The Journal of Family Practice is a peer-reviewed and indexed journal that provides its 95,000 family physician readers with timely, practical, and evidence-based information that they can immediately put into practice. Research and applied evidence articles, plus patient-oriented departments like Practice Alert, PURLs, and Clinical Inquiries can be found in print and at jfponline.com. The Web site, which logs an average of 125,000 visitors every month, also offers audiocasts by physician specialists and interactive features like Instant Polls and Photo Rounds Friday—a weekly diagnostic puzzle.

Theme
medstat_jfp
Top Sections
Case Reports
Clinical Inquiries
HelpDesk
Photo Rounds
Practice Alert
PURLs
jfp
Main menu
JFP Main Menu
Explore menu
JFP Explore Menu
Proclivity ID
18805001
Unpublish
Citation Name
J Fam Pract
Negative Keywords
gaming
gambling
compulsive behaviors
ammunition
assault rifle
black jack
Boko Haram
bondage
child abuse
cocaine
Daech
drug paraphernalia
explosion
gun
human trafficking
ISIL
ISIS
Islamic caliphate
Islamic state
mixed martial arts
MMA
molestation
national rifle association
NRA
nsfw
pedophile
pedophilia
poker
porn
pornography
psychedelic drug
recreational drug
sex slave rings
slot machine
terrorism
terrorist
Texas hold 'em
UFC
substance abuse
abuseed
abuseer
abusees
abuseing
abusely
abuses
aeolus
aeolused
aeoluser
aeoluses
aeolusing
aeolusly
aeoluss
ahole
aholeed
aholeer
aholees
aholeing
aholely
aholes
alcohol
alcoholed
alcoholer
alcoholes
alcoholing
alcoholly
alcohols
allman
allmaned
allmaner
allmanes
allmaning
allmanly
allmans
alted
altes
alting
altly
alts
analed
analer
anales
analing
anally
analprobe
analprobeed
analprobeer
analprobees
analprobeing
analprobely
analprobes
anals
anilingus
anilingused
anilinguser
anilinguses
anilingusing
anilingusly
anilinguss
anus
anused
anuser
anuses
anusing
anusly
anuss
areola
areolaed
areolaer
areolaes
areolaing
areolaly
areolas
areole
areoleed
areoleer
areolees
areoleing
areolely
areoles
arian
arianed
arianer
arianes
arianing
arianly
arians
aryan
aryaned
aryaner
aryanes
aryaning
aryanly
aryans
asiaed
asiaer
asiaes
asiaing
asialy
asias
ass
ass hole
ass lick
ass licked
ass licker
ass lickes
ass licking
ass lickly
ass licks
assbang
assbanged
assbangeded
assbangeder
assbangedes
assbangeding
assbangedly
assbangeds
assbanger
assbanges
assbanging
assbangly
assbangs
assbangsed
assbangser
assbangses
assbangsing
assbangsly
assbangss
assed
asser
asses
assesed
asseser
asseses
assesing
assesly
assess
assfuck
assfucked
assfucker
assfuckered
assfuckerer
assfuckeres
assfuckering
assfuckerly
assfuckers
assfuckes
assfucking
assfuckly
assfucks
asshat
asshated
asshater
asshates
asshating
asshatly
asshats
assholeed
assholeer
assholees
assholeing
assholely
assholes
assholesed
assholeser
assholeses
assholesing
assholesly
assholess
assing
assly
assmaster
assmastered
assmasterer
assmasteres
assmastering
assmasterly
assmasters
assmunch
assmunched
assmuncher
assmunches
assmunching
assmunchly
assmunchs
asss
asswipe
asswipeed
asswipeer
asswipees
asswipeing
asswipely
asswipes
asswipesed
asswipeser
asswipeses
asswipesing
asswipesly
asswipess
azz
azzed
azzer
azzes
azzing
azzly
azzs
babeed
babeer
babees
babeing
babely
babes
babesed
babeser
babeses
babesing
babesly
babess
ballsac
ballsaced
ballsacer
ballsaces
ballsacing
ballsack
ballsacked
ballsacker
ballsackes
ballsacking
ballsackly
ballsacks
ballsacly
ballsacs
ballsed
ballser
ballses
ballsing
ballsly
ballss
barf
barfed
barfer
barfes
barfing
barfly
barfs
bastard
bastarded
bastarder
bastardes
bastarding
bastardly
bastards
bastardsed
bastardser
bastardses
bastardsing
bastardsly
bastardss
bawdy
bawdyed
bawdyer
bawdyes
bawdying
bawdyly
bawdys
beaner
beanered
beanerer
beaneres
beanering
beanerly
beaners
beardedclam
beardedclamed
beardedclamer
beardedclames
beardedclaming
beardedclamly
beardedclams
beastiality
beastialityed
beastialityer
beastialityes
beastialitying
beastialityly
beastialitys
beatch
beatched
beatcher
beatches
beatching
beatchly
beatchs
beater
beatered
beaterer
beateres
beatering
beaterly
beaters
beered
beerer
beeres
beering
beerly
beeyotch
beeyotched
beeyotcher
beeyotches
beeyotching
beeyotchly
beeyotchs
beotch
beotched
beotcher
beotches
beotching
beotchly
beotchs
biatch
biatched
biatcher
biatches
biatching
biatchly
biatchs
big tits
big titsed
big titser
big titses
big titsing
big titsly
big titss
bigtits
bigtitsed
bigtitser
bigtitses
bigtitsing
bigtitsly
bigtitss
bimbo
bimboed
bimboer
bimboes
bimboing
bimboly
bimbos
bisexualed
bisexualer
bisexuales
bisexualing
bisexually
bisexuals
bitch
bitched
bitcheded
bitcheder
bitchedes
bitcheding
bitchedly
bitcheds
bitcher
bitches
bitchesed
bitcheser
bitcheses
bitchesing
bitchesly
bitchess
bitching
bitchly
bitchs
bitchy
bitchyed
bitchyer
bitchyes
bitchying
bitchyly
bitchys
bleached
bleacher
bleaches
bleaching
bleachly
bleachs
blow job
blow jobed
blow jober
blow jobes
blow jobing
blow jobly
blow jobs
blowed
blower
blowes
blowing
blowjob
blowjobed
blowjober
blowjobes
blowjobing
blowjobly
blowjobs
blowjobsed
blowjobser
blowjobses
blowjobsing
blowjobsly
blowjobss
blowly
blows
boink
boinked
boinker
boinkes
boinking
boinkly
boinks
bollock
bollocked
bollocker
bollockes
bollocking
bollockly
bollocks
bollocksed
bollockser
bollockses
bollocksing
bollocksly
bollockss
bollok
bolloked
bolloker
bollokes
bolloking
bollokly
bolloks
boner
bonered
bonerer
boneres
bonering
bonerly
boners
bonersed
bonerser
bonerses
bonersing
bonersly
bonerss
bong
bonged
bonger
bonges
bonging
bongly
bongs
boob
boobed
boober
boobes
boobies
boobiesed
boobieser
boobieses
boobiesing
boobiesly
boobiess
boobing
boobly
boobs
boobsed
boobser
boobses
boobsing
boobsly
boobss
booby
boobyed
boobyer
boobyes
boobying
boobyly
boobys
booger
boogered
boogerer
boogeres
boogering
boogerly
boogers
bookie
bookieed
bookieer
bookiees
bookieing
bookiely
bookies
bootee
booteeed
booteeer
booteees
booteeing
booteely
bootees
bootie
bootieed
bootieer
bootiees
bootieing
bootiely
booties
booty
bootyed
bootyer
bootyes
bootying
bootyly
bootys
boozeed
boozeer
boozees
boozeing
boozely
boozer
boozered
boozerer
boozeres
boozering
boozerly
boozers
boozes
boozy
boozyed
boozyer
boozyes
boozying
boozyly
boozys
bosomed
bosomer
bosomes
bosoming
bosomly
bosoms
bosomy
bosomyed
bosomyer
bosomyes
bosomying
bosomyly
bosomys
bugger
buggered
buggerer
buggeres
buggering
buggerly
buggers
bukkake
bukkakeed
bukkakeer
bukkakees
bukkakeing
bukkakely
bukkakes
bull shit
bull shited
bull shiter
bull shites
bull shiting
bull shitly
bull shits
bullshit
bullshited
bullshiter
bullshites
bullshiting
bullshitly
bullshits
bullshitsed
bullshitser
bullshitses
bullshitsing
bullshitsly
bullshitss
bullshitted
bullshitteded
bullshitteder
bullshittedes
bullshitteding
bullshittedly
bullshitteds
bullturds
bullturdsed
bullturdser
bullturdses
bullturdsing
bullturdsly
bullturdss
bung
bunged
bunger
bunges
bunging
bungly
bungs
busty
bustyed
bustyer
bustyes
bustying
bustyly
bustys
butt
butt fuck
butt fucked
butt fucker
butt fuckes
butt fucking
butt fuckly
butt fucks
butted
buttes
buttfuck
buttfucked
buttfucker
buttfuckered
buttfuckerer
buttfuckeres
buttfuckering
buttfuckerly
buttfuckers
buttfuckes
buttfucking
buttfuckly
buttfucks
butting
buttly
buttplug
buttpluged
buttpluger
buttpluges
buttpluging
buttplugly
buttplugs
butts
caca
cacaed
cacaer
cacaes
cacaing
cacaly
cacas
cahone
cahoneed
cahoneer
cahonees
cahoneing
cahonely
cahones
cameltoe
cameltoeed
cameltoeer
cameltoees
cameltoeing
cameltoely
cameltoes
carpetmuncher
carpetmunchered
carpetmuncherer
carpetmuncheres
carpetmunchering
carpetmuncherly
carpetmunchers
cawk
cawked
cawker
cawkes
cawking
cawkly
cawks
chinc
chinced
chincer
chinces
chincing
chincly
chincs
chincsed
chincser
chincses
chincsing
chincsly
chincss
chink
chinked
chinker
chinkes
chinking
chinkly
chinks
chode
chodeed
chodeer
chodees
chodeing
chodely
chodes
chodesed
chodeser
chodeses
chodesing
chodesly
chodess
clit
clited
cliter
clites
cliting
clitly
clitoris
clitorised
clitoriser
clitorises
clitorising
clitorisly
clitoriss
clitorus
clitorused
clitoruser
clitoruses
clitorusing
clitorusly
clitoruss
clits
clitsed
clitser
clitses
clitsing
clitsly
clitss
clitty
clittyed
clittyer
clittyes
clittying
clittyly
clittys
cocain
cocaine
cocained
cocaineed
cocaineer
cocainees
cocaineing
cocainely
cocainer
cocaines
cocaining
cocainly
cocains
cock
cock sucker
cock suckered
cock suckerer
cock suckeres
cock suckering
cock suckerly
cock suckers
cockblock
cockblocked
cockblocker
cockblockes
cockblocking
cockblockly
cockblocks
cocked
cocker
cockes
cockholster
cockholstered
cockholsterer
cockholsteres
cockholstering
cockholsterly
cockholsters
cocking
cockknocker
cockknockered
cockknockerer
cockknockeres
cockknockering
cockknockerly
cockknockers
cockly
cocks
cocksed
cockser
cockses
cocksing
cocksly
cocksmoker
cocksmokered
cocksmokerer
cocksmokeres
cocksmokering
cocksmokerly
cocksmokers
cockss
cocksucker
cocksuckered
cocksuckerer
cocksuckeres
cocksuckering
cocksuckerly
cocksuckers
coital
coitaled
coitaler
coitales
coitaling
coitally
coitals
commie
commieed
commieer
commiees
commieing
commiely
commies
condomed
condomer
condomes
condoming
condomly
condoms
coon
cooned
cooner
coones
cooning
coonly
coons
coonsed
coonser
coonses
coonsing
coonsly
coonss
corksucker
corksuckered
corksuckerer
corksuckeres
corksuckering
corksuckerly
corksuckers
cracked
crackwhore
crackwhoreed
crackwhoreer
crackwhorees
crackwhoreing
crackwhorely
crackwhores
crap
craped
craper
crapes
craping
craply
crappy
crappyed
crappyer
crappyes
crappying
crappyly
crappys
cum
cumed
cumer
cumes
cuming
cumly
cummin
cummined
cumminer
cummines
cumming
cumminged
cumminger
cumminges
cumminging
cummingly
cummings
cummining
cumminly
cummins
cums
cumshot
cumshoted
cumshoter
cumshotes
cumshoting
cumshotly
cumshots
cumshotsed
cumshotser
cumshotses
cumshotsing
cumshotsly
cumshotss
cumslut
cumsluted
cumsluter
cumslutes
cumsluting
cumslutly
cumsluts
cumstain
cumstained
cumstainer
cumstaines
cumstaining
cumstainly
cumstains
cunilingus
cunilingused
cunilinguser
cunilinguses
cunilingusing
cunilingusly
cunilinguss
cunnilingus
cunnilingused
cunnilinguser
cunnilinguses
cunnilingusing
cunnilingusly
cunnilinguss
cunny
cunnyed
cunnyer
cunnyes
cunnying
cunnyly
cunnys
cunt
cunted
cunter
cuntes
cuntface
cuntfaceed
cuntfaceer
cuntfacees
cuntfaceing
cuntfacely
cuntfaces
cunthunter
cunthuntered
cunthunterer
cunthunteres
cunthuntering
cunthunterly
cunthunters
cunting
cuntlick
cuntlicked
cuntlicker
cuntlickered
cuntlickerer
cuntlickeres
cuntlickering
cuntlickerly
cuntlickers
cuntlickes
cuntlicking
cuntlickly
cuntlicks
cuntly
cunts
cuntsed
cuntser
cuntses
cuntsing
cuntsly
cuntss
dago
dagoed
dagoer
dagoes
dagoing
dagoly
dagos
dagosed
dagoser
dagoses
dagosing
dagosly
dagoss
dammit
dammited
dammiter
dammites
dammiting
dammitly
dammits
damn
damned
damneded
damneder
damnedes
damneding
damnedly
damneds
damner
damnes
damning
damnit
damnited
damniter
damnites
damniting
damnitly
damnits
damnly
damns
dick
dickbag
dickbaged
dickbager
dickbages
dickbaging
dickbagly
dickbags
dickdipper
dickdippered
dickdipperer
dickdipperes
dickdippering
dickdipperly
dickdippers
dicked
dicker
dickes
dickface
dickfaceed
dickfaceer
dickfacees
dickfaceing
dickfacely
dickfaces
dickflipper
dickflippered
dickflipperer
dickflipperes
dickflippering
dickflipperly
dickflippers
dickhead
dickheaded
dickheader
dickheades
dickheading
dickheadly
dickheads
dickheadsed
dickheadser
dickheadses
dickheadsing
dickheadsly
dickheadss
dicking
dickish
dickished
dickisher
dickishes
dickishing
dickishly
dickishs
dickly
dickripper
dickrippered
dickripperer
dickripperes
dickrippering
dickripperly
dickrippers
dicks
dicksipper
dicksippered
dicksipperer
dicksipperes
dicksippering
dicksipperly
dicksippers
dickweed
dickweeded
dickweeder
dickweedes
dickweeding
dickweedly
dickweeds
dickwhipper
dickwhippered
dickwhipperer
dickwhipperes
dickwhippering
dickwhipperly
dickwhippers
dickzipper
dickzippered
dickzipperer
dickzipperes
dickzippering
dickzipperly
dickzippers
diddle
diddleed
diddleer
diddlees
diddleing
diddlely
diddles
dike
dikeed
dikeer
dikees
dikeing
dikely
dikes
dildo
dildoed
dildoer
dildoes
dildoing
dildoly
dildos
dildosed
dildoser
dildoses
dildosing
dildosly
dildoss
diligaf
diligafed
diligafer
diligafes
diligafing
diligafly
diligafs
dillweed
dillweeded
dillweeder
dillweedes
dillweeding
dillweedly
dillweeds
dimwit
dimwited
dimwiter
dimwites
dimwiting
dimwitly
dimwits
dingle
dingleed
dingleer
dinglees
dingleing
dinglely
dingles
dipship
dipshiped
dipshiper
dipshipes
dipshiping
dipshiply
dipships
dizzyed
dizzyer
dizzyes
dizzying
dizzyly
dizzys
doggiestyleed
doggiestyleer
doggiestylees
doggiestyleing
doggiestylely
doggiestyles
doggystyleed
doggystyleer
doggystylees
doggystyleing
doggystylely
doggystyles
dong
donged
donger
donges
donging
dongly
dongs
doofus
doofused
doofuser
doofuses
doofusing
doofusly
doofuss
doosh
dooshed
doosher
dooshes
dooshing
dooshly
dooshs
dopeyed
dopeyer
dopeyes
dopeying
dopeyly
dopeys
douchebag
douchebaged
douchebager
douchebages
douchebaging
douchebagly
douchebags
douchebagsed
douchebagser
douchebagses
douchebagsing
douchebagsly
douchebagss
doucheed
doucheer
douchees
doucheing
douchely
douches
douchey
doucheyed
doucheyer
doucheyes
doucheying
doucheyly
doucheys
drunk
drunked
drunker
drunkes
drunking
drunkly
drunks
dumass
dumassed
dumasser
dumasses
dumassing
dumassly
dumasss
dumbass
dumbassed
dumbasser
dumbasses
dumbassesed
dumbasseser
dumbasseses
dumbassesing
dumbassesly
dumbassess
dumbassing
dumbassly
dumbasss
dummy
dummyed
dummyer
dummyes
dummying
dummyly
dummys
dyke
dykeed
dykeer
dykees
dykeing
dykely
dykes
dykesed
dykeser
dykeses
dykesing
dykesly
dykess
erotic
eroticed
eroticer
erotices
eroticing
eroticly
erotics
extacy
extacyed
extacyer
extacyes
extacying
extacyly
extacys
extasy
extasyed
extasyer
extasyes
extasying
extasyly
extasys
fack
facked
facker
fackes
facking
fackly
facks
fag
faged
fager
fages
fagg
fagged
faggeded
faggeder
faggedes
faggeding
faggedly
faggeds
fagger
fagges
fagging
faggit
faggited
faggiter
faggites
faggiting
faggitly
faggits
faggly
faggot
faggoted
faggoter
faggotes
faggoting
faggotly
faggots
faggs
faging
fagly
fagot
fagoted
fagoter
fagotes
fagoting
fagotly
fagots
fags
fagsed
fagser
fagses
fagsing
fagsly
fagss
faig
faiged
faiger
faiges
faiging
faigly
faigs
faigt
faigted
faigter
faigtes
faigting
faigtly
faigts
fannybandit
fannybandited
fannybanditer
fannybandites
fannybanditing
fannybanditly
fannybandits
farted
farter
fartes
farting
fartknocker
fartknockered
fartknockerer
fartknockeres
fartknockering
fartknockerly
fartknockers
fartly
farts
felch
felched
felcher
felchered
felcherer
felcheres
felchering
felcherly
felchers
felches
felching
felchinged
felchinger
felchinges
felchinging
felchingly
felchings
felchly
felchs
fellate
fellateed
fellateer
fellatees
fellateing
fellately
fellates
fellatio
fellatioed
fellatioer
fellatioes
fellatioing
fellatioly
fellatios
feltch
feltched
feltcher
feltchered
feltcherer
feltcheres
feltchering
feltcherly
feltchers
feltches
feltching
feltchly
feltchs
feom
feomed
feomer
feomes
feoming
feomly
feoms
fisted
fisteded
fisteder
fistedes
fisteding
fistedly
fisteds
fisting
fistinged
fistinger
fistinges
fistinging
fistingly
fistings
fisty
fistyed
fistyer
fistyes
fistying
fistyly
fistys
floozy
floozyed
floozyer
floozyes
floozying
floozyly
floozys
foad
foaded
foader
foades
foading
foadly
foads
fondleed
fondleer
fondlees
fondleing
fondlely
fondles
foobar
foobared
foobarer
foobares
foobaring
foobarly
foobars
freex
freexed
freexer
freexes
freexing
freexly
freexs
frigg
frigga
friggaed
friggaer
friggaes
friggaing
friggaly
friggas
frigged
frigger
frigges
frigging
friggly
friggs
fubar
fubared
fubarer
fubares
fubaring
fubarly
fubars
fuck
fuckass
fuckassed
fuckasser
fuckasses
fuckassing
fuckassly
fuckasss
fucked
fuckeded
fuckeder
fuckedes
fuckeding
fuckedly
fuckeds
fucker
fuckered
fuckerer
fuckeres
fuckering
fuckerly
fuckers
fuckes
fuckface
fuckfaceed
fuckfaceer
fuckfacees
fuckfaceing
fuckfacely
fuckfaces
fuckin
fuckined
fuckiner
fuckines
fucking
fuckinged
fuckinger
fuckinges
fuckinging
fuckingly
fuckings
fuckining
fuckinly
fuckins
fuckly
fucknugget
fucknuggeted
fucknuggeter
fucknuggetes
fucknuggeting
fucknuggetly
fucknuggets
fucknut
fucknuted
fucknuter
fucknutes
fucknuting
fucknutly
fucknuts
fuckoff
fuckoffed
fuckoffer
fuckoffes
fuckoffing
fuckoffly
fuckoffs
fucks
fucksed
fuckser
fuckses
fucksing
fucksly
fuckss
fucktard
fucktarded
fucktarder
fucktardes
fucktarding
fucktardly
fucktards
fuckup
fuckuped
fuckuper
fuckupes
fuckuping
fuckuply
fuckups
fuckwad
fuckwaded
fuckwader
fuckwades
fuckwading
fuckwadly
fuckwads
fuckwit
fuckwited
fuckwiter
fuckwites
fuckwiting
fuckwitly
fuckwits
fudgepacker
fudgepackered
fudgepackerer
fudgepackeres
fudgepackering
fudgepackerly
fudgepackers
fuk
fuked
fuker
fukes
fuking
fukly
fuks
fvck
fvcked
fvcker
fvckes
fvcking
fvckly
fvcks
fxck
fxcked
fxcker
fxckes
fxcking
fxckly
fxcks
gae
gaeed
gaeer
gaees
gaeing
gaely
gaes
gai
gaied
gaier
gaies
gaiing
gaily
gais
ganja
ganjaed
ganjaer
ganjaes
ganjaing
ganjaly
ganjas
gayed
gayer
gayes
gaying
gayly
gays
gaysed
gayser
gayses
gaysing
gaysly
gayss
gey
geyed
geyer
geyes
geying
geyly
geys
gfc
gfced
gfcer
gfces
gfcing
gfcly
gfcs
gfy
gfyed
gfyer
gfyes
gfying
gfyly
gfys
ghay
ghayed
ghayer
ghayes
ghaying
ghayly
ghays
ghey
gheyed
gheyer
gheyes
gheying
gheyly
gheys
gigolo
gigoloed
gigoloer
gigoloes
gigoloing
gigololy
gigolos
goatse
goatseed
goatseer
goatsees
goatseing
goatsely
goatses
godamn
godamned
godamner
godamnes
godamning
godamnit
godamnited
godamniter
godamnites
godamniting
godamnitly
godamnits
godamnly
godamns
goddam
goddamed
goddamer
goddames
goddaming
goddamly
goddammit
goddammited
goddammiter
goddammites
goddammiting
goddammitly
goddammits
goddamn
goddamned
goddamner
goddamnes
goddamning
goddamnly
goddamns
goddams
goldenshower
goldenshowered
goldenshowerer
goldenshoweres
goldenshowering
goldenshowerly
goldenshowers
gonad
gonaded
gonader
gonades
gonading
gonadly
gonads
gonadsed
gonadser
gonadses
gonadsing
gonadsly
gonadss
gook
gooked
gooker
gookes
gooking
gookly
gooks
gooksed
gookser
gookses
gooksing
gooksly
gookss
gringo
gringoed
gringoer
gringoes
gringoing
gringoly
gringos
gspot
gspoted
gspoter
gspotes
gspoting
gspotly
gspots
gtfo
gtfoed
gtfoer
gtfoes
gtfoing
gtfoly
gtfos
guido
guidoed
guidoer
guidoes
guidoing
guidoly
guidos
handjob
handjobed
handjober
handjobes
handjobing
handjobly
handjobs
hard on
hard oned
hard oner
hard ones
hard oning
hard only
hard ons
hardknight
hardknighted
hardknighter
hardknightes
hardknighting
hardknightly
hardknights
hebe
hebeed
hebeer
hebees
hebeing
hebely
hebes
heeb
heebed
heeber
heebes
heebing
heebly
heebs
hell
helled
heller
helles
helling
hellly
hells
hemp
hemped
hemper
hempes
hemping
hemply
hemps
heroined
heroiner
heroines
heroining
heroinly
heroins
herp
herped
herper
herpes
herpesed
herpeser
herpeses
herpesing
herpesly
herpess
herping
herply
herps
herpy
herpyed
herpyer
herpyes
herpying
herpyly
herpys
hitler
hitlered
hitlerer
hitleres
hitlering
hitlerly
hitlers
hived
hiver
hives
hiving
hivly
hivs
hobag
hobaged
hobager
hobages
hobaging
hobagly
hobags
homey
homeyed
homeyer
homeyes
homeying
homeyly
homeys
homo
homoed
homoer
homoes
homoey
homoeyed
homoeyer
homoeyes
homoeying
homoeyly
homoeys
homoing
homoly
homos
honky
honkyed
honkyer
honkyes
honkying
honkyly
honkys
hooch
hooched
hoocher
hooches
hooching
hoochly
hoochs
hookah
hookahed
hookaher
hookahes
hookahing
hookahly
hookahs
hooker
hookered
hookerer
hookeres
hookering
hookerly
hookers
hoor
hoored
hoorer
hoores
hooring
hoorly
hoors
hootch
hootched
hootcher
hootches
hootching
hootchly
hootchs
hooter
hootered
hooterer
hooteres
hootering
hooterly
hooters
hootersed
hooterser
hooterses
hootersing
hootersly
hooterss
horny
hornyed
hornyer
hornyes
hornying
hornyly
hornys
houstoned
houstoner
houstones
houstoning
houstonly
houstons
hump
humped
humpeded
humpeder
humpedes
humpeding
humpedly
humpeds
humper
humpes
humping
humpinged
humpinger
humpinges
humpinging
humpingly
humpings
humply
humps
husbanded
husbander
husbandes
husbanding
husbandly
husbands
hussy
hussyed
hussyer
hussyes
hussying
hussyly
hussys
hymened
hymener
hymenes
hymening
hymenly
hymens
inbred
inbreded
inbreder
inbredes
inbreding
inbredly
inbreds
incest
incested
incester
incestes
incesting
incestly
incests
injun
injuned
injuner
injunes
injuning
injunly
injuns
jackass
jackassed
jackasser
jackasses
jackassing
jackassly
jackasss
jackhole
jackholeed
jackholeer
jackholees
jackholeing
jackholely
jackholes
jackoff
jackoffed
jackoffer
jackoffes
jackoffing
jackoffly
jackoffs
jap
japed
japer
japes
japing
japly
japs
japsed
japser
japses
japsing
japsly
japss
jerkoff
jerkoffed
jerkoffer
jerkoffes
jerkoffing
jerkoffly
jerkoffs
jerks
jism
jismed
jismer
jismes
jisming
jismly
jisms
jiz
jized
jizer
jizes
jizing
jizly
jizm
jizmed
jizmer
jizmes
jizming
jizmly
jizms
jizs
jizz
jizzed
jizzeded
jizzeder
jizzedes
jizzeding
jizzedly
jizzeds
jizzer
jizzes
jizzing
jizzly
jizzs
junkie
junkieed
junkieer
junkiees
junkieing
junkiely
junkies
junky
junkyed
junkyer
junkyes
junkying
junkyly
junkys
kike
kikeed
kikeer
kikees
kikeing
kikely
kikes
kikesed
kikeser
kikeses
kikesing
kikesly
kikess
killed
killer
killes
killing
killly
kills
kinky
kinkyed
kinkyer
kinkyes
kinkying
kinkyly
kinkys
kkk
kkked
kkker
kkkes
kkking
kkkly
kkks
klan
klaned
klaner
klanes
klaning
klanly
klans
knobend
knobended
knobender
knobendes
knobending
knobendly
knobends
kooch
kooched
koocher
kooches
koochesed
koocheser
koocheses
koochesing
koochesly
koochess
kooching
koochly
koochs
kootch
kootched
kootcher
kootches
kootching
kootchly
kootchs
kraut
krauted
krauter
krautes
krauting
