.  61,433 women for followed for an average of 19 years and dietary calcium was assessed just once, rather than serially.

While the statistical manipulations found a link between dietary calcium more than 1,400mg/d and deaths, calcium supplements were linked to death only in those who were already consuming more than 1,400mg/d in their food.  Bottom line, as I mentioned last time, it now appears that calcium is a double-edged sword for both women & men.  We aren't currently clear as to the mechanism of disease nor to the differences between dietary & supplemental calcium.  But let's also not forget that we do have cause & effect evidence of benefit from calcium while we only have circumstantial observational evidence of its harm.  So choose wisely even as we await further developments in this story.



Health
Top Blogs