krautly
krauts
kyke
kykeed
kykeer
kykees
kykeing
kykely
kykes
lech
leched
lecher
leches
leching
lechly
lechs
leper
lepered
leperer
leperes
lepering
leperly
lepers
lesbiansed
lesbianser
lesbianses
lesbiansing
lesbiansly
lesbianss
lesbo
lesboed
lesboer
lesboes
lesboing
lesboly
lesbos
lesbosed
lesboser
lesboses
lesbosing
lesbosly
lesboss
lez
lezbianed
lezbianer
lezbianes
lezbianing
lezbianly
lezbians
lezbiansed
lezbianser
lezbianses
lezbiansing
lezbiansly
lezbianss
lezbo
lezboed
lezboer
lezboes
lezboing
lezboly
lezbos
lezbosed
lezboser
lezboses
lezbosing
lezbosly
lezboss
lezed
lezer
lezes
lezing
lezly
lezs
lezzie
lezzieed
lezzieer
lezziees
lezzieing
lezziely
lezzies
lezziesed
lezzieser
lezzieses
lezziesing
lezziesly
lezziess
lezzy
lezzyed
lezzyer
lezzyes
lezzying
lezzyly
lezzys
lmaoed
lmaoer
lmaoes
lmaoing
lmaoly
lmaos
lmfao
lmfaoed
lmfaoer
lmfaoes
lmfaoing
lmfaoly
lmfaos
loined
loiner
loines
loining
loinly
loins
loinsed
loinser
loinses
loinsing
loinsly
loinss
lubeed
lubeer
lubees
lubeing
lubely
lubes
lusty
lustyed
lustyer
lustyes
lustying
lustyly
lustys
massa
massaed
massaer
massaes
massaing
massaly
massas
masterbate
masterbateed
masterbateer
masterbatees
masterbateing
masterbately
masterbates
masterbating
masterbatinged
masterbatinger
masterbatinges
masterbatinging
masterbatingly
masterbatings
masterbation
masterbationed
masterbationer
masterbationes
masterbationing
masterbationly
masterbations
masturbate
masturbateed
masturbateer
masturbatees
masturbateing
masturbately
masturbates
masturbating
masturbatinged
masturbatinger
masturbatinges
masturbatinging
masturbatingly
masturbatings
masturbation
masturbationed
masturbationer
masturbationes
masturbationing
masturbationly
masturbations
methed
mether
methes
mething
methly
meths
militaryed
militaryer
militaryes
militarying
militaryly
militarys
mofo
mofoed
mofoer
mofoes
mofoing
mofoly
mofos
molest
molested
molester
molestes
molesting
molestly
molests
moolie
moolieed
moolieer
mooliees
moolieing
mooliely
moolies
moron
moroned
moroner
morones
moroning
moronly
morons
motherfucka
motherfuckaed
motherfuckaer
motherfuckaes
motherfuckaing
motherfuckaly
motherfuckas
motherfucker
motherfuckered
motherfuckerer
motherfuckeres
motherfuckering
motherfuckerly
motherfuckers
motherfucking
motherfuckinged
motherfuckinger
motherfuckinges
motherfuckinging
motherfuckingly
motherfuckings
mtherfucker
mtherfuckered
mtherfuckerer
mtherfuckeres
mtherfuckering
mtherfuckerly
mtherfuckers
mthrfucker
mthrfuckered
mthrfuckerer
mthrfuckeres
mthrfuckering
mthrfuckerly
mthrfuckers
mthrfucking
mthrfuckinged
mthrfuckinger
mthrfuckinges
mthrfuckinging
mthrfuckingly
mthrfuckings
muff
muffdiver
muffdivered
muffdiverer
muffdiveres
muffdivering
muffdiverly
muffdivers
muffed
muffer
muffes
muffing
muffly
muffs
murdered
murderer
murderes
murdering
murderly
murders
muthafuckaz
muthafuckazed
muthafuckazer
muthafuckazes
muthafuckazing
muthafuckazly
muthafuckazs
muthafucker
muthafuckered
muthafuckerer
muthafuckeres
muthafuckering
muthafuckerly
muthafuckers
mutherfucker
mutherfuckered
mutherfuckerer
mutherfuckeres
mutherfuckering
mutherfuckerly
mutherfuckers
mutherfucking
mutherfuckinged
mutherfuckinger
mutherfuckinges
mutherfuckinging
mutherfuckingly
mutherfuckings
muthrfucking
muthrfuckinged
muthrfuckinger
muthrfuckinges
muthrfuckinging
muthrfuckingly
muthrfuckings
nad
naded
nader
nades
nading
nadly
nads
nadsed
nadser
nadses
nadsing
nadsly
nadss
nakeded
nakeder
nakedes
nakeding
nakedly
nakeds
napalm
napalmed
napalmer
napalmes
napalming
napalmly
napalms
nappy
nappyed
nappyer
nappyes
nappying
nappyly
nappys
nazi
nazied
nazier
nazies
naziing
nazily
nazis
nazism
nazismed
nazismer
nazismes
nazisming
nazismly
nazisms
negro
negroed
negroer
negroes
negroing
negroly
negros
nigga
niggaed
niggaer
niggaes
niggah
niggahed
niggaher
niggahes
niggahing
niggahly
niggahs
niggaing
niggaly
niggas
niggased
niggaser
niggases
niggasing
niggasly
niggass
niggaz
niggazed
niggazer
niggazes
niggazing
niggazly
niggazs
nigger
niggered
niggerer
niggeres
niggering
niggerly
niggers
niggersed
niggerser
niggerses
niggersing
niggersly
niggerss
niggle
niggleed
niggleer
nigglees
niggleing
nigglely
niggles
niglet
nigleted
nigleter
nigletes
nigleting
nigletly
niglets
nimrod
nimroded
nimroder
nimrodes
nimroding
nimrodly
nimrods
ninny
ninnyed
ninnyer
ninnyes
ninnying
ninnyly
ninnys
nooky
nookyed
nookyer
nookyes
nookying
nookyly
nookys
nuccitelli
nuccitellied
nuccitellier
nuccitellies
nuccitelliing
nuccitellily
nuccitellis
nympho
nymphoed
nymphoer
nymphoes
nymphoing
nympholy
nymphos
opium
opiumed
opiumer
opiumes
opiuming
opiumly
opiums
orgies
orgiesed
orgieser
orgieses
orgiesing
orgiesly
orgiess
orgy
orgyed
orgyer
orgyes
orgying
orgyly
orgys
paddy
paddyed
paddyer
paddyes
paddying
paddyly
paddys
paki
pakied
pakier
pakies
pakiing
pakily
pakis
pantie
pantieed
pantieer
pantiees
pantieing
pantiely
panties
pantiesed
pantieser
pantieses
pantiesing
pantiesly
pantiess
panty
pantyed
pantyer
pantyes
pantying
pantyly
pantys
pastie
pastieed
pastieer
pastiees
pastieing
pastiely
pasties
pasty
pastyed
pastyer
pastyes
pastying
pastyly
pastys
pecker
peckered
peckerer
peckeres
peckering
peckerly
peckers
pedo
pedoed
pedoer
pedoes
pedoing
pedoly
pedophile
pedophileed
pedophileer
pedophilees
pedophileing
pedophilely
pedophiles
pedophilia
pedophiliac
pedophiliaced
pedophiliacer
pedophiliaces
pedophiliacing
pedophiliacly
pedophiliacs
pedophiliaed
pedophiliaer
pedophiliaes
pedophiliaing
pedophilialy
pedophilias
pedos
penial
penialed
penialer
peniales
penialing
penially
penials
penile
penileed
penileer
penilees
penileing
penilely
peniles
penis
penised
peniser
penises
penising
penisly
peniss
perversion
perversioned
perversioner
perversiones
perversioning
perversionly
perversions
peyote
peyoteed
peyoteer
peyotees
peyoteing
peyotely
peyotes
phuck
phucked
phucker
phuckes
phucking
phuckly
phucks
pillowbiter
pillowbitered
pillowbiterer
pillowbiteres
pillowbitering
pillowbiterly
pillowbiters
pimp
pimped
pimper
pimpes
pimping
pimply
pimps
pinko
pinkoed
pinkoer
pinkoes
pinkoing
pinkoly
pinkos
pissed
pisseded
pisseder
pissedes
pisseding
pissedly
pisseds
pisser
pisses
pissing
pissly
pissoff
pissoffed
pissoffer
pissoffes
pissoffing
pissoffly
pissoffs
pisss
polack
polacked
polacker
polackes
polacking
polackly
polacks
pollock
pollocked
pollocker
pollockes
pollocking
pollockly
pollocks
poon
pooned
pooner
poones
pooning
poonly
poons
poontang
poontanged
poontanger
poontanges
poontanging
poontangly
poontangs
porn
porned
porner
pornes
porning
pornly
porno
pornoed
pornoer
pornoes
pornography
pornographyed
pornographyer
pornographyes
pornographying
pornographyly
pornographys
pornoing
pornoly
pornos
porns
prick
pricked
pricker
prickes
pricking
prickly
pricks
prig
priged
priger
priges
priging
prigly
prigs
prostitute
prostituteed
prostituteer
prostitutees
prostituteing
prostitutely
prostitutes
prude
prudeed
prudeer
prudees
prudeing
prudely
prudes
punkass
punkassed
punkasser
punkasses
punkassing
punkassly
punkasss
punky
punkyed
punkyer
punkyes
punkying
punkyly
punkys
puss
pussed
pusser
pusses
pussies
pussiesed
pussieser
pussieses
pussiesing
pussiesly
pussiess
pussing
pussly
pusss
pussy
pussyed
pussyer
pussyes
pussying
pussyly
pussypounder
pussypoundered
pussypounderer
pussypounderes
pussypoundering
pussypounderly
pussypounders
pussys
puto
putoed
putoer
putoes
putoing
putoly
putos
queaf
queafed
queafer
queafes
queafing
queafly
queafs
queef
queefed
queefer
queefes
queefing
queefly
queefs
queer
queered
queerer
queeres
queering
queerly
queero
queeroed
queeroer
queeroes
queeroing
queeroly
queeros
queers
queersed
queerser
queerses
queersing
queersly
queerss
quicky
quickyed
quickyer
quickyes
quickying
quickyly
quickys
quim
quimed
quimer
quimes
quiming
quimly
quims
racy
racyed
racyer
racyes
racying
racyly
racys
rape
raped
rapeded
rapeder
rapedes
rapeding
rapedly
rapeds
rapeed
rapeer
rapees
rapeing
rapely
raper
rapered
raperer
raperes
rapering
raperly
rapers
rapes
rapist
rapisted
rapister
rapistes
rapisting
rapistly
rapists
raunch
raunched
rauncher
raunches
raunching
raunchly
raunchs
rectus
rectused
rectuser
rectuses
rectusing
rectusly
rectuss
reefer
reefered
reeferer
reeferes
reefering
reeferly
reefers
reetard
reetarded
reetarder
reetardes
reetarding
reetardly
reetards
reich
reiched
reicher
reiches
reiching
reichly
reichs
retard
retarded
retardeded
retardeder
retardedes
retardeding
retardedly
retardeds
retarder
retardes
retarding
retardly
retards
rimjob
rimjobed
rimjober
rimjobes
rimjobing
rimjobly
rimjobs
ritard
ritarded
ritarder
ritardes
ritarding
ritardly
ritards
rtard
rtarded
rtarder
rtardes
rtarding
rtardly
rtards
rum
rumed
rumer
rumes
ruming
rumly
rump
rumped
rumper
rumpes
rumping
rumply
rumprammer
rumprammered
rumprammerer
rumprammeres
rumprammering
rumprammerly
rumprammers
rumps
rums
ruski
ruskied
ruskier
ruskies
ruskiing
ruskily
ruskis
sadism
sadismed
sadismer
sadismes
sadisming
sadismly
sadisms
sadist
sadisted
sadister
sadistes
sadisting
sadistly
sadists
scag
scaged
scager
scages
scaging
scagly
scags
scantily
scantilyed
scantilyer
scantilyes
scantilying
scantilyly
scantilys
schlong
schlonged
schlonger
schlonges
schlonging
schlongly
schlongs
scrog
scroged
scroger
scroges
scroging
scrogly
scrogs
scrot
scrote
scroted
scroteed
scroteer
scrotees
scroteing
scrotely
scroter
scrotes
scroting
scrotly
scrots
scrotum
scrotumed
scrotumer
scrotumes
scrotuming
scrotumly
scrotums
scrud
scruded
scruder
scrudes
scruding
scrudly
scruds
scum
scumed
scumer
scumes
scuming
scumly
scums
seaman
seamaned
seamaner
seamanes
seamaning
seamanly
seamans
seamen
seamened
seamener
seamenes
seamening
seamenly
seamens
seduceed
seduceer
seducees
seduceing
seducely
seduces
semen
semened
semener
semenes
semening
semenly
semens
shamedame
shamedameed
shamedameer
shamedamees
shamedameing
shamedamely
shamedames
shit
shite
shiteater
shiteatered
shiteaterer
shiteateres
shiteatering
shiteaterly
shiteaters
shited
shiteed
shiteer
shitees
shiteing
shitely
shiter
shites
shitface
shitfaceed
shitfaceer
shitfacees
shitfaceing
shitfacely
shitfaces
shithead
shitheaded
shitheader
shitheades
shitheading
shitheadly
shitheads
shithole
shitholeed
shitholeer
shitholees
shitholeing
shitholely
shitholes
shithouse
shithouseed
shithouseer
shithousees
shithouseing
shithousely
shithouses
shiting
shitly
shits
shitsed
shitser
shitses
shitsing
shitsly
shitss
shitt
shitted
shitteded
shitteder
shittedes
shitteding
shittedly
shitteds
shitter
shittered
shitterer
shitteres
shittering
shitterly
shitters
shittes
shitting
shittly
shitts
shitty
shittyed
shittyer
shittyes
shittying
shittyly
shittys
shiz
shized
shizer
shizes
shizing
shizly
shizs
shooted
shooter
shootes
shooting
shootly
shoots
sissy
sissyed
sissyer
sissyes
sissying
sissyly
sissys
skag
skaged
skager
skages
skaging
skagly
skags
skank
skanked
skanker
skankes
skanking
skankly
skanks
slave
slaveed
slaveer
slavees
slaveing
slavely
slaves
sleaze
sleazeed
sleazeer
sleazees
sleazeing
sleazely
sleazes
sleazy
sleazyed
sleazyer
sleazyes
sleazying
sleazyly
sleazys
slut
slutdumper
slutdumpered
slutdumperer
slutdumperes
slutdumpering
slutdumperly
slutdumpers
sluted
sluter
slutes
sluting
slutkiss
slutkissed
slutkisser
slutkisses
slutkissing
slutkissly
slutkisss
slutly
sluts
slutsed
slutser
slutses
slutsing
slutsly
slutss
smegma
smegmaed
smegmaer
smegmaes
smegmaing
smegmaly
smegmas
smut
smuted
smuter
smutes
smuting
smutly
smuts
smutty
smuttyed
smuttyer
smuttyes
smuttying
smuttyly
smuttys
snatch
snatched
snatcher
snatches
snatching
snatchly
snatchs
sniper
snipered
sniperer
sniperes
snipering
sniperly
snipers
snort
snorted
snorter
snortes
snorting
snortly
snorts
snuff
snuffed
snuffer
snuffes
snuffing
snuffly
snuffs
sodom
sodomed
sodomer
sodomes
sodoming
sodomly
sodoms
spic
spiced
spicer
spices
spicing
spick
spicked
spicker
spickes
spicking
spickly
spicks
spicly
spics
spik
spoof
spoofed
spoofer
spoofes
spoofing
spoofly
spoofs
spooge
spoogeed
spoogeer
spoogees
spoogeing
spoogely
spooges
spunk
spunked
spunker
spunkes
spunking
spunkly
spunks
steamyed
steamyer
steamyes
steamying
steamyly
steamys
stfu
stfued
stfuer
stfues
stfuing
stfuly
stfus
stiffy
stiffyed
stiffyer
stiffyes
stiffying
stiffyly
stiffys
stoneded
stoneder
stonedes
stoneding
stonedly
stoneds
stupided
stupider
stupides
stupiding
stupidly
stupids
suckeded
suckeder
suckedes
suckeding
suckedly
suckeds
sucker
suckes
sucking
suckinged
suckinger
suckinges
suckinging
suckingly
suckings
suckly
sucks
sumofabiatch
sumofabiatched
sumofabiatcher
sumofabiatches
sumofabiatching
sumofabiatchly
sumofabiatchs
tard
tarded
tarder
tardes
tarding
tardly
tards
tawdry
tawdryed
tawdryer
tawdryes
tawdrying
tawdryly
tawdrys
teabagging
teabagginged
teabagginger
teabagginges
teabagginging
teabaggingly
teabaggings
terd
terded
terder
terdes
terding
terdly
terds
teste
testee
testeed
testeeed
testeeer
testeees
testeeing
testeely
testeer
testees
testeing
testely
testes
testesed
testeser
testeses
testesing
testesly
testess
testicle
testicleed
testicleer
testiclees
testicleing
testiclely
testicles
testis
testised
testiser
testises
testising
testisly
testiss
thrusted
thruster
thrustes
thrusting
thrustly
thrusts
thug
thuged
thuger
thuges
thuging
thugly
thugs
tinkle
tinkleed
tinkleer
tinklees
tinkleing
tinklely
tinkles
tit
tited
titer
tites
titfuck
titfucked
titfucker
titfuckes
titfucking
titfuckly
titfucks
titi
titied
titier
tities
titiing
titily
titing
titis
titly
tits
titsed
titser
titses
titsing
titsly
titss
tittiefucker
tittiefuckered
tittiefuckerer
tittiefuckeres
tittiefuckering
tittiefuckerly
tittiefuckers
titties
tittiesed
tittieser
tittieses
tittiesing
tittiesly
tittiess
titty
tittyed
tittyer
tittyes
tittyfuck
tittyfucked
tittyfucker
tittyfuckered
tittyfuckerer
tittyfuckeres
tittyfuckering
tittyfuckerly
tittyfuckers
tittyfuckes
tittyfucking
tittyfuckly
tittyfucks
tittying
tittyly
tittys
toke
tokeed
tokeer
tokees
tokeing
tokely
tokes
toots
tootsed
tootser
tootses
tootsing
tootsly
tootss
tramp
tramped
tramper
trampes
tramping
tramply
tramps
transsexualed
transsexualer
transsexuales
transsexualing
transsexually
transsexuals
trashy
trashyed
trashyer
trashyes
trashying
trashyly
trashys
tubgirl
tubgirled
tubgirler
tubgirles
tubgirling
tubgirlly
tubgirls
turd
turded
turder
turdes
turding
turdly
turds
tush
tushed
tusher
tushes
tushing
tushly
tushs
twat
twated
twater
twates
twating
twatly
twats
twatsed
twatser
twatses
twatsing
twatsly
twatss
undies
undiesed
undieser
undieses
undiesing
undiesly
undiess
unweded
unweder
unwedes
unweding
unwedly
unweds
uzi
uzied
uzier
uzies
uziing
uzily
uzis
vag
vaged
vager
vages
vaging
vagly
vags
valium
valiumed
valiumer
valiumes
valiuming
valiumly
valiums
venous
virgined
virginer
virgines
virgining
virginly
virgins
vixen
vixened
vixener
vixenes
vixening
vixenly
vixens
vodkaed
vodkaer
vodkaes
vodkaing
vodkaly
vodkas
voyeur
voyeured
voyeurer
voyeures
voyeuring
voyeurly
voyeurs
vulgar
vulgared
vulgarer
vulgares
vulgaring
vulgarly
vulgars
wang
wanged
wanger
wanges
wanging
wangly
wangs
wank
wanked
wanker
wankered
wankerer
wankeres
wankering
wankerly
wankers
wankes
wanking
wankly
wanks
wazoo
wazooed
wazooer
wazooes
wazooing
wazooly
wazoos
wedgie
wedgieed
wedgieer
wedgiees
wedgieing
wedgiely
wedgies
weeded
weeder
weedes
weeding
weedly
weeds
weenie
weenieed
weenieer
weeniees
weenieing
weeniely
weenies
weewee
weeweeed
weeweeer
weeweees
weeweeing
weeweely
weewees
weiner
weinered
weinerer
weineres
weinering
weinerly
weiners
weirdo
weirdoed
weirdoer
weirdoes
weirdoing
weirdoly
weirdos
wench
wenched
wencher
wenches
wenching
wenchly
wenchs
wetback
wetbacked
wetbacker
wetbackes
wetbacking
wetbackly
wetbacks
whitey
whiteyed
whiteyer
whiteyes
whiteying
whiteyly
whiteys
whiz
whized
whizer
whizes
whizing
whizly
whizs
whoralicious
whoralicioused
whoraliciouser
whoraliciouses
whoraliciousing
whoraliciously
whoraliciouss
whore
whorealicious
whorealicioused
whorealiciouser
whorealiciouses
whorealiciousing
whorealiciously
whorealiciouss
whored
whoreded
whoreder
whoredes
whoreding
whoredly
whoreds
whoreed
whoreer
whorees
whoreface
whorefaceed
whorefaceer
whorefacees
whorefaceing
whorefacely
whorefaces
whorehopper
whorehoppered
whorehopperer
whorehopperes
whorehoppering
whorehopperly
whorehoppers
whorehouse
whorehouseed
whorehouseer
whorehousees
whorehouseing
whorehousely
whorehouses
whoreing
whorely
whores
whoresed
whoreser
whoreses
whoresing
whoresly
whoress
whoring
whoringed
whoringer
whoringes
whoringing
whoringly
whorings
wigger
wiggered
wiggerer
wiggeres
wiggering
wiggerly
wiggers
woody
woodyed
woodyer
woodyes
woodying
woodyly
woodys
wop
woped
woper
wopes
woping
woply
wops
wtf
wtfed
wtfer
wtfes
wtfing
wtfly
wtfs
xxx
xxxed
xxxer
xxxes
xxxing
xxxly
xxxs
yeasty
yeastyed
yeastyer
yeastyes
yeastying
yeastyly
yeastys
yobbo
yobboed
yobboer
yobboes
yobboing
yobboly
yobbos
zoophile
zoophileed
zoophileer
zoophilees
zoophileing
zoophilely
zoophiles
anal
ass
ass lick
balls
ballsac
bisexual
bleach
causas
cheap
cost of miracles
cunt
display network stats
fart
fda and death
fda AND warn
fda AND warning
fda AND warns
feom
fuck
gfc
humira AND expensive
illegal
madvocate
masturbation
nuccitelli
overdose
porn
shit
snort
texarkana
abbvie
AbbVie
acid
addicted
addiction
adolescent
adult sites
Advocacy
advocacy
agitated states
AJO, postsurgical analgesic, knee, replacement, surgery
alcohol
amphetamine
androgen
antibody
apple cider vinegar
assistance
Assistance
association
at home
attorney
audit
ayurvedic
baby
ban
baricitinib
bed bugs
best
bible
bisexual
black
bleach
blog
bulimia nervosa
buy
cannabis
certificate
certification
certified
cervical cancer, concurrent chemoradiotherapy, intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, IVIM, diffusion-weighted MRI, DWI
charlie sheen
cheap
cheapest
child
childhood
childlike
children
chronic fatigue syndrome
Cladribine Tablets
cocaine
cock
combination therapies, synergistic antitumor efficacy, pertuzumab, trastuzumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, palbociclib, letrozole, lapatinib, docetaxel, trametinib, dabrafenib, carflzomib, lenalidomide
contagious
Cortical Lesions
cream
creams
crime
criminal
cure
dangerous
dangers
dasabuvir
Dasabuvir
dead
deadly
death
dementia
dependence
dependent
depression
dermatillomania
die
diet
Disability
Discount
discount
dog
drink
drug abuse
drug-induced
dying
eastern medicine
eat
ect
eczema
electroconvulsive therapy
electromagnetic therapy
electrotherapy
epa
epilepsy
erectile dysfunction
explosive disorder
fake
Fake-ovir
fatal
fatalities
fatality
fibromyalgia
financial
Financial
fish oil
food
foods
foundation
free
Gabriel Pardo
gaston
general hospital
genetic
geriatric
Giancarlo Comi
gilead
Gilead
glaucoma
Glenn S. Williams
Glenn Williams
Gloria Dalla Costa
gonorrhea
Greedy
greedy
guns
hallucinations
harvoni
Harvoni
herbal
herbs
heroin
herpes
Hidradenitis Suppurativa,
holistic
home
home remedies
home remedy
homeopathic
homeopathy
hydrocortisone
ice
image
images
job
kid
kids
kill
killer
laser
lawsuit
lawyer
ledipasvir
Ledipasvir
lesbian
lesions
lights
liver
lupus
marijuana
melancholic
memory loss
menopausal
mental retardation
military
milk
moisturizers
monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs
MRI
MS
murder
national
natural
natural cure
natural cures
natural medications
natural medicine
natural medicines
natural remedies
natural remedy
natural treatment
natural treatments
naturally
Needy
needy
Neurology Reviews
neuropathic
nightclub massacre
nightclub shooting
nude
nudity
nutraceuticals
OASIS
oasis
off label
ombitasvir
Ombitasvir
ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir with dasabuvir
orlando shooting
overactive thyroid gland
overdose
overdosed
Paolo Preziosa
paritaprevir
Paritaprevir
pediatric
pedophile
photo
photos
picture
post partum
postnatal
pregnancy
pregnant
prenatal
prepartum
prison
program
Program
Protest
protest
psychedelics
pulse nightclub
puppy
purchase
purchasing
rape
recall
recreational drug
Rehabilitation
Retinal Measurements
retrograde ejaculation
risperdal
ritonavir
Ritonavir
ritonavir with dasabuvir
robin williams
sales
sasquatch
schizophrenia
seizure
seizures
sex
sexual
sexy
shock treatment
silver
sleep disorders
smoking
sociopath
sofosbuvir
Sofosbuvir
sovaldi
ssri
store
sue
suicidal
suicide
supplements
support
Support
Support Path
teen
teenage
teenagers
Telerehabilitation
testosterone
Th17
Th17:FoxP3+Treg cell ratio
Th22
toxic
toxin
tragedy
treatment resistant
V Pak
vagina
velpatasvir
Viekira Pa
Viekira Pak
viekira pak
violence
virgin
vitamin
VPak
weight loss
withdrawal
wrinkles
xxx
young adult
young adults
zoloft
financial
sofosbuvir
ritonavir with dasabuvir
discount
support path
program
ritonavir
greedy
ledipasvir
assistance
viekira pak
vpak
advocacy
needy
protest
abbvie
paritaprevir
ombitasvir
direct-acting antivirals
dasabuvir
gilead
fake-ovir
support
v pak
oasis
harvoni
direct\-acting antivirals
Negative Keywords Excluded Elements
header[@id='header']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-article-jfp')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-home-jfp')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-topic-jfp')]
div[contains(@class, 'panel-panel-inner')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-node-field-article-topics')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
Altmetric
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
Disqus Exclude
Best Practices
CE/CME
Education Center
Medical Education Library
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
Clinical
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
Featured Buckets Admin
LayerRx MD-IQ Id
776
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC
Use larger logo size
Off

These umbilical lesions weren't granulomas after all

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
These umbilical lesions weren't granulomas after all

THE CASES

CASE 1 ›  A 15-month-old boy was brought to our center for plastic surgery after being referred by his general practitioner (GP). The patient had a non-healing lesion on his umbilicus that had been present since birth. It had remained the same size, but bled occasionally. The GP initially presumed the lesion was a granuloma and treated it with silver nitrate cautery, but this did not eradicate it.

After talking with the boy’s mother further, we learned that there had been a constant oozing from the area since birth and that the lesion protruded slightly from the abdomen when the child cried. The boy had congenital heart disease, but his bowel and genitourinary history were normal. A clinical examination revealed pink, moist tissue herniating from the umbilicus with surrounding abdominal fullness when the boy stood up (FIGURE 1A). An ultrasound showed a focal 19 x 7 mm complex area around the umbilicus with no definite track. The lesion was surgically removed. Histology revealed a completely excised vitellointestinal duct remnant.

CASE 2 ›  A 6-year-old boy with a history of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was brought to our clinic with a non-healing umbilical lesion after being referred by his GP. The lesion had been present since birth and had failed to resolve despite several attempts to treat it with silver nitrate cautery. Clinically, the patient appeared to have a granulomatous umbilical polyp (FIGURE 1B). The patient underwent surgical excision of the lesion. Histological analysis revealed a completely excised vitellointestinal duct remnant (FIGURE 2).

DISCUSSION

The vitellointestinal duct (VID), also called the omphalomesenteric duct (OMD), connects the alimentary canal and the yolk sac in early embryogenesis. Failure of involution of the duct results in abnormalities such as Meckel’s diverticulum, cysts, and polyps.

VID anomalies occur in approximately 2% of newborns; a small percentage of these have patent connections to the intestine.1 Parents are often the first to notice the abnormality and will typically see a reddish protrusion around the umbilicus or a persistent serous discharge around the umbilicus soon after birth.

VID remnants are similar in presentation to benign granulomas or granulation tissue, which are benign lesions that present in the first few weeks of life. Granulomas are reddish in color, bleed minimally when irritated by trauma, and respond well to silver nitrate cautery.2 When the lesion fails to respond to treatment, an alternative diagnosis should be investigated further.

Ultrasonography is the best way to evaluate a suspected VID remnant

A suspected VID remnant should first be assessed with ultrasonography to determine the extent of the remnant and guide surgical treatment. Ultrasonography can also delineate the relationship of these congenital remnants with the umbilicus and bladder.3

Potential complications that can arise from these lesions include an intestinal hernia, intussusception, volvulus, abdominal pain, or a persistent discharge that can lead to infection.3 Mortality following complications is significantly high.4

Although the etiology of patent VIDs and their remnants remains unknown, the presence of such ducts is associated with other congenital anomalies, including Down Syndrome, structural cardiac malformation, conduction abnormalities, and cleft lip and palate.5-7 Therefore, additional history taking and examinations may be required to identify these associated pathologies. In Case 1, the 15-month-old boy had congenital heart disease.

Surgical excision will prevent complications

A simple surgical excision should be performed for VID remnants. The prognosis is excellent when such procedures are performed in the non-acute setting. Some debate exists as to whether all remnants require formal abdominal exploration.8,9

Treatment of patent VIDs requires surgical excision of the duct, with or without a segment of the small bowel, to obliterate the connection.10 Reconstruction of the umbilicus is then performed, depending on the surgical technique used.

Vitellointestinal duct remnants are similar in presentation to benign granulomasor granulation tissue.

Our patients both made complete recoveries following their surgeries with resolution of their symptoms.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consider a VID remnant as part of the differential diagnosis for any patient who has what appears to be a granulomatous umbilical lesion. Order ultrasonography to evaluate a suspected VID, especially for lesions that fail to respond to 2 or 3 silver nitrate treatments. Surgical excision of a VID remnant is usually curative.

References

1. Vane DW, West KW, Grosfeld JL. Vitelline duct anomalies. Experience with 217 childhood cases. Arch Surg. 1987;122:542-547.

2. Piparsaliya S, Joshi M, Rajput N, et al. Patent vitellointestinal duct: A close differential diagnosis of umbilical granuloma: A case report and review of literature. Surgical Science. 2011;2:134-136.

3. Khati NJ, Enquist EG, Javitt MC. Imaging of the umbilicus and periumbilical region. Radiographics. 1998;18:413-431.

4. Yamada T, Seiki Y, Ueda M, et al. Patent omphalomesenteric duct: a case report and review of Japanese literature. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;15:229-236.

5. Martin RH, Doublestein GL, Jarvis MR. Concurrent ectopic pregnancy, Meckel’s diverticulum with vitelline duct remnant, cecal volvulus, and congenital complete heart block: report of a case. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1986;86:589-591.

6. Elebute EA, Ransome-Kuti O. Patent vitello-intestinal duct with ileal prolapse. Arch Surg. 1965;91:456-460.

7. Blair SP, Beasley SW. Intussusception of vitello-intestinal tract through an exomphalos in trisomy 13. Pediatric Surgery International. 1989;4:422-423.

8. Kutin ND, Allen JE, Jewett TC. The umbilical polyp. J Pediatr Surg. 1979;14:741-744.

9. Pacilli M, Sebire NJ, Maritsi D, et al. Umbilical polyp in infants and children. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2007;17:397-399.

10. Storms P, Pexsters J, Vandekerkhof J. Small omphalocele with ileal prolapse through a patent omphalomesenteric duct. A case report and review of literature. Acta Chir Belg. 1988;88:392-394.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Umran Sarwar, MBChB, BMedSci (Hons)
Muhammad Javed, MBBS, BSc, MRCS
Thomas Wright, FRCS (Plast)
Allan Dawson
Nick Wilson-Jones, MBBCh, MSc, MRCS (Ed), FRCS (Plast)
Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
umair.dr@gmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article. 

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E1-E3
Legacy Keywords
pediatrics, VID, vitellointestinal duct, omphalomesenteric, OMD
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Umran Sarwar, MBChB, BMedSci (Hons)
Muhammad Javed, MBBS, BSc, MRCS
Thomas Wright, FRCS (Plast)
Allan Dawson
Nick Wilson-Jones, MBBCh, MSc, MRCS (Ed), FRCS (Plast)
Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
umair.dr@gmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article. 

Author and Disclosure Information

Umran Sarwar, MBChB, BMedSci (Hons)
Muhammad Javed, MBBS, BSc, MRCS
Thomas Wright, FRCS (Plast)
Allan Dawson
Nick Wilson-Jones, MBBCh, MSc, MRCS (Ed), FRCS (Plast)
Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
umair.dr@gmail.com

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article. 

Article PDF
Article PDF

THE CASES

CASE 1 ›  A 15-month-old boy was brought to our center for plastic surgery after being referred by his general practitioner (GP). The patient had a non-healing lesion on his umbilicus that had been present since birth. It had remained the same size, but bled occasionally. The GP initially presumed the lesion was a granuloma and treated it with silver nitrate cautery, but this did not eradicate it.

After talking with the boy’s mother further, we learned that there had been a constant oozing from the area since birth and that the lesion protruded slightly from the abdomen when the child cried. The boy had congenital heart disease, but his bowel and genitourinary history were normal. A clinical examination revealed pink, moist tissue herniating from the umbilicus with surrounding abdominal fullness when the boy stood up (FIGURE 1A). An ultrasound showed a focal 19 x 7 mm complex area around the umbilicus with no definite track. The lesion was surgically removed. Histology revealed a completely excised vitellointestinal duct remnant.

CASE 2 ›  A 6-year-old boy with a history of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was brought to our clinic with a non-healing umbilical lesion after being referred by his GP. The lesion had been present since birth and had failed to resolve despite several attempts to treat it with silver nitrate cautery. Clinically, the patient appeared to have a granulomatous umbilical polyp (FIGURE 1B). The patient underwent surgical excision of the lesion. Histological analysis revealed a completely excised vitellointestinal duct remnant (FIGURE 2).

DISCUSSION

The vitellointestinal duct (VID), also called the omphalomesenteric duct (OMD), connects the alimentary canal and the yolk sac in early embryogenesis. Failure of involution of the duct results in abnormalities such as Meckel’s diverticulum, cysts, and polyps.

VID anomalies occur in approximately 2% of newborns; a small percentage of these have patent connections to the intestine.1 Parents are often the first to notice the abnormality and will typically see a reddish protrusion around the umbilicus or a persistent serous discharge around the umbilicus soon after birth.

VID remnants are similar in presentation to benign granulomas or granulation tissue, which are benign lesions that present in the first few weeks of life. Granulomas are reddish in color, bleed minimally when irritated by trauma, and respond well to silver nitrate cautery.2 When the lesion fails to respond to treatment, an alternative diagnosis should be investigated further.

Ultrasonography is the best way to evaluate a suspected VID remnant

A suspected VID remnant should first be assessed with ultrasonography to determine the extent of the remnant and guide surgical treatment. Ultrasonography can also delineate the relationship of these congenital remnants with the umbilicus and bladder.3

Potential complications that can arise from these lesions include an intestinal hernia, intussusception, volvulus, abdominal pain, or a persistent discharge that can lead to infection.3 Mortality following complications is significantly high.4

Although the etiology of patent VIDs and their remnants remains unknown, the presence of such ducts is associated with other congenital anomalies, including Down Syndrome, structural cardiac malformation, conduction abnormalities, and cleft lip and palate.5-7 Therefore, additional history taking and examinations may be required to identify these associated pathologies. In Case 1, the 15-month-old boy had congenital heart disease.

Surgical excision will prevent complications

A simple surgical excision should be performed for VID remnants. The prognosis is excellent when such procedures are performed in the non-acute setting. Some debate exists as to whether all remnants require formal abdominal exploration.8,9

Treatment of patent VIDs requires surgical excision of the duct, with or without a segment of the small bowel, to obliterate the connection.10 Reconstruction of the umbilicus is then performed, depending on the surgical technique used.

Vitellointestinal duct remnants are similar in presentation to benign granulomasor granulation tissue.

Our patients both made complete recoveries following their surgeries with resolution of their symptoms.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consider a VID remnant as part of the differential diagnosis for any patient who has what appears to be a granulomatous umbilical lesion. Order ultrasonography to evaluate a suspected VID, especially for lesions that fail to respond to 2 or 3 silver nitrate treatments. Surgical excision of a VID remnant is usually curative.

THE CASES

CASE 1 ›  A 15-month-old boy was brought to our center for plastic surgery after being referred by his general practitioner (GP). The patient had a non-healing lesion on his umbilicus that had been present since birth. It had remained the same size, but bled occasionally. The GP initially presumed the lesion was a granuloma and treated it with silver nitrate cautery, but this did not eradicate it.

After talking with the boy’s mother further, we learned that there had been a constant oozing from the area since birth and that the lesion protruded slightly from the abdomen when the child cried. The boy had congenital heart disease, but his bowel and genitourinary history were normal. A clinical examination revealed pink, moist tissue herniating from the umbilicus with surrounding abdominal fullness when the boy stood up (FIGURE 1A). An ultrasound showed a focal 19 x 7 mm complex area around the umbilicus with no definite track. The lesion was surgically removed. Histology revealed a completely excised vitellointestinal duct remnant.

CASE 2 ›  A 6-year-old boy with a history of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was brought to our clinic with a non-healing umbilical lesion after being referred by his GP. The lesion had been present since birth and had failed to resolve despite several attempts to treat it with silver nitrate cautery. Clinically, the patient appeared to have a granulomatous umbilical polyp (FIGURE 1B). The patient underwent surgical excision of the lesion. Histological analysis revealed a completely excised vitellointestinal duct remnant (FIGURE 2).

DISCUSSION

The vitellointestinal duct (VID), also called the omphalomesenteric duct (OMD), connects the alimentary canal and the yolk sac in early embryogenesis. Failure of involution of the duct results in abnormalities such as Meckel’s diverticulum, cysts, and polyps.

VID anomalies occur in approximately 2% of newborns; a small percentage of these have patent connections to the intestine.1 Parents are often the first to notice the abnormality and will typically see a reddish protrusion around the umbilicus or a persistent serous discharge around the umbilicus soon after birth.

VID remnants are similar in presentation to benign granulomas or granulation tissue, which are benign lesions that present in the first few weeks of life. Granulomas are reddish in color, bleed minimally when irritated by trauma, and respond well to silver nitrate cautery.2 When the lesion fails to respond to treatment, an alternative diagnosis should be investigated further.

Ultrasonography is the best way to evaluate a suspected VID remnant

A suspected VID remnant should first be assessed with ultrasonography to determine the extent of the remnant and guide surgical treatment. Ultrasonography can also delineate the relationship of these congenital remnants with the umbilicus and bladder.3

Potential complications that can arise from these lesions include an intestinal hernia, intussusception, volvulus, abdominal pain, or a persistent discharge that can lead to infection.3 Mortality following complications is significantly high.4

Although the etiology of patent VIDs and their remnants remains unknown, the presence of such ducts is associated with other congenital anomalies, including Down Syndrome, structural cardiac malformation, conduction abnormalities, and cleft lip and palate.5-7 Therefore, additional history taking and examinations may be required to identify these associated pathologies. In Case 1, the 15-month-old boy had congenital heart disease.

Surgical excision will prevent complications

A simple surgical excision should be performed for VID remnants. The prognosis is excellent when such procedures are performed in the non-acute setting. Some debate exists as to whether all remnants require formal abdominal exploration.8,9

Treatment of patent VIDs requires surgical excision of the duct, with or without a segment of the small bowel, to obliterate the connection.10 Reconstruction of the umbilicus is then performed, depending on the surgical technique used.

Vitellointestinal duct remnants are similar in presentation to benign granulomasor granulation tissue.

Our patients both made complete recoveries following their surgeries with resolution of their symptoms.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consider a VID remnant as part of the differential diagnosis for any patient who has what appears to be a granulomatous umbilical lesion. Order ultrasonography to evaluate a suspected VID, especially for lesions that fail to respond to 2 or 3 silver nitrate treatments. Surgical excision of a VID remnant is usually curative.

References

1. Vane DW, West KW, Grosfeld JL. Vitelline duct anomalies. Experience with 217 childhood cases. Arch Surg. 1987;122:542-547.

2. Piparsaliya S, Joshi M, Rajput N, et al. Patent vitellointestinal duct: A close differential diagnosis of umbilical granuloma: A case report and review of literature. Surgical Science. 2011;2:134-136.

3. Khati NJ, Enquist EG, Javitt MC. Imaging of the umbilicus and periumbilical region. Radiographics. 1998;18:413-431.

4. Yamada T, Seiki Y, Ueda M, et al. Patent omphalomesenteric duct: a case report and review of Japanese literature. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;15:229-236.

5. Martin RH, Doublestein GL, Jarvis MR. Concurrent ectopic pregnancy, Meckel’s diverticulum with vitelline duct remnant, cecal volvulus, and congenital complete heart block: report of a case. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1986;86:589-591.

6. Elebute EA, Ransome-Kuti O. Patent vitello-intestinal duct with ileal prolapse. Arch Surg. 1965;91:456-460.

7. Blair SP, Beasley SW. Intussusception of vitello-intestinal tract through an exomphalos in trisomy 13. Pediatric Surgery International. 1989;4:422-423.

8. Kutin ND, Allen JE, Jewett TC. The umbilical polyp. J Pediatr Surg. 1979;14:741-744.

9. Pacilli M, Sebire NJ, Maritsi D, et al. Umbilical polyp in infants and children. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2007;17:397-399.

10. Storms P, Pexsters J, Vandekerkhof J. Small omphalocele with ileal prolapse through a patent omphalomesenteric duct. A case report and review of literature. Acta Chir Belg. 1988;88:392-394.

References

1. Vane DW, West KW, Grosfeld JL. Vitelline duct anomalies. Experience with 217 childhood cases. Arch Surg. 1987;122:542-547.

2. Piparsaliya S, Joshi M, Rajput N, et al. Patent vitellointestinal duct: A close differential diagnosis of umbilical granuloma: A case report and review of literature. Surgical Science. 2011;2:134-136.

3. Khati NJ, Enquist EG, Javitt MC. Imaging of the umbilicus and periumbilical region. Radiographics. 1998;18:413-431.

4. Yamada T, Seiki Y, Ueda M, et al. Patent omphalomesenteric duct: a case report and review of Japanese literature. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;15:229-236.

5. Martin RH, Doublestein GL, Jarvis MR. Concurrent ectopic pregnancy, Meckel’s diverticulum with vitelline duct remnant, cecal volvulus, and congenital complete heart block: report of a case. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1986;86:589-591.

6. Elebute EA, Ransome-Kuti O. Patent vitello-intestinal duct with ileal prolapse. Arch Surg. 1965;91:456-460.

7. Blair SP, Beasley SW. Intussusception of vitello-intestinal tract through an exomphalos in trisomy 13. Pediatric Surgery International. 1989;4:422-423.

8. Kutin ND, Allen JE, Jewett TC. The umbilical polyp. J Pediatr Surg. 1979;14:741-744.

9. Pacilli M, Sebire NJ, Maritsi D, et al. Umbilical polyp in infants and children. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2007;17:397-399.

10. Storms P, Pexsters J, Vandekerkhof J. Small omphalocele with ileal prolapse through a patent omphalomesenteric duct. A case report and review of literature. Acta Chir Belg. 1988;88:392-394.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Page Number
E1-E3
Page Number
E1-E3
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
These umbilical lesions weren't granulomas after all
Display Headline
These umbilical lesions weren't granulomas after all
Legacy Keywords
pediatrics, VID, vitellointestinal duct, omphalomesenteric, OMD
Legacy Keywords
pediatrics, VID, vitellointestinal duct, omphalomesenteric, OMD
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

The solution to EHR woes: A team-based care model

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
The solution to EHR woes: A team-based care model

For some time, electronic health records (EHRs) have been the focus of many articles (“EHR use and patient satisfaction: What we learned.” J Fam Pract. 2015;64:687-696) and the source of great debate (and frustration) in the health care community. But there’s a logical solution to the dilemmas created by EHRs: A team-based care model.1

A fundamental principle of team-based care is that all members of the team work at the top of their skill set. So, with that in mind, most of the duties of EHR management should be delegated to other team members, rather than to the physicians. In our system, every physician works with 2 other people—certified medical assistants or licensed practical nurses—who help with standing orders, protocols, templates, and many of the EHR duties, including a significant portion of team documentation. They do this while recognizing and respecting guidelines from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other payers. That leaves the physicians and advanced practice clinicians the time they need to focus on the patient during the visit.

Not surprisingly, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and quality measures are all improving with this model of care. It is proving financially viable, as well. This model may well be the future of health care delivery for office-based practices.2

Jim Jerzak, MD
Green Bay, Wis

1. Sinsky CA, Willard-Grace R, Schutzbank AM, et al. In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:272-278.

2. Ghorob A, Bodenheimer T. Building teams in primary care: A practical guide. Fam Syst Health. 2015;33:182-192.

References

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
84
Legacy Keywords
Jim Jerzak, MD, EHR, electronic health records, practice management
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

For some time, electronic health records (EHRs) have been the focus of many articles (“EHR use and patient satisfaction: What we learned.” J Fam Pract. 2015;64:687-696) and the source of great debate (and frustration) in the health care community. But there’s a logical solution to the dilemmas created by EHRs: A team-based care model.1

A fundamental principle of team-based care is that all members of the team work at the top of their skill set. So, with that in mind, most of the duties of EHR management should be delegated to other team members, rather than to the physicians. In our system, every physician works with 2 other people—certified medical assistants or licensed practical nurses—who help with standing orders, protocols, templates, and many of the EHR duties, including a significant portion of team documentation. They do this while recognizing and respecting guidelines from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other payers. That leaves the physicians and advanced practice clinicians the time they need to focus on the patient during the visit.

Not surprisingly, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and quality measures are all improving with this model of care. It is proving financially viable, as well. This model may well be the future of health care delivery for office-based practices.2

Jim Jerzak, MD
Green Bay, Wis

1. Sinsky CA, Willard-Grace R, Schutzbank AM, et al. In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:272-278.

2. Ghorob A, Bodenheimer T. Building teams in primary care: A practical guide. Fam Syst Health. 2015;33:182-192.

For some time, electronic health records (EHRs) have been the focus of many articles (“EHR use and patient satisfaction: What we learned.” J Fam Pract. 2015;64:687-696) and the source of great debate (and frustration) in the health care community. But there’s a logical solution to the dilemmas created by EHRs: A team-based care model.1

A fundamental principle of team-based care is that all members of the team work at the top of their skill set. So, with that in mind, most of the duties of EHR management should be delegated to other team members, rather than to the physicians. In our system, every physician works with 2 other people—certified medical assistants or licensed practical nurses—who help with standing orders, protocols, templates, and many of the EHR duties, including a significant portion of team documentation. They do this while recognizing and respecting guidelines from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other payers. That leaves the physicians and advanced practice clinicians the time they need to focus on the patient during the visit.

Not surprisingly, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and quality measures are all improving with this model of care. It is proving financially viable, as well. This model may well be the future of health care delivery for office-based practices.2

Jim Jerzak, MD
Green Bay, Wis

1. Sinsky CA, Willard-Grace R, Schutzbank AM, et al. In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:272-278.

2. Ghorob A, Bodenheimer T. Building teams in primary care: A practical guide. Fam Syst Health. 2015;33:182-192.

References

References

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Page Number
84
Page Number
84
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The solution to EHR woes: A team-based care model
Display Headline
The solution to EHR woes: A team-based care model
Legacy Keywords
Jim Jerzak, MD, EHR, electronic health records, practice management
Legacy Keywords
Jim Jerzak, MD, EHR, electronic health records, practice management
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Personality disorders: A measured response

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Personality disorders: A measured response

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Maintain a high index of suspicion for personality disorders (PDs) in patients who appear to be “difficult,” and take care to distinguish these diagnoses from primary mood, anxiety, and psychotic disorders. C
› Refer patients with PDs for psychotherapy, as it is considered the mainstay of treatment—particularly for borderline PD. B
› Use pharmacotherapy judiciously as an adjunctive treatment for PD. B

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B
Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C
Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Personality disorders (PDs) are common, affecting up to 15% of US adults, and are associated with comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions and increased utilization of health care resources.1,2 Having a basic understanding of these patterns of thinking and behaving can help family physicians (FPs) identify specific PD diagnoses, ensure appropriate treatment, and reduce the frustration that arises when an individual is viewed as a “difficult patient.”

Here we describe the diagnostic features of the disorders in the 3 major clusters of PDs and review an effective approach to the management of the most common disorder in each cluster, using a case study patient.

Defense mechanisms offer clues that your patient may have a PD

Personality is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviors that is relatively stable across time and in different situations. Such traits comprise an individual’s inherent makeup.1 PDs are diagnosed when an individual’s personality traits create significant distress or impairment in daily functioning. Specifically, PDs have a negative impact on cognition, affect, interpersonal relationships, and/or impulse control.1

One of the ways people alleviate distress is by using defense mechanisms. Defense mechanisms are unconscious mental processes that individuals use to resolve conflicts, and thereby reduce anxiety and depression on a conscious level. Taken alone, defense mechanisms are not pathologic, but they may become maladaptive in certain stressful circumstances, such as when receiving medical treatment. Recognizing patterns of chronic use of certain defense mechanisms may be a clue that your patient has a PD. TABLE 13,4 and TABLE 23,4 provide an overview of common defense mechanisms used by patients with PDs.

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) organizes PDs into 3 clusters based on similar and often overlapping symptoms.1TABLE 31 provides a brief summary of the characteristic features of each disorder in these clusters.

Cluster A: Odd, eccentric

Patients with one of these disorders are odd, eccentric, or bizarre in their behavior and thinking. There appears to be a genetic link between cluster A PDs (especially schizotypal) and schizophrenia.5 These patients rarely seek treatment for their disorder because they have limited insight into their maladaptive traits.5,6

CASE 1 › Daniel A, age 57, has hypertension and hyperlipidemia and comes in to see his FP for a 6-month follow-up appointment. He never misses appointments, but has a history of poor adherence with prescribed medications. He enjoys his discussions with you in the office, although he often perseverates on conspiracy theories. He lives alone and has never been married. He believes that some of the previously prescribed medications, including a statin and a thiazide diuretic, were interfering with the absorption of “positive nutrients” in his diet. He also refuses to take the generic form of a statin, which he believes was adulterated by the government to be sold at lower cost.

Mr. A demonstrates the odd and eccentric beliefs that characterize schizotypal personality disorder. How can his FP best help him adhere to his medication regimen? (For the answer, click here.)

Schizotypal personality disorder shares certain disturbances of thought with schizophrenia, and is believed to exist on a spectrum with other primary psychotic disorders. Support for this theory comes from the higher rates of schizotypal PD among family members of patients with schizophrenia. There is a genetic component to the disorder.3,5,6

Clinically, these patients appear odd and eccentric with unusual beliefs. They may have a fascination with magic, clairvoyance, telepathy, or other such notions.1,5 Although the perceptual disturbances are unusual and often bizarre, they are not frank delusions: patients with schizotypal PD are willing to consider alternative explanations for their beliefs and can engage in rational discussion. Cognitive deficits, particularly of memory and attention, are common and distressing to patients. Frequently, the presenting complaint is depression and anxiety due to the emotional discord and isolation from others.1,3,5,6

Continue to cluster B >>

 

 

Cluster B: Dramatic, erratic

Does your patient complain that you don't understand him "the way his other doctor did"? Or does he frequently lose his temper? Perhaps it's time to consider a personality disorder.

Patients with cluster B PDs are dramatic, excessively emotional, confrontational, erratic, and impulsive in their behaviors.1 They often have comorbid mood and anxiety disorders, as well as a disproportionately high co-occurrence of functional disorders.3,7 Their rates of health care utilization can be substantial. Because individuals with one of these PDs sometimes exhibit reckless and impulsive behavior, physicians should be aware these patients have a high risk of physical injuries (fights, accidents, self-injurious behavior), suicide attempts, risky sexual behaviors, and unplanned pregnancy.8,9

CASE 2 › Sheryl B is a 34-year-old new patient with a history of irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, depression, and anxiety who shows up for her appointment an hour late. She is upset and blames the office scheduler for not reminding her of the appointment. She brings a list of medications from her previous physician that includes sertraline, clonazepam, gabapentin, oxycodone, and as-needed alprazolam. She insists that her physician increase the dose of the benzodiazepines.

A review of her medical history reveals diagnoses of anxiety, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Ms. B has also engaged in superficial cutting since adolescence, often triggered by arguments with her boyfriend. Currently, she attributes her anxiety and pain to not receiving the “correct medications” because of her transition from a previous physician who “knew her better than any other doctor.” After the FP explains to Ms. B that he would have to carefully review her case before continuing to prescribe benzodiazepines, she becomes tearful and argumentative, proclaiming, “You won’t give me the only thing that will help me because you want me to be miserable!”

Ms. B exhibits many cluster B personality traits consistent with borderline PD. How should the FP respond to her claims? (For the answer, click here.)

Borderline PD is the most studied of the PDs. It can be a stigmatizing diagnosis, and even experienced psychiatrists may hesitate to inform patients of this diagnosis.10 Patients with borderline PD may be erroneously diagnosed with bipolar disorder, treatment-resistant depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder because of a complicated clinical presentation, physician unfamiliarity with diagnostic criteria, or the presence of genuine comorbid conditions.3,11

The etiology of this disorder appears to be multifactorial, and includes genetic predisposition, disruptive parent-child relationships (especially separation), and, often, past sexual or physical trauma.9,12

Predominant clinical features include emotional lability, efforts to avoid abandonment, extremes of idealization and devaluation, unstable and intense interpersonal relationships, and impulsivity.1 Characteristically, these patients also engage in self-injurious behaviors.13,14 Common defense mechanisms used by patients with borderline PD include splitting (viewing others as either all good or all bad), acting out (yelling, agitation, or violence), and passive aggression (TABLE 13,4).

Cluster C: Anxious, fearful

Individuals with cluster C PDs appear anxious, fearful, and worried. They have features that overlap with anxiety disorders.15

CASE 3 › Judy C is a 40-year-old lawyer with a history of gastroesophageal reflux disorder, hypertension, and anxiety who presents for a 3-week follow-up visit after starting sertraline. The patient describes herself as a perfectionist who has increased work-related stress recently because she has to “do extra work for my colleagues who don’t know how to get things done right.” She recently fired her assistant for “not understanding my filing system.” She appears formal and serious, often looking at her watch during the evaluation.

Ms. C demonstrates a pattern of perfectionism, formality, and rigidity in thought and behavior characteristic of obsessive-compulsive PD. What treatment should her physician recommend? (For the answer, click here.)

Unlike patients with frank delusions, patients with schizotypal personality disorder are willing to consider alternative explanations for their odd beliefs.

Obsessive-compulsive PD. Although this disorder is associated with significant anxiety, patients often view the specific traits of obsessive-compulsive PD, such as perfectionism, as desirable. Neurotic defense mechanisms are common, especially rationalization, intellectualization, and isolation of affect (TABLE 23,4). These patients appear formal, rigid, and serious, and are preoccupied with rules and orderliness to achieve perfection.1 Significant anxiety often arises from fear of making mistakes and ruminating on decision-making.1,11,15

Although some overlap exists between obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and obsessive-compulsive PD, patients with OCD exhibit distinct obsessions and associated compulsive behavior, whereas those with obsessive-compulsive PD do not.1

In terms of treatment, it is generally appropriate to recognize the 2 conditions as distinct entities.15 OCD responds well to cognitive behavioral therapies and high-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).16 In contrast, there is little data that suggests antidepressants are effective for obsessive-compulsive PD, and treatment is aimed at addressing comorbid anxiety with psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, if needed.11,15

Continue to psychotherapy for PD is the first-line treatment >>

 

 

Psychotherapy for PD is the first-line treatment

Psychotherapy is the most effective treatment for PDs.11,17,18 Several psychotherapies are used to treat these disorders, including dialectical behavioral therapy, schema therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). A recent study demonstrated the superiority of several evidence-based psychotherapies for PD compared to treatment-as-usual.17 Even more promising is that certain benefits have been demonstrated when psychotherapy is provided by clinicians without advanced mental health training.19-21 However, the benefits of therapies for specific disorders are often limited by lack of available data, patient preference, and accessibility of resources.

Limited evidence supports pharmacotherapy

The use of pharmacotherapy for treating PDs is common, although there’s limited evidence to support the practice.11,22 Certain circumstances may allow for the judicious use of medication, although prescribing strategies are based largely on clinical experience and expert opinion.

Prescribers should emphasize a realistic perspective on treatment response, because research suggests at best a mild-moderate response of some personality traits to pharmacotherapy.11,22-25 There is no evidence for polypharmacy in treating PDs, and FPs should allow for sufficient treatment duration, switch medications rather than augment ineffective treatments, and resist the urge to prescribe for every psychological crisis.11,22,25,26

Patient safety should always be a consideration when prescribing medication. Because use of second-generation antipsychotics is associated with the metabolic syndrome, the patient’s baseline weight and fasting glucose, lipids, and hemoglobin A1c levels should be obtained and monitored regularly. Weight gain can be particularly distressing to patients, increase stress and anxiety, and hinder the doctor-patient relationship.25 Finally, medications with abuse potential or that can be lethal in overdose (eg, tricyclic antidepressants and benzodiazepines) are best avoided in patients with emotional lability and impulsivity.25,26

Tailor treatment to the specific PD

Patients often view the specific traits of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, such as perfectionism, as desirable.

Tx for cluster A disorders. Few studies have examined the effectiveness of psychotherapies for cluster A disorders. Cognitive therapy may have benefit in addressing cognitive distortions and social impairment in schizotypal PD.11,12,22 There is little evidence supporting psychotherapy for paranoid PD, because challenging patients’ beliefs in this form is likely to exacerbate paranoia. Low-dose risperidone has demonstrated some beneficial effects on perceptual disturbances; however, the adverse metabolic effects of this medication may outweigh any potential benefit, as these symptoms are often not distressing to patients.6,27 In comparison, patients often find deficits in memory and attention to be more bothersome, and some data suggest that the alpha-2 agonist guanfacine may help treat these symptoms.28

Tx for cluster B disorders. Several forms of psychotherapy have proven effective in managing symptoms and improving overall functioning in patients with borderline PD, including dialectical behavioral therapy, mentalization-based therapy, transference-focused therapy, and schema therapy.29 Dialectical behavioral therapy is often the initial treatment because it emphasizes reducing self-harm behaviors and emotion regulation.11,17,26

Gunderson19 developed a more basic approach to treating borderline PD that is intended to be used by all clinicians who treat the disorder, and not just mental health professionals with advanced training in psychotherapy. A large, multisite randomized controlled trial found that the clinical efficacy of the technique, known as good psychiatric management, rivaled that of dialectical behavioral therapy.20,21

The general premise is that clinicians foster a therapeutic relationship that is supportive, engaging, and flexible. Physicians are encouraged to educate patients about the disorder and emphasize improvement in daily functioning. Clinicians should share the diagnosis with patients, which may give patients a sense of relief in having an accurate diagnosis and allow them to fully invest in diagnosis-specific treatments.19

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluated pharmacotherapy for borderline PD often have had conflicting conclusions as a result of analyzing data from underpowered studies with varying study designs.23,24,26,30,31 In targeting specific symptoms of the disorder, the most consistent evidence has supported the use of antipsychotics for cognitive perceptual disturbances; patients commonly experience depersonalization or out-of-body experiences.25 Additionally, the use of antipsychotics and mood stabilizers (lamotrigine and topiramate) appears to be somewhat effective for managing emotional lability and impulsivity.26,32,33 Despite the widespread use of SSRIs, a recent systematic review found the least support for these and other antidepressants for management of borderline PD.25

Tx for cluster C disorders. Some evidence supports using cognitive and interpersonal psychotherapies to treat cluster C PDs.34 In contrast, there is little evidence to support the use of pharmacotherapy.35 However, given the significant overlap among these disorders (especially avoidant PD) and social phobia and generalized anxiety disorder, effective pharmacologic strategies can be inferred based on data for those conditions.11 SSRIs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (eg, venlafaxine), and gabapentin have demonstrated efficacy in anxiety disorders and are reasonable and safe initial treatments for patients with a cluster C PD.11,34

Continue for the answers >>

 

 

CASE 1 › Mr. A’s schizotypal PD symptoms interfere with medication adherence because of his unusual belief system. Importantly, unlike patients with frank delusions, patients with schizotypal PD are willing to consider alternative explanations for their unusual beliefs. Mr. A’s intense suspiciousness may indicate some degree of overlap between paranoid and schizotypal PDs.

The FP is patient and willing to listen to Mr. A’s beliefs without devaluing them. To improve medication adherence, the FP offers him reasonable alternatives with clear explanations. (“I understand you have concerns about previous medications. At the same time, it seems that managing your blood pressure and cholesterol is important to you. Can we discuss alternative treatments?”)

CASE 2 › In response to Ms. B’s borderline PD, the FP must be cautious to avoid reacting out of frustration, which may upset the patient and validate her mistrust. The FP first reflects her anger (“I can tell you are upset because you don’t think I want to help you”), which may allow her to calmly engage in a discussion. He wants to recognize Ms. B’s dramatic behavior, but not reward it with added attention and unreasonable concessions. To help establish rapport, he provides a statement to legitimize Ms. B’s concerns (“Many patients would be frustrated during the process of changing physicians”).

The FP listens empathically to Ms. B, sets clear limits, and provides consistent and evidence-based treatments. He also provides early referral to psychotherapy, but to mitigate any perceived abandonment, he assures Ms. B he will remain involved with her treatment. (“It sounds like managing your anxiety is important to you, and often psychiatrists or therapists can help give additional options for treatment. I want you to know that I am still your doctor and we can review their recommendations together at our next visit.”)

Psychotherapy can be beneficial for patients with personality disorders, even when it is provided by clinicians without advanced mental health training.

CASE 3 › The FP recognizes that Ms. C’s pattern of perfectionism, formality, and rigidity in thought and behavior are likely a manifestation of obsessive-compulsive PD, and that the maladaptive psychological traits underlying her anxiety are distinct from a primary anxiety disorder.

An SSRI may be a reasonable option to treat Ms. B’s anxiety, and the FP also refers her for CBT. (“I can tell you are feeling really anxious and many people feel that way, especially with work. I think the medication is a good start, but I wonder if we could discuss other forms of therapy to maximize your symptom improvement.”) Because of their exacting nature, many patients with cluster C personality traits are willing to engage in treatments, especially if they are supported by data and recommended by a knowledgeable physician.

CORRESPONDENCE
Nicholas Morcos, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; nmorcos@med.umich.edu.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.

2. Zimmerman M, Rothschild L, Chelminski I. The prevalence of DSM-IV personality disorders in psychiatric outpatients. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:1911-1918.

3. Cloninger C, Svrakie D. Personality disorders. In: Sadock BJ, Sadock VA, Ruiz P, eds. Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry: Behavioral sciences/clinical psychiatry. 11th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Wolters Kluwer; 2015:2197-2240.

4. Bowins B. Personality disorders: a dimensional defense mechanism approach. Am J Psychother. 2010;64:153-169.

5. Raine A. Schizotypal personality: neurodevelopmental and psychosocial trajectories. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2006;2:291-326.

6. Rosell DR, Futterman SE, McMaster A, et al. Schizotypal personality disorder: a current review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2014;16:452.

7. Gabbard GO, Simonsen E. Complex Case: The impact of personality and personality disorders on the treatment of depression. Personal Ment Health. 2007;1:161-175.

8. Caspi A, Begg D, Dickson N, et al. Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: evidence from a longitudinal study. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;73:1052-1063.

9. Tomko RL, Trull TJ, Wood PK, et al. Characteristics of borderline personality disorder in a community sample: comorbidity, treatment utilization, and general functioning. J Pers Disord. 2014;28:734-750.

10. Vaillant GE. The beginning of wisdom is never calling a patient a borderline; or, the clinical management of immature defenses in the treatment of individuals with personality disorders. J Psychother Pract Res. 1992;1:117-134.

11. Bateman AW, Gunderson J, Mulder R. Treatment of personality disorder. Lancet. 2015;385:735-743.

12. Beck AT, Davis DD, Freeman A, eds. Cognitive therapy of personality disorders. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2015.

13. O’Connor RC, Nock MK. The psychology of suicidal behaviour. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:73-85.

14. Paris J. Understanding self-mutilation in borderline personality disorder. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2005;13:179-185.

15. Diedrich A, Voderholzer U. Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder: a current review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2015;17:2.

16. Pittenger C, Bloch MH. Pharmacological treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2014;37:375-391.

17. Budge SL, Moore JT, Del Re AC, et al. The effectiveness of evidence-based treatments for personality disorders when comparing treatment-as-usual and bona fide treatments. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33:1057-1066.

18. Leichsenring F, Leibing E. The effectiveness of psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behavior therapy in the treatment of personality disorders: a meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160:1223-1232.

19. Gunderson JG, Links PS. Handbook of good psychiatric management for borderline personality disorder. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2014.

20. McMain SF, Links PS, Gnam WH, et al. A randomized trial of dialectical behavior therapy versus general psychiatric management for borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166:1365-1374.

21. McMain SF, Guimond T, Streiner DL, et al. Dialectical behavior therapy compared with general psychiatric management for borderline personality disorder: clinical outcomes and functioning over a 2-year follow-up. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169:650-661.

22. Ripoll LH, Triebwasser J, Siever LJ. Evidence-based pharmacotherapy for personality disorders. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011;14:1257-1288.

23. Coccaro EF. Clinical outcome of psychopharmacologic treatment of borderline and schizotypal personality disordered subjects. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59:30-35.

24. Soloff PH. Algorithms for pharmacological treatment of personality dimensions: symptom-specific treatments for cognitive-perceptual, affective, and impulsive-behavioral dysregulation. Bull Menninger Clin. 1998;62:195-214.

25. Silk KR. The process of managing medications in patients with borderline personality disorder. J Psychiatr Pract. 2011;17:311-319.

26. Saunders EF, Silk KR. Personality trait dimensions and the pharmacological treatment of borderline personality disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:461-467.

27. Koenigsberg HW, Reynolds D, Goodman M, et al. Risperidone in the treatment of schizotypal personality disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64:628-634.

28. McClure MM, Barch DM, Romero MJ, et al. The effects of guanfacine on context processing abnormalities in schizotypal personality disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2007;61:1157-1160.

29. Stoffers JM, Vollm BA, Rucker G, et al. Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD005652.

30. Siever LJ, Davis KL. A psychobiological perspective on the personality disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 1991;148:1647-1658.

31. Binks CA, Fenton M, McCarthy L, et al. Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD005653.

32. Nickel MK, Nickel C, Kaplan P, et al. Treatment of aggression with topiramate in male borderline patients: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57:495-499.

33. Tritt K, Nickel C, Lahmann C, et al. Lamotrigine treatment of aggression in female borderline-patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Psychopharmacol. 2005;19:287-291.

34. Simon W. Follow-up psychotherapy outcome of patients with dependent, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders: A meta-analytic review. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2009;13:153-165.

35. Ansseau M, Troisfontaines B, Papart P, et al. Compulsive personality as predictor of response to serotoninergic antidepressants. BMJ. 1991;303:760-761.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Nicholas Morcos, MD
Roy Morcos, MD, FAAFP
Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor (Dr. N. Morcos); St. Elizabeth Boardman Hospital, Mercy Health, Ohio (Dr. R. Morcos)
nmorcos@med.umich.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
90-97
Legacy Keywords
Nicholas Morcos, MD, Roy Morcos, MD, FAAFP, personality, personality disorders, borderline personality disorder, BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy, psychiatric
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Nicholas Morcos, MD
Roy Morcos, MD, FAAFP
Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor (Dr. N. Morcos); St. Elizabeth Boardman Hospital, Mercy Health, Ohio (Dr. R. Morcos)
nmorcos@med.umich.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Nicholas Morcos, MD
Roy Morcos, MD, FAAFP
Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor (Dr. N. Morcos); St. Elizabeth Boardman Hospital, Mercy Health, Ohio (Dr. R. Morcos)
nmorcos@med.umich.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Maintain a high index of suspicion for personality disorders (PDs) in patients who appear to be “difficult,” and take care to distinguish these diagnoses from primary mood, anxiety, and psychotic disorders. C
› Refer patients with PDs for psychotherapy, as it is considered the mainstay of treatment—particularly for borderline PD. B
› Use pharmacotherapy judiciously as an adjunctive treatment for PD. B

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B
Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C
Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Personality disorders (PDs) are common, affecting up to 15% of US adults, and are associated with comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions and increased utilization of health care resources.1,2 Having a basic understanding of these patterns of thinking and behaving can help family physicians (FPs) identify specific PD diagnoses, ensure appropriate treatment, and reduce the frustration that arises when an individual is viewed as a “difficult patient.”

Here we describe the diagnostic features of the disorders in the 3 major clusters of PDs and review an effective approach to the management of the most common disorder in each cluster, using a case study patient.

Defense mechanisms offer clues that your patient may have a PD

Personality is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviors that is relatively stable across time and in different situations. Such traits comprise an individual’s inherent makeup.1 PDs are diagnosed when an individual’s personality traits create significant distress or impairment in daily functioning. Specifically, PDs have a negative impact on cognition, affect, interpersonal relationships, and/or impulse control.1

One of the ways people alleviate distress is by using defense mechanisms. Defense mechanisms are unconscious mental processes that individuals use to resolve conflicts, and thereby reduce anxiety and depression on a conscious level. Taken alone, defense mechanisms are not pathologic, but they may become maladaptive in certain stressful circumstances, such as when receiving medical treatment. Recognizing patterns of chronic use of certain defense mechanisms may be a clue that your patient has a PD. TABLE 13,4 and TABLE 23,4 provide an overview of common defense mechanisms used by patients with PDs.

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) organizes PDs into 3 clusters based on similar and often overlapping symptoms.1TABLE 31 provides a brief summary of the characteristic features of each disorder in these clusters.

Cluster A: Odd, eccentric

Patients with one of these disorders are odd, eccentric, or bizarre in their behavior and thinking. There appears to be a genetic link between cluster A PDs (especially schizotypal) and schizophrenia.5 These patients rarely seek treatment for their disorder because they have limited insight into their maladaptive traits.5,6

CASE 1 › Daniel A, age 57, has hypertension and hyperlipidemia and comes in to see his FP for a 6-month follow-up appointment. He never misses appointments, but has a history of poor adherence with prescribed medications. He enjoys his discussions with you in the office, although he often perseverates on conspiracy theories. He lives alone and has never been married. He believes that some of the previously prescribed medications, including a statin and a thiazide diuretic, were interfering with the absorption of “positive nutrients” in his diet. He also refuses to take the generic form of a statin, which he believes was adulterated by the government to be sold at lower cost.

Mr. A demonstrates the odd and eccentric beliefs that characterize schizotypal personality disorder. How can his FP best help him adhere to his medication regimen? (For the answer, click here.)

Schizotypal personality disorder shares certain disturbances of thought with schizophrenia, and is believed to exist on a spectrum with other primary psychotic disorders. Support for this theory comes from the higher rates of schizotypal PD among family members of patients with schizophrenia. There is a genetic component to the disorder.3,5,6

Clinically, these patients appear odd and eccentric with unusual beliefs. They may have a fascination with magic, clairvoyance, telepathy, or other such notions.1,5 Although the perceptual disturbances are unusual and often bizarre, they are not frank delusions: patients with schizotypal PD are willing to consider alternative explanations for their beliefs and can engage in rational discussion. Cognitive deficits, particularly of memory and attention, are common and distressing to patients. Frequently, the presenting complaint is depression and anxiety due to the emotional discord and isolation from others.1,3,5,6

Continue to cluster B >>

 

 

Cluster B: Dramatic, erratic

Does your patient complain that you don't understand him "the way his other doctor did"? Or does he frequently lose his temper? Perhaps it's time to consider a personality disorder.

Patients with cluster B PDs are dramatic, excessively emotional, confrontational, erratic, and impulsive in their behaviors.1 They often have comorbid mood and anxiety disorders, as well as a disproportionately high co-occurrence of functional disorders.3,7 Their rates of health care utilization can be substantial. Because individuals with one of these PDs sometimes exhibit reckless and impulsive behavior, physicians should be aware these patients have a high risk of physical injuries (fights, accidents, self-injurious behavior), suicide attempts, risky sexual behaviors, and unplanned pregnancy.8,9

CASE 2 › Sheryl B is a 34-year-old new patient with a history of irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, depression, and anxiety who shows up for her appointment an hour late. She is upset and blames the office scheduler for not reminding her of the appointment. She brings a list of medications from her previous physician that includes sertraline, clonazepam, gabapentin, oxycodone, and as-needed alprazolam. She insists that her physician increase the dose of the benzodiazepines.

A review of her medical history reveals diagnoses of anxiety, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Ms. B has also engaged in superficial cutting since adolescence, often triggered by arguments with her boyfriend. Currently, she attributes her anxiety and pain to not receiving the “correct medications” because of her transition from a previous physician who “knew her better than any other doctor.” After the FP explains to Ms. B that he would have to carefully review her case before continuing to prescribe benzodiazepines, she becomes tearful and argumentative, proclaiming, “You won’t give me the only thing that will help me because you want me to be miserable!”

Ms. B exhibits many cluster B personality traits consistent with borderline PD. How should the FP respond to her claims? (For the answer, click here.)

Borderline PD is the most studied of the PDs. It can be a stigmatizing diagnosis, and even experienced psychiatrists may hesitate to inform patients of this diagnosis.10 Patients with borderline PD may be erroneously diagnosed with bipolar disorder, treatment-resistant depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder because of a complicated clinical presentation, physician unfamiliarity with diagnostic criteria, or the presence of genuine comorbid conditions.3,11

The etiology of this disorder appears to be multifactorial, and includes genetic predisposition, disruptive parent-child relationships (especially separation), and, often, past sexual or physical trauma.9,12

Predominant clinical features include emotional lability, efforts to avoid abandonment, extremes of idealization and devaluation, unstable and intense interpersonal relationships, and impulsivity.1 Characteristically, these patients also engage in self-injurious behaviors.13,14 Common defense mechanisms used by patients with borderline PD include splitting (viewing others as either all good or all bad), acting out (yelling, agitation, or violence), and passive aggression (TABLE 13,4).

Cluster C: Anxious, fearful

Individuals with cluster C PDs appear anxious, fearful, and worried. They have features that overlap with anxiety disorders.15

CASE 3 › Judy C is a 40-year-old lawyer with a history of gastroesophageal reflux disorder, hypertension, and anxiety who presents for a 3-week follow-up visit after starting sertraline. The patient describes herself as a perfectionist who has increased work-related stress recently because she has to “do extra work for my colleagues who don’t know how to get things done right.” She recently fired her assistant for “not understanding my filing system.” She appears formal and serious, often looking at her watch during the evaluation.

Ms. C demonstrates a pattern of perfectionism, formality, and rigidity in thought and behavior characteristic of obsessive-compulsive PD. What treatment should her physician recommend? (For the answer, click here.)

Unlike patients with frank delusions, patients with schizotypal personality disorder are willing to consider alternative explanations for their odd beliefs.

Obsessive-compulsive PD. Although this disorder is associated with significant anxiety, patients often view the specific traits of obsessive-compulsive PD, such as perfectionism, as desirable. Neurotic defense mechanisms are common, especially rationalization, intellectualization, and isolation of affect (TABLE 23,4). These patients appear formal, rigid, and serious, and are preoccupied with rules and orderliness to achieve perfection.1 Significant anxiety often arises from fear of making mistakes and ruminating on decision-making.1,11,15

Although some overlap exists between obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and obsessive-compulsive PD, patients with OCD exhibit distinct obsessions and associated compulsive behavior, whereas those with obsessive-compulsive PD do not.1

In terms of treatment, it is generally appropriate to recognize the 2 conditions as distinct entities.15 OCD responds well to cognitive behavioral therapies and high-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).16 In contrast, there is little data that suggests antidepressants are effective for obsessive-compulsive PD, and treatment is aimed at addressing comorbid anxiety with psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, if needed.11,15

Continue to psychotherapy for PD is the first-line treatment >>

 

 

Psychotherapy for PD is the first-line treatment

Psychotherapy is the most effective treatment for PDs.11,17,18 Several psychotherapies are used to treat these disorders, including dialectical behavioral therapy, schema therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). A recent study demonstrated the superiority of several evidence-based psychotherapies for PD compared to treatment-as-usual.17 Even more promising is that certain benefits have been demonstrated when psychotherapy is provided by clinicians without advanced mental health training.19-21 However, the benefits of therapies for specific disorders are often limited by lack of available data, patient preference, and accessibility of resources.

Limited evidence supports pharmacotherapy

The use of pharmacotherapy for treating PDs is common, although there’s limited evidence to support the practice.11,22 Certain circumstances may allow for the judicious use of medication, although prescribing strategies are based largely on clinical experience and expert opinion.

Prescribers should emphasize a realistic perspective on treatment response, because research suggests at best a mild-moderate response of some personality traits to pharmacotherapy.11,22-25 There is no evidence for polypharmacy in treating PDs, and FPs should allow for sufficient treatment duration, switch medications rather than augment ineffective treatments, and resist the urge to prescribe for every psychological crisis.11,22,25,26

Patient safety should always be a consideration when prescribing medication. Because use of second-generation antipsychotics is associated with the metabolic syndrome, the patient’s baseline weight and fasting glucose, lipids, and hemoglobin A1c levels should be obtained and monitored regularly. Weight gain can be particularly distressing to patients, increase stress and anxiety, and hinder the doctor-patient relationship.25 Finally, medications with abuse potential or that can be lethal in overdose (eg, tricyclic antidepressants and benzodiazepines) are best avoided in patients with emotional lability and impulsivity.25,26

Tailor treatment to the specific PD

Patients often view the specific traits of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, such as perfectionism, as desirable.

Tx for cluster A disorders. Few studies have examined the effectiveness of psychotherapies for cluster A disorders. Cognitive therapy may have benefit in addressing cognitive distortions and social impairment in schizotypal PD.11,12,22 There is little evidence supporting psychotherapy for paranoid PD, because challenging patients’ beliefs in this form is likely to exacerbate paranoia. Low-dose risperidone has demonstrated some beneficial effects on perceptual disturbances; however, the adverse metabolic effects of this medication may outweigh any potential benefit, as these symptoms are often not distressing to patients.6,27 In comparison, patients often find deficits in memory and attention to be more bothersome, and some data suggest that the alpha-2 agonist guanfacine may help treat these symptoms.28

Tx for cluster B disorders. Several forms of psychotherapy have proven effective in managing symptoms and improving overall functioning in patients with borderline PD, including dialectical behavioral therapy, mentalization-based therapy, transference-focused therapy, and schema therapy.29 Dialectical behavioral therapy is often the initial treatment because it emphasizes reducing self-harm behaviors and emotion regulation.11,17,26

Gunderson19 developed a more basic approach to treating borderline PD that is intended to be used by all clinicians who treat the disorder, and not just mental health professionals with advanced training in psychotherapy. A large, multisite randomized controlled trial found that the clinical efficacy of the technique, known as good psychiatric management, rivaled that of dialectical behavioral therapy.20,21

The general premise is that clinicians foster a therapeutic relationship that is supportive, engaging, and flexible. Physicians are encouraged to educate patients about the disorder and emphasize improvement in daily functioning. Clinicians should share the diagnosis with patients, which may give patients a sense of relief in having an accurate diagnosis and allow them to fully invest in diagnosis-specific treatments.19

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluated pharmacotherapy for borderline PD often have had conflicting conclusions as a result of analyzing data from underpowered studies with varying study designs.23,24,26,30,31 In targeting specific symptoms of the disorder, the most consistent evidence has supported the use of antipsychotics for cognitive perceptual disturbances; patients commonly experience depersonalization or out-of-body experiences.25 Additionally, the use of antipsychotics and mood stabilizers (lamotrigine and topiramate) appears to be somewhat effective for managing emotional lability and impulsivity.26,32,33 Despite the widespread use of SSRIs, a recent systematic review found the least support for these and other antidepressants for management of borderline PD.25

Tx for cluster C disorders. Some evidence supports using cognitive and interpersonal psychotherapies to treat cluster C PDs.34 In contrast, there is little evidence to support the use of pharmacotherapy.35 However, given the significant overlap among these disorders (especially avoidant PD) and social phobia and generalized anxiety disorder, effective pharmacologic strategies can be inferred based on data for those conditions.11 SSRIs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (eg, venlafaxine), and gabapentin have demonstrated efficacy in anxiety disorders and are reasonable and safe initial treatments for patients with a cluster C PD.11,34

Continue for the answers >>

 

 

CASE 1 › Mr. A’s schizotypal PD symptoms interfere with medication adherence because of his unusual belief system. Importantly, unlike patients with frank delusions, patients with schizotypal PD are willing to consider alternative explanations for their unusual beliefs. Mr. A’s intense suspiciousness may indicate some degree of overlap between paranoid and schizotypal PDs.

The FP is patient and willing to listen to Mr. A’s beliefs without devaluing them. To improve medication adherence, the FP offers him reasonable alternatives with clear explanations. (“I understand you have concerns about previous medications. At the same time, it seems that managing your blood pressure and cholesterol is important to you. Can we discuss alternative treatments?”)

CASE 2 › In response to Ms. B’s borderline PD, the FP must be cautious to avoid reacting out of frustration, which may upset the patient and validate her mistrust. The FP first reflects her anger (“I can tell you are upset because you don’t think I want to help you”), which may allow her to calmly engage in a discussion. He wants to recognize Ms. B’s dramatic behavior, but not reward it with added attention and unreasonable concessions. To help establish rapport, he provides a statement to legitimize Ms. B’s concerns (“Many patients would be frustrated during the process of changing physicians”).

The FP listens empathically to Ms. B, sets clear limits, and provides consistent and evidence-based treatments. He also provides early referral to psychotherapy, but to mitigate any perceived abandonment, he assures Ms. B he will remain involved with her treatment. (“It sounds like managing your anxiety is important to you, and often psychiatrists or therapists can help give additional options for treatment. I want you to know that I am still your doctor and we can review their recommendations together at our next visit.”)

Psychotherapy can be beneficial for patients with personality disorders, even when it is provided by clinicians without advanced mental health training.

CASE 3 › The FP recognizes that Ms. C’s pattern of perfectionism, formality, and rigidity in thought and behavior are likely a manifestation of obsessive-compulsive PD, and that the maladaptive psychological traits underlying her anxiety are distinct from a primary anxiety disorder.

An SSRI may be a reasonable option to treat Ms. B’s anxiety, and the FP also refers her for CBT. (“I can tell you are feeling really anxious and many people feel that way, especially with work. I think the medication is a good start, but I wonder if we could discuss other forms of therapy to maximize your symptom improvement.”) Because of their exacting nature, many patients with cluster C personality traits are willing to engage in treatments, especially if they are supported by data and recommended by a knowledgeable physician.

CORRESPONDENCE
Nicholas Morcos, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; nmorcos@med.umich.edu.

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Maintain a high index of suspicion for personality disorders (PDs) in patients who appear to be “difficult,” and take care to distinguish these diagnoses from primary mood, anxiety, and psychotic disorders. C
› Refer patients with PDs for psychotherapy, as it is considered the mainstay of treatment—particularly for borderline PD. B
› Use pharmacotherapy judiciously as an adjunctive treatment for PD. B

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B
Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C
Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Personality disorders (PDs) are common, affecting up to 15% of US adults, and are associated with comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions and increased utilization of health care resources.1,2 Having a basic understanding of these patterns of thinking and behaving can help family physicians (FPs) identify specific PD diagnoses, ensure appropriate treatment, and reduce the frustration that arises when an individual is viewed as a “difficult patient.”

Here we describe the diagnostic features of the disorders in the 3 major clusters of PDs and review an effective approach to the management of the most common disorder in each cluster, using a case study patient.

Defense mechanisms offer clues that your patient may have a PD

Personality is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviors that is relatively stable across time and in different situations. Such traits comprise an individual’s inherent makeup.1 PDs are diagnosed when an individual’s personality traits create significant distress or impairment in daily functioning. Specifically, PDs have a negative impact on cognition, affect, interpersonal relationships, and/or impulse control.1

One of the ways people alleviate distress is by using defense mechanisms. Defense mechanisms are unconscious mental processes that individuals use to resolve conflicts, and thereby reduce anxiety and depression on a conscious level. Taken alone, defense mechanisms are not pathologic, but they may become maladaptive in certain stressful circumstances, such as when receiving medical treatment. Recognizing patterns of chronic use of certain defense mechanisms may be a clue that your patient has a PD. TABLE 13,4 and TABLE 23,4 provide an overview of common defense mechanisms used by patients with PDs.

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) organizes PDs into 3 clusters based on similar and often overlapping symptoms.1TABLE 31 provides a brief summary of the characteristic features of each disorder in these clusters.

Cluster A: Odd, eccentric

Patients with one of these disorders are odd, eccentric, or bizarre in their behavior and thinking. There appears to be a genetic link between cluster A PDs (especially schizotypal) and schizophrenia.5 These patients rarely seek treatment for their disorder because they have limited insight into their maladaptive traits.5,6

CASE 1 › Daniel A, age 57, has hypertension and hyperlipidemia and comes in to see his FP for a 6-month follow-up appointment. He never misses appointments, but has a history of poor adherence with prescribed medications. He enjoys his discussions with you in the office, although he often perseverates on conspiracy theories. He lives alone and has never been married. He believes that some of the previously prescribed medications, including a statin and a thiazide diuretic, were interfering with the absorption of “positive nutrients” in his diet. He also refuses to take the generic form of a statin, which he believes was adulterated by the government to be sold at lower cost.

Mr. A demonstrates the odd and eccentric beliefs that characterize schizotypal personality disorder. How can his FP best help him adhere to his medication regimen? (For the answer, click here.)

Schizotypal personality disorder shares certain disturbances of thought with schizophrenia, and is believed to exist on a spectrum with other primary psychotic disorders. Support for this theory comes from the higher rates of schizotypal PD among family members of patients with schizophrenia. There is a genetic component to the disorder.3,5,6

Clinically, these patients appear odd and eccentric with unusual beliefs. They may have a fascination with magic, clairvoyance, telepathy, or other such notions.1,5 Although the perceptual disturbances are unusual and often bizarre, they are not frank delusions: patients with schizotypal PD are willing to consider alternative explanations for their beliefs and can engage in rational discussion. Cognitive deficits, particularly of memory and attention, are common and distressing to patients. Frequently, the presenting complaint is depression and anxiety due to the emotional discord and isolation from others.1,3,5,6

Continue to cluster B >>

 

 

Cluster B: Dramatic, erratic

Does your patient complain that you don't understand him "the way his other doctor did"? Or does he frequently lose his temper? Perhaps it's time to consider a personality disorder.

Patients with cluster B PDs are dramatic, excessively emotional, confrontational, erratic, and impulsive in their behaviors.1 They often have comorbid mood and anxiety disorders, as well as a disproportionately high co-occurrence of functional disorders.3,7 Their rates of health care utilization can be substantial. Because individuals with one of these PDs sometimes exhibit reckless and impulsive behavior, physicians should be aware these patients have a high risk of physical injuries (fights, accidents, self-injurious behavior), suicide attempts, risky sexual behaviors, and unplanned pregnancy.8,9

CASE 2 › Sheryl B is a 34-year-old new patient with a history of irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, depression, and anxiety who shows up for her appointment an hour late. She is upset and blames the office scheduler for not reminding her of the appointment. She brings a list of medications from her previous physician that includes sertraline, clonazepam, gabapentin, oxycodone, and as-needed alprazolam. She insists that her physician increase the dose of the benzodiazepines.

A review of her medical history reveals diagnoses of anxiety, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Ms. B has also engaged in superficial cutting since adolescence, often triggered by arguments with her boyfriend. Currently, she attributes her anxiety and pain to not receiving the “correct medications” because of her transition from a previous physician who “knew her better than any other doctor.” After the FP explains to Ms. B that he would have to carefully review her case before continuing to prescribe benzodiazepines, she becomes tearful and argumentative, proclaiming, “You won’t give me the only thing that will help me because you want me to be miserable!”

Ms. B exhibits many cluster B personality traits consistent with borderline PD. How should the FP respond to her claims? (For the answer, click here.)

Borderline PD is the most studied of the PDs. It can be a stigmatizing diagnosis, and even experienced psychiatrists may hesitate to inform patients of this diagnosis.10 Patients with borderline PD may be erroneously diagnosed with bipolar disorder, treatment-resistant depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder because of a complicated clinical presentation, physician unfamiliarity with diagnostic criteria, or the presence of genuine comorbid conditions.3,11

The etiology of this disorder appears to be multifactorial, and includes genetic predisposition, disruptive parent-child relationships (especially separation), and, often, past sexual or physical trauma.9,12

Predominant clinical features include emotional lability, efforts to avoid abandonment, extremes of idealization and devaluation, unstable and intense interpersonal relationships, and impulsivity.1 Characteristically, these patients also engage in self-injurious behaviors.13,14 Common defense mechanisms used by patients with borderline PD include splitting (viewing others as either all good or all bad), acting out (yelling, agitation, or violence), and passive aggression (TABLE 13,4).

Cluster C: Anxious, fearful

Individuals with cluster C PDs appear anxious, fearful, and worried. They have features that overlap with anxiety disorders.15

CASE 3 › Judy C is a 40-year-old lawyer with a history of gastroesophageal reflux disorder, hypertension, and anxiety who presents for a 3-week follow-up visit after starting sertraline. The patient describes herself as a perfectionist who has increased work-related stress recently because she has to “do extra work for my colleagues who don’t know how to get things done right.” She recently fired her assistant for “not understanding my filing system.” She appears formal and serious, often looking at her watch during the evaluation.

Ms. C demonstrates a pattern of perfectionism, formality, and rigidity in thought and behavior characteristic of obsessive-compulsive PD. What treatment should her physician recommend? (For the answer, click here.)

Unlike patients with frank delusions, patients with schizotypal personality disorder are willing to consider alternative explanations for their odd beliefs.

Obsessive-compulsive PD. Although this disorder is associated with significant anxiety, patients often view the specific traits of obsessive-compulsive PD, such as perfectionism, as desirable. Neurotic defense mechanisms are common, especially rationalization, intellectualization, and isolation of affect (TABLE 23,4). These patients appear formal, rigid, and serious, and are preoccupied with rules and orderliness to achieve perfection.1 Significant anxiety often arises from fear of making mistakes and ruminating on decision-making.1,11,15

Although some overlap exists between obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and obsessive-compulsive PD, patients with OCD exhibit distinct obsessions and associated compulsive behavior, whereas those with obsessive-compulsive PD do not.1

In terms of treatment, it is generally appropriate to recognize the 2 conditions as distinct entities.15 OCD responds well to cognitive behavioral therapies and high-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).16 In contrast, there is little data that suggests antidepressants are effective for obsessive-compulsive PD, and treatment is aimed at addressing comorbid anxiety with psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, if needed.11,15

Continue to psychotherapy for PD is the first-line treatment >>

 

 

Psychotherapy for PD is the first-line treatment

Psychotherapy is the most effective treatment for PDs.11,17,18 Several psychotherapies are used to treat these disorders, including dialectical behavioral therapy, schema therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). A recent study demonstrated the superiority of several evidence-based psychotherapies for PD compared to treatment-as-usual.17 Even more promising is that certain benefits have been demonstrated when psychotherapy is provided by clinicians without advanced mental health training.19-21 However, the benefits of therapies for specific disorders are often limited by lack of available data, patient preference, and accessibility of resources.

Limited evidence supports pharmacotherapy

The use of pharmacotherapy for treating PDs is common, although there’s limited evidence to support the practice.11,22 Certain circumstances may allow for the judicious use of medication, although prescribing strategies are based largely on clinical experience and expert opinion.

Prescribers should emphasize a realistic perspective on treatment response, because research suggests at best a mild-moderate response of some personality traits to pharmacotherapy.11,22-25 There is no evidence for polypharmacy in treating PDs, and FPs should allow for sufficient treatment duration, switch medications rather than augment ineffective treatments, and resist the urge to prescribe for every psychological crisis.11,22,25,26

Patient safety should always be a consideration when prescribing medication. Because use of second-generation antipsychotics is associated with the metabolic syndrome, the patient’s baseline weight and fasting glucose, lipids, and hemoglobin A1c levels should be obtained and monitored regularly. Weight gain can be particularly distressing to patients, increase stress and anxiety, and hinder the doctor-patient relationship.25 Finally, medications with abuse potential or that can be lethal in overdose (eg, tricyclic antidepressants and benzodiazepines) are best avoided in patients with emotional lability and impulsivity.25,26

Tailor treatment to the specific PD

Patients often view the specific traits of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, such as perfectionism, as desirable.

Tx for cluster A disorders. Few studies have examined the effectiveness of psychotherapies for cluster A disorders. Cognitive therapy may have benefit in addressing cognitive distortions and social impairment in schizotypal PD.11,12,22 There is little evidence supporting psychotherapy for paranoid PD, because challenging patients’ beliefs in this form is likely to exacerbate paranoia. Low-dose risperidone has demonstrated some beneficial effects on perceptual disturbances; however, the adverse metabolic effects of this medication may outweigh any potential benefit, as these symptoms are often not distressing to patients.6,27 In comparison, patients often find deficits in memory and attention to be more bothersome, and some data suggest that the alpha-2 agonist guanfacine may help treat these symptoms.28

Tx for cluster B disorders. Several forms of psychotherapy have proven effective in managing symptoms and improving overall functioning in patients with borderline PD, including dialectical behavioral therapy, mentalization-based therapy, transference-focused therapy, and schema therapy.29 Dialectical behavioral therapy is often the initial treatment because it emphasizes reducing self-harm behaviors and emotion regulation.11,17,26

Gunderson19 developed a more basic approach to treating borderline PD that is intended to be used by all clinicians who treat the disorder, and not just mental health professionals with advanced training in psychotherapy. A large, multisite randomized controlled trial found that the clinical efficacy of the technique, known as good psychiatric management, rivaled that of dialectical behavioral therapy.20,21

The general premise is that clinicians foster a therapeutic relationship that is supportive, engaging, and flexible. Physicians are encouraged to educate patients about the disorder and emphasize improvement in daily functioning. Clinicians should share the diagnosis with patients, which may give patients a sense of relief in having an accurate diagnosis and allow them to fully invest in diagnosis-specific treatments.19

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluated pharmacotherapy for borderline PD often have had conflicting conclusions as a result of analyzing data from underpowered studies with varying study designs.23,24,26,30,31 In targeting specific symptoms of the disorder, the most consistent evidence has supported the use of antipsychotics for cognitive perceptual disturbances; patients commonly experience depersonalization or out-of-body experiences.25 Additionally, the use of antipsychotics and mood stabilizers (lamotrigine and topiramate) appears to be somewhat effective for managing emotional lability and impulsivity.26,32,33 Despite the widespread use of SSRIs, a recent systematic review found the least support for these and other antidepressants for management of borderline PD.25

Tx for cluster C disorders. Some evidence supports using cognitive and interpersonal psychotherapies to treat cluster C PDs.34 In contrast, there is little evidence to support the use of pharmacotherapy.35 However, given the significant overlap among these disorders (especially avoidant PD) and social phobia and generalized anxiety disorder, effective pharmacologic strategies can be inferred based on data for those conditions.11 SSRIs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (eg, venlafaxine), and gabapentin have demonstrated efficacy in anxiety disorders and are reasonable and safe initial treatments for patients with a cluster C PD.11,34

Continue for the answers >>

 

 

CASE 1 › Mr. A’s schizotypal PD symptoms interfere with medication adherence because of his unusual belief system. Importantly, unlike patients with frank delusions, patients with schizotypal PD are willing to consider alternative explanations for their unusual beliefs. Mr. A’s intense suspiciousness may indicate some degree of overlap between paranoid and schizotypal PDs.

The FP is patient and willing to listen to Mr. A’s beliefs without devaluing them. To improve medication adherence, the FP offers him reasonable alternatives with clear explanations. (“I understand you have concerns about previous medications. At the same time, it seems that managing your blood pressure and cholesterol is important to you. Can we discuss alternative treatments?”)

CASE 2 › In response to Ms. B’s borderline PD, the FP must be cautious to avoid reacting out of frustration, which may upset the patient and validate her mistrust. The FP first reflects her anger (“I can tell you are upset because you don’t think I want to help you”), which may allow her to calmly engage in a discussion. He wants to recognize Ms. B’s dramatic behavior, but not reward it with added attention and unreasonable concessions. To help establish rapport, he provides a statement to legitimize Ms. B’s concerns (“Many patients would be frustrated during the process of changing physicians”).

The FP listens empathically to Ms. B, sets clear limits, and provides consistent and evidence-based treatments. He also provides early referral to psychotherapy, but to mitigate any perceived abandonment, he assures Ms. B he will remain involved with her treatment. (“It sounds like managing your anxiety is important to you, and often psychiatrists or therapists can help give additional options for treatment. I want you to know that I am still your doctor and we can review their recommendations together at our next visit.”)

Psychotherapy can be beneficial for patients with personality disorders, even when it is provided by clinicians without advanced mental health training.

CASE 3 › The FP recognizes that Ms. C’s pattern of perfectionism, formality, and rigidity in thought and behavior are likely a manifestation of obsessive-compulsive PD, and that the maladaptive psychological traits underlying her anxiety are distinct from a primary anxiety disorder.

An SSRI may be a reasonable option to treat Ms. B’s anxiety, and the FP also refers her for CBT. (“I can tell you are feeling really anxious and many people feel that way, especially with work. I think the medication is a good start, but I wonder if we could discuss other forms of therapy to maximize your symptom improvement.”) Because of their exacting nature, many patients with cluster C personality traits are willing to engage in treatments, especially if they are supported by data and recommended by a knowledgeable physician.

CORRESPONDENCE
Nicholas Morcos, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; nmorcos@med.umich.edu.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.

2. Zimmerman M, Rothschild L, Chelminski I. The prevalence of DSM-IV personality disorders in psychiatric outpatients. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:1911-1918.

3. Cloninger C, Svrakie D. Personality disorders. In: Sadock BJ, Sadock VA, Ruiz P, eds. Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry: Behavioral sciences/clinical psychiatry. 11th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Wolters Kluwer; 2015:2197-2240.

4. Bowins B. Personality disorders: a dimensional defense mechanism approach. Am J Psychother. 2010;64:153-169.

5. Raine A. Schizotypal personality: neurodevelopmental and psychosocial trajectories. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2006;2:291-326.

6. Rosell DR, Futterman SE, McMaster A, et al. Schizotypal personality disorder: a current review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2014;16:452.

7. Gabbard GO, Simonsen E. Complex Case: The impact of personality and personality disorders on the treatment of depression. Personal Ment Health. 2007;1:161-175.

8. Caspi A, Begg D, Dickson N, et al. Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: evidence from a longitudinal study. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;73:1052-1063.

9. Tomko RL, Trull TJ, Wood PK, et al. Characteristics of borderline personality disorder in a community sample: comorbidity, treatment utilization, and general functioning. J Pers Disord. 2014;28:734-750.

10. Vaillant GE. The beginning of wisdom is never calling a patient a borderline; or, the clinical management of immature defenses in the treatment of individuals with personality disorders. J Psychother Pract Res. 1992;1:117-134.

11. Bateman AW, Gunderson J, Mulder R. Treatment of personality disorder. Lancet. 2015;385:735-743.

12. Beck AT, Davis DD, Freeman A, eds. Cognitive therapy of personality disorders. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2015.

13. O’Connor RC, Nock MK. The psychology of suicidal behaviour. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:73-85.

14. Paris J. Understanding self-mutilation in borderline personality disorder. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2005;13:179-185.

15. Diedrich A, Voderholzer U. Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder: a current review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2015;17:2.

16. Pittenger C, Bloch MH. Pharmacological treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2014;37:375-391.

17. Budge SL, Moore JT, Del Re AC, et al. The effectiveness of evidence-based treatments for personality disorders when comparing treatment-as-usual and bona fide treatments. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33:1057-1066.

18. Leichsenring F, Leibing E. The effectiveness of psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behavior therapy in the treatment of personality disorders: a meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160:1223-1232.

19. Gunderson JG, Links PS. Handbook of good psychiatric management for borderline personality disorder. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2014.

20. McMain SF, Links PS, Gnam WH, et al. A randomized trial of dialectical behavior therapy versus general psychiatric management for borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166:1365-1374.

21. McMain SF, Guimond T, Streiner DL, et al. Dialectical behavior therapy compared with general psychiatric management for borderline personality disorder: clinical outcomes and functioning over a 2-year follow-up. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169:650-661.

22. Ripoll LH, Triebwasser J, Siever LJ. Evidence-based pharmacotherapy for personality disorders. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011;14:1257-1288.

23. Coccaro EF. Clinical outcome of psychopharmacologic treatment of borderline and schizotypal personality disordered subjects. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59:30-35.

24. Soloff PH. Algorithms for pharmacological treatment of personality dimensions: symptom-specific treatments for cognitive-perceptual, affective, and impulsive-behavioral dysregulation. Bull Menninger Clin. 1998;62:195-214.

25. Silk KR. The process of managing medications in patients with borderline personality disorder. J Psychiatr Pract. 2011;17:311-319.

26. Saunders EF, Silk KR. Personality trait dimensions and the pharmacological treatment of borderline personality disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:461-467.

27. Koenigsberg HW, Reynolds D, Goodman M, et al. Risperidone in the treatment of schizotypal personality disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64:628-634.

28. McClure MM, Barch DM, Romero MJ, et al. The effects of guanfacine on context processing abnormalities in schizotypal personality disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2007;61:1157-1160.

29. Stoffers JM, Vollm BA, Rucker G, et al. Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD005652.

30. Siever LJ, Davis KL. A psychobiological perspective on the personality disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 1991;148:1647-1658.

31. Binks CA, Fenton M, McCarthy L, et al. Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD005653.

32. Nickel MK, Nickel C, Kaplan P, et al. Treatment of aggression with topiramate in male borderline patients: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57:495-499.

33. Tritt K, Nickel C, Lahmann C, et al. Lamotrigine treatment of aggression in female borderline-patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Psychopharmacol. 2005;19:287-291.

34. Simon W. Follow-up psychotherapy outcome of patients with dependent, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders: A meta-analytic review. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2009;13:153-165.

35. Ansseau M, Troisfontaines B, Papart P, et al. Compulsive personality as predictor of response to serotoninergic antidepressants. BMJ. 1991;303:760-761.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.

2. Zimmerman M, Rothschild L, Chelminski I. The prevalence of DSM-IV personality disorders in psychiatric outpatients. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:1911-1918.

3. Cloninger C, Svrakie D. Personality disorders. In: Sadock BJ, Sadock VA, Ruiz P, eds. Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry: Behavioral sciences/clinical psychiatry. 11th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Wolters Kluwer; 2015:2197-2240.

4. Bowins B. Personality disorders: a dimensional defense mechanism approach. Am J Psychother. 2010;64:153-169.

5. Raine A. Schizotypal personality: neurodevelopmental and psychosocial trajectories. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2006;2:291-326.

6. Rosell DR, Futterman SE, McMaster A, et al. Schizotypal personality disorder: a current review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2014;16:452.

7. Gabbard GO, Simonsen E. Complex Case: The impact of personality and personality disorders on the treatment of depression. Personal Ment Health. 2007;1:161-175.

8. Caspi A, Begg D, Dickson N, et al. Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: evidence from a longitudinal study. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;73:1052-1063.

9. Tomko RL, Trull TJ, Wood PK, et al. Characteristics of borderline personality disorder in a community sample: comorbidity, treatment utilization, and general functioning. J Pers Disord. 2014;28:734-750.

10. Vaillant GE. The beginning of wisdom is never calling a patient a borderline; or, the clinical management of immature defenses in the treatment of individuals with personality disorders. J Psychother Pract Res. 1992;1:117-134.

11. Bateman AW, Gunderson J, Mulder R. Treatment of personality disorder. Lancet. 2015;385:735-743.

12. Beck AT, Davis DD, Freeman A, eds. Cognitive therapy of personality disorders. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2015.

13. O’Connor RC, Nock MK. The psychology of suicidal behaviour. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:73-85.

14. Paris J. Understanding self-mutilation in borderline personality disorder. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2005;13:179-185.

15. Diedrich A, Voderholzer U. Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder: a current review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2015;17:2.

16. Pittenger C, Bloch MH. Pharmacological treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2014;37:375-391.

17. Budge SL, Moore JT, Del Re AC, et al. The effectiveness of evidence-based treatments for personality disorders when comparing treatment-as-usual and bona fide treatments. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33:1057-1066.

18. Leichsenring F, Leibing E. The effectiveness of psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behavior therapy in the treatment of personality disorders: a meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160:1223-1232.

19. Gunderson JG, Links PS. Handbook of good psychiatric management for borderline personality disorder. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2014.

20. McMain SF, Links PS, Gnam WH, et al. A randomized trial of dialectical behavior therapy versus general psychiatric management for borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166:1365-1374.

21. McMain SF, Guimond T, Streiner DL, et al. Dialectical behavior therapy compared with general psychiatric management for borderline personality disorder: clinical outcomes and functioning over a 2-year follow-up. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169:650-661.

22. Ripoll LH, Triebwasser J, Siever LJ. Evidence-based pharmacotherapy for personality disorders. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011;14:1257-1288.

23. Coccaro EF. Clinical outcome of psychopharmacologic treatment of borderline and schizotypal personality disordered subjects. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59:30-35.

24. Soloff PH. Algorithms for pharmacological treatment of personality dimensions: symptom-specific treatments for cognitive-perceptual, affective, and impulsive-behavioral dysregulation. Bull Menninger Clin. 1998;62:195-214.

25. Silk KR. The process of managing medications in patients with borderline personality disorder. J Psychiatr Pract. 2011;17:311-319.

26. Saunders EF, Silk KR. Personality trait dimensions and the pharmacological treatment of borderline personality disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;29:461-467.

27. Koenigsberg HW, Reynolds D, Goodman M, et al. Risperidone in the treatment of schizotypal personality disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64:628-634.

28. McClure MM, Barch DM, Romero MJ, et al. The effects of guanfacine on context processing abnormalities in schizotypal personality disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2007;61:1157-1160.

29. Stoffers JM, Vollm BA, Rucker G, et al. Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD005652.

30. Siever LJ, Davis KL. A psychobiological perspective on the personality disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 1991;148:1647-1658.

31. Binks CA, Fenton M, McCarthy L, et al. Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD005653.

32. Nickel MK, Nickel C, Kaplan P, et al. Treatment of aggression with topiramate in male borderline patients: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57:495-499.

33. Tritt K, Nickel C, Lahmann C, et al. Lamotrigine treatment of aggression in female borderline-patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Psychopharmacol. 2005;19:287-291.

34. Simon W. Follow-up psychotherapy outcome of patients with dependent, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders: A meta-analytic review. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2009;13:153-165.

35. Ansseau M, Troisfontaines B, Papart P, et al. Compulsive personality as predictor of response to serotoninergic antidepressants. BMJ. 1991;303:760-761.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Page Number
90-97
Page Number
90-97
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Personality disorders: A measured response
Display Headline
Personality disorders: A measured response
Legacy Keywords
Nicholas Morcos, MD, Roy Morcos, MD, FAAFP, personality, personality disorders, borderline personality disorder, BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy, psychiatric
Legacy Keywords
Nicholas Morcos, MD, Roy Morcos, MD, FAAFP, personality, personality disorders, borderline personality disorder, BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy, psychiatric
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

What next when metformin isn't enough for type 2 diabetes?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
What next when metformin isn't enough for type 2 diabetes?
PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Turn first to metformin for pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes. A
› Add a second oral agent (such as a sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, or basal insulin if metformin at a maximum tolerated dose does not achieve the HbA1c target over 3 months. A
› Progress to bolus mealtime insulin or a GLP-1 agonist to cover postprandial glycemic excursions if HbA1c remains above goal despite an adequate trial of basal insulin. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

 

The "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" guidelines published in 2015 by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) state that metformin is the preferred initial pharmacotherapy for managing type 2 diabetes.1 Metformin, a biguanide, enhances insulin sensitivity in muscle and fat tissue and inhibits hepatic glucose production. Advantages of metformin include the longstanding research supporting its efficacy and safety, an expected decrease in the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level of 1% to 1.5%, low cost, minimal hypoglycemic risk, and potential reductions in cardiovascular (CV) events due to decreased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.1,2

To minimize adverse gastrointestinal effects, start metformin at 500 mg once or twice a day and titrate upward every one to 2 weeks to the target dose.3 To help guide dosing decisions, use the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) instead of the serum creatinine (SCr) level, because the SCr can translate into a variable range of eGFRs (TABLE 1).4,5

A guide for metformin use based on eGFR image

What if metformin alone isn't enough?

CASE Richard C, age 50, has type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity. He takes metformin 1 g twice a day for his diabetes. After 3 months on this regimen, his HbA1c is 8.8%. How would you manage Mr. C's diabetes going forward?

If metformin at a maximum tolerated dose does not achieve the HbA1c target after 3 months, add a second oral agent (a sulfonylurea [SU], thiazolidinedione [TZD], dipeptidyl peptidase 4 [DPP-4] inhibitor, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitor), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, or a basal insulin (TABLE 2).1

Factors to consider when adding a second agent to metformin image

Factors that will affect the choice of the second agent include patient preference, cost, potential adverse effects, impact on weight, efficacy, and risk of hypoglycemia.

Based on cost, familiarity, and longstanding safety data, you decide to give Mr. C an SU, while cautioning him about hypoglycemia.

CASE Mr. C has now been taking metformin and an SU at maximum doses for 2 years and continues with lifestyle modifications. Though his HbA1c level dropped after adding the SU, over 2 years it has crept up to 8.6% and his mean blood glucose is 186 mg/dL. What are your treatment options now?

If the target HbA1c level is not achieved on dual therapy, consider triple therapy combinations (TABLE 3).1

ADA recommended triple therapy combinations image

In Mr. C's case, a third oral agent could be added, but DPP-4 and SGLT2 are unlikely to get his HbA1c below 7%. TZD may get his HbA1c into the desired range but is associated with adverse effects such as heart failure, edema, and weight gain. Mr. C agrees instead to start a basal insulin in conjunction with metformin. You could continue the SU, but you decide to stop it because the additive effect of these medications increases the risk of hypoglycemia.

CASE Six months later Mr. C is taking metformin and insulin glargine, a basal insulin, adjusted to a fasting blood glucose of 80 to 130 mg/dL. His HbA1c is still above target at 8.4%, and the mean postprandial blood glucose is 232 mg/dL.

Mr. C is still above target for HbA1c and for postprandial blood glucose (goal: <180 mg/dL), so he needs pharmacotherapy that targets postprandial glucose elevations.1 His fasting blood glucose readings are at goal, so increasing his insulin glargine is not recommended because it could cause hypoglycemia. An oral agent other than SU could be added, but none is potent enough to lower the HbA1c to goal (TABLE 2).1 There are 3 other options:

  • add a mealtime bolus of insulin
  • add a GLP-1 receptor agonist
  • switch to premixed (biphasic) insulin.
 

 

What to do when basal insulin isn’t enough—with or without oral medsFor type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on basal insulin with or without oral agents, the 2015 ADA treatment guidelines recommend adding a GLP-1 receptor agonist or mealtime insulin.1 A less desirable alternative is to switch from basal insulin to a twice-daily premixed (biphasic) insulin analog (70/30 aspart mix or 75/25 or 50/50 lispro mix). The human NPH-Regular premixed formulations (70/30) are less costly alternatives. The disadvantage with all premixed insulins is they only cover 2 postprandial glucose elevations a day.1,6,7

When prescribing medication for T2DM, consider efficacy, cost, tolerability, impact on body weight, comorbidities, risk of hypoglycemia, and patient preference.

Insulin requires multiple daily injections, can lead to weight gain, and carries the risk of hypoglycemia, which causes significant morbidity.8,9 Daily or weekly administration of a GLP-1 receptor agonist combined with basal insulin can offer a more convenient alternative to mealtime boluses of insulin.

What are GLP-1 receptor agonists?

GLP-1 receptor agonists exert their maximum influence on blood glucose levels during the postprandial period by mimicking the body’s natural incretin hormonal response to oral glucose ingestion.10 They delay gastric emptying, promote satiety, decrease glucagon secretion, and increase insulin secretion.10,11 This mechanism blunts the spiking of postprandial blood glucose after a meal and improves blood glucose control and weight reduction.1,6,7

A systematic review and meta-analysis by Eng and colleagues compared the safety and efficacy of combined GLP-1 agonist and basal insulin with other treatment regimens.7 Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included involving 4348 participants with a mean trial duration of 25 weeks.

Compared with all other treatment regimens, the GLP-1 receptor agonist and basal insulin combination not only significantly reduced HbA1c by 0.44% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.60 to -0.29) and increased the likelihood of attaining an HbA1c of <7.0% (relative risk [RR]=1.92; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.56) but also reduced weight by 3.22 kg (-4.90 to -1.54) with no increased risk of hypoglycemia (RR=0.99; 0.76 to 1.29).7

GLP-1 agonist vs bolus insulin

Compared with basal-bolus insulin regimens, the combination of a GLP-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin has led to a significantly lowered risk of hypoglycemia (RR=0.67; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.80), greater weight loss (-5.66 kg; 95% CI, -9.8 to -1.51) and an average reduction in HbA1c of 0.1% (95% CI, -0.17 to -0.02).7

There are 5 GLP-1 receptor agonists that have US Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, exenatide XR, and liraglutide (TABLE 4).3,12

Comparison of GLP-1 receptor agonists image

All 5 agents are administered subcutaneously and packaged in pen-injector form. Adverse effects include nausea, which is transient and diminishes within the first few weeks of therapy, and less commonly, pancreatitis.3,12

All of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, except short-acting exenatide, carry a warning about the risk of worsening renal function and a possible association with medullary thyroid carcinomas, which were identified in rats, but have not been observed in humans.3,12 Medications in this drug class have a low risk for precipitating hypoglycemia.11 Cost is their chief disadvantage, although copay reduction cards are available online for most of the products. Evaluate efficacy, ease of use, tolerability, and cost when selecting a GLP-1 receptor agonist.3,12

CASE Mr. C prefers a more convenient option than adding another daily injection. Given his obesity, a GLP-1 receptor agonist can help with weight loss and lower his risk for hypoglycemia. To further increase the convenience in dosing, you lean toward either weekly exenatide XR or dulaglutide over basal-bolus combination insulin. Weekly albiglutide is less potent than exenatide XR and dulaglutide in decreasing HbA1c.12 Mr. C’s insurance plan provides preferred coverage for exenatide XR and he is eligible for a copay savings card, meaning he will pay no more than $25 per month for this new prescription. You prescribe exenatide XR and ask him to record his postprandial blood glucose levels. You follow up in one month to assess his response.

CORRESPONDENCE
Anne Mounsey, MD, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, 590 Manning Drive, Campus Box 7595, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; anne_mounsey@med.unc.edu.

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes - 2015. Diabetes Care. 2015;38 (Suppl):S1-S94.

2. Bennett WL, Maruthur NM, Singh S, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of medications for type 2 diabetes: an update including new drugs and 2-drug combinations. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:602-613.

3. Merck Manual. Metformin. Available at: http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/appendixes/brand-names-of-some-commonly-used-drugs. Accessed April 18, 2015.

4. Lipska KJ, Bailey CJ, Inzucchi SE. Use of metformin in the setting of mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1431-1437.

5. Philbrick AM, Ernst ME, McDanel DL, et al. Metformin use in renal dysfunction: is a serum creatinine threshold appropriate? Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66:2017-2023.

6. Pharmacist’s Letter. Drugs for Type 2 Diabetes [detail document]. September 2015. Available at: http://pharmacistsletter.therapeuticresearch.com/pl/ArticleDD.aspx?nidchk=1&cs=&s=PL&pt=2&segment=4407&dd=280601. Accessed December 28, 2015.

7. Eng C, Kramer CK, Zinman B, et al. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and basal insulin combination treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:2228-2234.

8. Inzucchi SE, Burgenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35:1364-1379.

9. Bonds DE, Miller ME, Bergenstal RM, et al. The association between symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia and mortality in type 2 diabetes: retrospective epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ. 2010:340:b4909.

10. Garber AJ. Long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists: a review of their efficacy and tolerability. Diabetes Care. 2011;34 (Suppl 2):S279-S284.

11. Young LA, Buse JB. GLP-1 receptor agonists and basal insulin in type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 2014;384:2180-2181.

12. Pharmacist’s Letter. Comparison of GLP-1 Agonists [detail document]. December 2014. Available at: http://pharmacistsletter.therapeuticresearch.com/pl/Browse.aspx?cs=&s=PL&pt=6&fpt=31&dd=300804&pb=PL&cat=5718#dd. Accessed December 28, 2015.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Emily M. Hawes, PharmD, BCPS, CPP
Joseph Wehby, MD
Anne Mounsey, MD

University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill
anne_mounsey@med.unc.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
85-89
Legacy Keywords
Emily M. Hawes, PharmD, BCPS, CPP, Joseph Wehby, MD, Ann Mounsey, MD, type 2 diabetes, metformin, sulfonylurea, TZD, DPP-4 inhibitor, SGLT2 inhibitor, GLP-1 receptor agonist, diabetes
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Emily M. Hawes, PharmD, BCPS, CPP
Joseph Wehby, MD
Anne Mounsey, MD

University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill
anne_mounsey@med.unc.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Emily M. Hawes, PharmD, BCPS, CPP
Joseph Wehby, MD
Anne Mounsey, MD

University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill
anne_mounsey@med.unc.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Turn first to metformin for pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes. A
› Add a second oral agent (such as a sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, or basal insulin if metformin at a maximum tolerated dose does not achieve the HbA1c target over 3 months. A
› Progress to bolus mealtime insulin or a GLP-1 agonist to cover postprandial glycemic excursions if HbA1c remains above goal despite an adequate trial of basal insulin. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

 

The "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" guidelines published in 2015 by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) state that metformin is the preferred initial pharmacotherapy for managing type 2 diabetes.1 Metformin, a biguanide, enhances insulin sensitivity in muscle and fat tissue and inhibits hepatic glucose production. Advantages of metformin include the longstanding research supporting its efficacy and safety, an expected decrease in the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level of 1% to 1.5%, low cost, minimal hypoglycemic risk, and potential reductions in cardiovascular (CV) events due to decreased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.1,2

To minimize adverse gastrointestinal effects, start metformin at 500 mg once or twice a day and titrate upward every one to 2 weeks to the target dose.3 To help guide dosing decisions, use the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) instead of the serum creatinine (SCr) level, because the SCr can translate into a variable range of eGFRs (TABLE 1).4,5

A guide for metformin use based on eGFR image

What if metformin alone isn't enough?

CASE Richard C, age 50, has type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity. He takes metformin 1 g twice a day for his diabetes. After 3 months on this regimen, his HbA1c is 8.8%. How would you manage Mr. C's diabetes going forward?

If metformin at a maximum tolerated dose does not achieve the HbA1c target after 3 months, add a second oral agent (a sulfonylurea [SU], thiazolidinedione [TZD], dipeptidyl peptidase 4 [DPP-4] inhibitor, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitor), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, or a basal insulin (TABLE 2).1

Factors to consider when adding a second agent to metformin image

Factors that will affect the choice of the second agent include patient preference, cost, potential adverse effects, impact on weight, efficacy, and risk of hypoglycemia.

Based on cost, familiarity, and longstanding safety data, you decide to give Mr. C an SU, while cautioning him about hypoglycemia.

CASE Mr. C has now been taking metformin and an SU at maximum doses for 2 years and continues with lifestyle modifications. Though his HbA1c level dropped after adding the SU, over 2 years it has crept up to 8.6% and his mean blood glucose is 186 mg/dL. What are your treatment options now?

If the target HbA1c level is not achieved on dual therapy, consider triple therapy combinations (TABLE 3).1

ADA recommended triple therapy combinations image

In Mr. C's case, a third oral agent could be added, but DPP-4 and SGLT2 are unlikely to get his HbA1c below 7%. TZD may get his HbA1c into the desired range but is associated with adverse effects such as heart failure, edema, and weight gain. Mr. C agrees instead to start a basal insulin in conjunction with metformin. You could continue the SU, but you decide to stop it because the additive effect of these medications increases the risk of hypoglycemia.

CASE Six months later Mr. C is taking metformin and insulin glargine, a basal insulin, adjusted to a fasting blood glucose of 80 to 130 mg/dL. His HbA1c is still above target at 8.4%, and the mean postprandial blood glucose is 232 mg/dL.

Mr. C is still above target for HbA1c and for postprandial blood glucose (goal: <180 mg/dL), so he needs pharmacotherapy that targets postprandial glucose elevations.1 His fasting blood glucose readings are at goal, so increasing his insulin glargine is not recommended because it could cause hypoglycemia. An oral agent other than SU could be added, but none is potent enough to lower the HbA1c to goal (TABLE 2).1 There are 3 other options:

  • add a mealtime bolus of insulin
  • add a GLP-1 receptor agonist
  • switch to premixed (biphasic) insulin.
 

 

What to do when basal insulin isn’t enough—with or without oral medsFor type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on basal insulin with or without oral agents, the 2015 ADA treatment guidelines recommend adding a GLP-1 receptor agonist or mealtime insulin.1 A less desirable alternative is to switch from basal insulin to a twice-daily premixed (biphasic) insulin analog (70/30 aspart mix or 75/25 or 50/50 lispro mix). The human NPH-Regular premixed formulations (70/30) are less costly alternatives. The disadvantage with all premixed insulins is they only cover 2 postprandial glucose elevations a day.1,6,7

When prescribing medication for T2DM, consider efficacy, cost, tolerability, impact on body weight, comorbidities, risk of hypoglycemia, and patient preference.

Insulin requires multiple daily injections, can lead to weight gain, and carries the risk of hypoglycemia, which causes significant morbidity.8,9 Daily or weekly administration of a GLP-1 receptor agonist combined with basal insulin can offer a more convenient alternative to mealtime boluses of insulin.

What are GLP-1 receptor agonists?

GLP-1 receptor agonists exert their maximum influence on blood glucose levels during the postprandial period by mimicking the body’s natural incretin hormonal response to oral glucose ingestion.10 They delay gastric emptying, promote satiety, decrease glucagon secretion, and increase insulin secretion.10,11 This mechanism blunts the spiking of postprandial blood glucose after a meal and improves blood glucose control and weight reduction.1,6,7

A systematic review and meta-analysis by Eng and colleagues compared the safety and efficacy of combined GLP-1 agonist and basal insulin with other treatment regimens.7 Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included involving 4348 participants with a mean trial duration of 25 weeks.

Compared with all other treatment regimens, the GLP-1 receptor agonist and basal insulin combination not only significantly reduced HbA1c by 0.44% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.60 to -0.29) and increased the likelihood of attaining an HbA1c of <7.0% (relative risk [RR]=1.92; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.56) but also reduced weight by 3.22 kg (-4.90 to -1.54) with no increased risk of hypoglycemia (RR=0.99; 0.76 to 1.29).7

GLP-1 agonist vs bolus insulin

Compared with basal-bolus insulin regimens, the combination of a GLP-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin has led to a significantly lowered risk of hypoglycemia (RR=0.67; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.80), greater weight loss (-5.66 kg; 95% CI, -9.8 to -1.51) and an average reduction in HbA1c of 0.1% (95% CI, -0.17 to -0.02).7

There are 5 GLP-1 receptor agonists that have US Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, exenatide XR, and liraglutide (TABLE 4).3,12

Comparison of GLP-1 receptor agonists image

All 5 agents are administered subcutaneously and packaged in pen-injector form. Adverse effects include nausea, which is transient and diminishes within the first few weeks of therapy, and less commonly, pancreatitis.3,12

All of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, except short-acting exenatide, carry a warning about the risk of worsening renal function and a possible association with medullary thyroid carcinomas, which were identified in rats, but have not been observed in humans.3,12 Medications in this drug class have a low risk for precipitating hypoglycemia.11 Cost is their chief disadvantage, although copay reduction cards are available online for most of the products. Evaluate efficacy, ease of use, tolerability, and cost when selecting a GLP-1 receptor agonist.3,12

CASE Mr. C prefers a more convenient option than adding another daily injection. Given his obesity, a GLP-1 receptor agonist can help with weight loss and lower his risk for hypoglycemia. To further increase the convenience in dosing, you lean toward either weekly exenatide XR or dulaglutide over basal-bolus combination insulin. Weekly albiglutide is less potent than exenatide XR and dulaglutide in decreasing HbA1c.12 Mr. C’s insurance plan provides preferred coverage for exenatide XR and he is eligible for a copay savings card, meaning he will pay no more than $25 per month for this new prescription. You prescribe exenatide XR and ask him to record his postprandial blood glucose levels. You follow up in one month to assess his response.

CORRESPONDENCE
Anne Mounsey, MD, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, 590 Manning Drive, Campus Box 7595, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; anne_mounsey@med.unc.edu.

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Turn first to metformin for pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes. A
› Add a second oral agent (such as a sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, or basal insulin if metformin at a maximum tolerated dose does not achieve the HbA1c target over 3 months. A
› Progress to bolus mealtime insulin or a GLP-1 agonist to cover postprandial glycemic excursions if HbA1c remains above goal despite an adequate trial of basal insulin. A

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

 

The "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" guidelines published in 2015 by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) state that metformin is the preferred initial pharmacotherapy for managing type 2 diabetes.1 Metformin, a biguanide, enhances insulin sensitivity in muscle and fat tissue and inhibits hepatic glucose production. Advantages of metformin include the longstanding research supporting its efficacy and safety, an expected decrease in the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level of 1% to 1.5%, low cost, minimal hypoglycemic risk, and potential reductions in cardiovascular (CV) events due to decreased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.1,2

To minimize adverse gastrointestinal effects, start metformin at 500 mg once or twice a day and titrate upward every one to 2 weeks to the target dose.3 To help guide dosing decisions, use the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) instead of the serum creatinine (SCr) level, because the SCr can translate into a variable range of eGFRs (TABLE 1).4,5

A guide for metformin use based on eGFR image

What if metformin alone isn't enough?

CASE Richard C, age 50, has type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity. He takes metformin 1 g twice a day for his diabetes. After 3 months on this regimen, his HbA1c is 8.8%. How would you manage Mr. C's diabetes going forward?

If metformin at a maximum tolerated dose does not achieve the HbA1c target after 3 months, add a second oral agent (a sulfonylurea [SU], thiazolidinedione [TZD], dipeptidyl peptidase 4 [DPP-4] inhibitor, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitor), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, or a basal insulin (TABLE 2).1

Factors to consider when adding a second agent to metformin image

Factors that will affect the choice of the second agent include patient preference, cost, potential adverse effects, impact on weight, efficacy, and risk of hypoglycemia.

Based on cost, familiarity, and longstanding safety data, you decide to give Mr. C an SU, while cautioning him about hypoglycemia.

CASE Mr. C has now been taking metformin and an SU at maximum doses for 2 years and continues with lifestyle modifications. Though his HbA1c level dropped after adding the SU, over 2 years it has crept up to 8.6% and his mean blood glucose is 186 mg/dL. What are your treatment options now?

If the target HbA1c level is not achieved on dual therapy, consider triple therapy combinations (TABLE 3).1

ADA recommended triple therapy combinations image

In Mr. C's case, a third oral agent could be added, but DPP-4 and SGLT2 are unlikely to get his HbA1c below 7%. TZD may get his HbA1c into the desired range but is associated with adverse effects such as heart failure, edema, and weight gain. Mr. C agrees instead to start a basal insulin in conjunction with metformin. You could continue the SU, but you decide to stop it because the additive effect of these medications increases the risk of hypoglycemia.

CASE Six months later Mr. C is taking metformin and insulin glargine, a basal insulin, adjusted to a fasting blood glucose of 80 to 130 mg/dL. His HbA1c is still above target at 8.4%, and the mean postprandial blood glucose is 232 mg/dL.

Mr. C is still above target for HbA1c and for postprandial blood glucose (goal: <180 mg/dL), so he needs pharmacotherapy that targets postprandial glucose elevations.1 His fasting blood glucose readings are at goal, so increasing his insulin glargine is not recommended because it could cause hypoglycemia. An oral agent other than SU could be added, but none is potent enough to lower the HbA1c to goal (TABLE 2).1 There are 3 other options:

  • add a mealtime bolus of insulin
  • add a GLP-1 receptor agonist
  • switch to premixed (biphasic) insulin.
 

 

What to do when basal insulin isn’t enough—with or without oral medsFor type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on basal insulin with or without oral agents, the 2015 ADA treatment guidelines recommend adding a GLP-1 receptor agonist or mealtime insulin.1 A less desirable alternative is to switch from basal insulin to a twice-daily premixed (biphasic) insulin analog (70/30 aspart mix or 75/25 or 50/50 lispro mix). The human NPH-Regular premixed formulations (70/30) are less costly alternatives. The disadvantage with all premixed insulins is they only cover 2 postprandial glucose elevations a day.1,6,7

When prescribing medication for T2DM, consider efficacy, cost, tolerability, impact on body weight, comorbidities, risk of hypoglycemia, and patient preference.

Insulin requires multiple daily injections, can lead to weight gain, and carries the risk of hypoglycemia, which causes significant morbidity.8,9 Daily or weekly administration of a GLP-1 receptor agonist combined with basal insulin can offer a more convenient alternative to mealtime boluses of insulin.

What are GLP-1 receptor agonists?

GLP-1 receptor agonists exert their maximum influence on blood glucose levels during the postprandial period by mimicking the body’s natural incretin hormonal response to oral glucose ingestion.10 They delay gastric emptying, promote satiety, decrease glucagon secretion, and increase insulin secretion.10,11 This mechanism blunts the spiking of postprandial blood glucose after a meal and improves blood glucose control and weight reduction.1,6,7

A systematic review and meta-analysis by Eng and colleagues compared the safety and efficacy of combined GLP-1 agonist and basal insulin with other treatment regimens.7 Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included involving 4348 participants with a mean trial duration of 25 weeks.

Compared with all other treatment regimens, the GLP-1 receptor agonist and basal insulin combination not only significantly reduced HbA1c by 0.44% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.60 to -0.29) and increased the likelihood of attaining an HbA1c of <7.0% (relative risk [RR]=1.92; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.56) but also reduced weight by 3.22 kg (-4.90 to -1.54) with no increased risk of hypoglycemia (RR=0.99; 0.76 to 1.29).7

GLP-1 agonist vs bolus insulin

Compared with basal-bolus insulin regimens, the combination of a GLP-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin has led to a significantly lowered risk of hypoglycemia (RR=0.67; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.80), greater weight loss (-5.66 kg; 95% CI, -9.8 to -1.51) and an average reduction in HbA1c of 0.1% (95% CI, -0.17 to -0.02).7

There are 5 GLP-1 receptor agonists that have US Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, exenatide XR, and liraglutide (TABLE 4).3,12

Comparison of GLP-1 receptor agonists image

All 5 agents are administered subcutaneously and packaged in pen-injector form. Adverse effects include nausea, which is transient and diminishes within the first few weeks of therapy, and less commonly, pancreatitis.3,12

All of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, except short-acting exenatide, carry a warning about the risk of worsening renal function and a possible association with medullary thyroid carcinomas, which were identified in rats, but have not been observed in humans.3,12 Medications in this drug class have a low risk for precipitating hypoglycemia.11 Cost is their chief disadvantage, although copay reduction cards are available online for most of the products. Evaluate efficacy, ease of use, tolerability, and cost when selecting a GLP-1 receptor agonist.3,12

CASE Mr. C prefers a more convenient option than adding another daily injection. Given his obesity, a GLP-1 receptor agonist can help with weight loss and lower his risk for hypoglycemia. To further increase the convenience in dosing, you lean toward either weekly exenatide XR or dulaglutide over basal-bolus combination insulin. Weekly albiglutide is less potent than exenatide XR and dulaglutide in decreasing HbA1c.12 Mr. C’s insurance plan provides preferred coverage for exenatide XR and he is eligible for a copay savings card, meaning he will pay no more than $25 per month for this new prescription. You prescribe exenatide XR and ask him to record his postprandial blood glucose levels. You follow up in one month to assess his response.

CORRESPONDENCE
Anne Mounsey, MD, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, 590 Manning Drive, Campus Box 7595, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; anne_mounsey@med.unc.edu.

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes - 2015. Diabetes Care. 2015;38 (Suppl):S1-S94.

2. Bennett WL, Maruthur NM, Singh S, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of medications for type 2 diabetes: an update including new drugs and 2-drug combinations. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:602-613.

3. Merck Manual. Metformin. Available at: http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/appendixes/brand-names-of-some-commonly-used-drugs. Accessed April 18, 2015.

4. Lipska KJ, Bailey CJ, Inzucchi SE. Use of metformin in the setting of mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1431-1437.

5. Philbrick AM, Ernst ME, McDanel DL, et al. Metformin use in renal dysfunction: is a serum creatinine threshold appropriate? Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66:2017-2023.

6. Pharmacist’s Letter. Drugs for Type 2 Diabetes [detail document]. September 2015. Available at: http://pharmacistsletter.therapeuticresearch.com/pl/ArticleDD.aspx?nidchk=1&cs=&s=PL&pt=2&segment=4407&dd=280601. Accessed December 28, 2015.

7. Eng C, Kramer CK, Zinman B, et al. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and basal insulin combination treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:2228-2234.

8. Inzucchi SE, Burgenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35:1364-1379.

9. Bonds DE, Miller ME, Bergenstal RM, et al. The association between symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia and mortality in type 2 diabetes: retrospective epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ. 2010:340:b4909.

10. Garber AJ. Long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists: a review of their efficacy and tolerability. Diabetes Care. 2011;34 (Suppl 2):S279-S284.

11. Young LA, Buse JB. GLP-1 receptor agonists and basal insulin in type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 2014;384:2180-2181.

12. Pharmacist’s Letter. Comparison of GLP-1 Agonists [detail document]. December 2014. Available at: http://pharmacistsletter.therapeuticresearch.com/pl/Browse.aspx?cs=&s=PL&pt=6&fpt=31&dd=300804&pb=PL&cat=5718#dd. Accessed December 28, 2015.

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes - 2015. Diabetes Care. 2015;38 (Suppl):S1-S94.

2. Bennett WL, Maruthur NM, Singh S, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of medications for type 2 diabetes: an update including new drugs and 2-drug combinations. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:602-613.

3. Merck Manual. Metformin. Available at: http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/appendixes/brand-names-of-some-commonly-used-drugs. Accessed April 18, 2015.

4. Lipska KJ, Bailey CJ, Inzucchi SE. Use of metformin in the setting of mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1431-1437.

5. Philbrick AM, Ernst ME, McDanel DL, et al. Metformin use in renal dysfunction: is a serum creatinine threshold appropriate? Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66:2017-2023.

6. Pharmacist’s Letter. Drugs for Type 2 Diabetes [detail document]. September 2015. Available at: http://pharmacistsletter.therapeuticresearch.com/pl/ArticleDD.aspx?nidchk=1&cs=&s=PL&pt=2&segment=4407&dd=280601. Accessed December 28, 2015.

7. Eng C, Kramer CK, Zinman B, et al. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and basal insulin combination treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:2228-2234.

8. Inzucchi SE, Burgenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35:1364-1379.

9. Bonds DE, Miller ME, Bergenstal RM, et al. The association between symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia and mortality in type 2 diabetes: retrospective epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ. 2010:340:b4909.

10. Garber AJ. Long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists: a review of their efficacy and tolerability. Diabetes Care. 2011;34 (Suppl 2):S279-S284.

11. Young LA, Buse JB. GLP-1 receptor agonists and basal insulin in type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 2014;384:2180-2181.

12. Pharmacist’s Letter. Comparison of GLP-1 Agonists [detail document]. December 2014. Available at: http://pharmacistsletter.therapeuticresearch.com/pl/Browse.aspx?cs=&s=PL&pt=6&fpt=31&dd=300804&pb=PL&cat=5718#dd. Accessed December 28, 2015.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Page Number
85-89
Page Number
85-89
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
What next when metformin isn't enough for type 2 diabetes?
Display Headline
What next when metformin isn't enough for type 2 diabetes?
Legacy Keywords
Emily M. Hawes, PharmD, BCPS, CPP, Joseph Wehby, MD, Ann Mounsey, MD, type 2 diabetes, metformin, sulfonylurea, TZD, DPP-4 inhibitor, SGLT2 inhibitor, GLP-1 receptor agonist, diabetes
Legacy Keywords
Emily M. Hawes, PharmD, BCPS, CPP, Joseph Wehby, MD, Ann Mounsey, MD, type 2 diabetes, metformin, sulfonylurea, TZD, DPP-4 inhibitor, SGLT2 inhibitor, GLP-1 receptor agonist, diabetes
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Article PDF Media

Stiff hands and feet, facial deformities

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Stiff hands and feet, facial deformities
 

A 47-year-old Malaysian aboriginal woman presented to our clinic with stiffness in her fingers and feet that had been bothering her for about 10 years. The patient had multiple facial deformities, including perioral fibrosis, which gave her face a bird-like appearance; micrognathia (which affected the alignment of her teeth); a narrow mouth with pursed, puckered lips; bound-down skin of the nose; and a loss of wrinkling.

Ivory-colored plaques of hard, thickened skin caused a pigmented, “salt and pepper” appearance on our patient’s face. She also had deformities of all of her fingers and toes that severely restricted her ability to move them (FIGURE).

Our patient lived in an aboriginal village with her mother. She had no history of trauma and no one in her family had a similar disease. Ten years ago, she had an episode of fever with joint pain and was hospitalized for 2 months. Her mother claimed that before that, she had been well and worked outside, gathering latex from rubber trees, but had to stop working due to her disability.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Dx: Limited systemic sclerosis

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare autoimmune disease that mainly affects women ages 30 to 50.1 SSc is classified according to the extent of skin involvement and includes limited SSc (lSSc), which is also called CREST syndrome, and diffuse SSc (dSSc).

CREST stands for:

  • calcinosis, or subcutaneous calcium deposits,
  • Raynaud’s phenomenon,
  • esophageal dysfunction,
  • sclerodactyly, which presents as tightening of the skin of the fingers or toes, and
  • telangiectasia, which is characterized by dilated superficial capillaries, usually on the face, arms, and hands.2

Patients like ours who have lSSc experience a gradual progression of symptoms. Their skin is affected in limited areas, such as the fingers, hands, face, lower arms, and feet. There is no involvement of the chest, abdomen, or internal organs, with the exception of the esophagus. Esophageal smooth muscle becomes atrophied and is replaced by fibrous tissue, leading to esophageal motility dysfunction. This is in contrast to dSSc, in which you would see involvement of internal organs such as the lungs, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tract.

Raynaud’s phenomenon is commonly the first symptom of lSSc, and often precedes other manifestations of the disease by years. Raynaud’s phenomenon is triggered by cold conditions and emotional stress, which cause spasms and narrowing of the blood vessels of the skin. Telangiectasia and calcinosis often follow skin tightening and thickening on the face and hands.

The differential diagnosis for lSSc includes dSSc, pseudoscleroderma, and systemic sclerosis sine scleroderma (ssSSc) (TABLE).2-4 In 2013, a joint committee of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism published revised classification criteria for SSc based on a scoring systemto improve sensitivity because the 1980 ACR criteria did not classify some cases of limited cutaneous SSc.5 Based on these revised criteria, patients having a total score of 9 or more are classified as having SSc. Our patient’s score was 15.

 

 

Lab tests, imaging studies are used to diagnose SSc

Generally, blood testing in patients with SSc may show thrombocytopenia, hypergammaglobulinemia, or (in patients with renal involvement of SSc) elevated blood urea and creatinine levels. Creatine kinase, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein may be elevated due to myositis, vasculitis, malignancy, or an overlap of systemic sclerosis with another autoimmune disease.3

Raynaud’s phenomenon is often the first symptom of limited systemic sclerosis.

Serologic testing. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are positive in 60% to 80% of patients with SSc.2 Antibodies to topoisomerase-1 (Scl-70 antibodies) are present in 30% of cases of dSSc.2 The presence of either anticentromere antibodies (ACA) or anti-Scl-70 is highly specific (95%-99%) for the diagnosis of lSSc and dSSc, respectively.2 Anti-polymerase 1 and 3 antibodies (RNAP) are associated with dSSc and a significantly higher incidence of renal involvement.4

Capillary microscopy can be helpful in showing dilated, tortuous, and enlarged capillaries in the nail fold and adjacent areas. It is an effective method for distinguishing between primary and secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon.6

Chest x-ray. The lungs are involved in approximately 80% of all patients with SSc, and lung involvement is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality.7 The 2 most common types of direct pulmonary involvement are interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension, which together account for 60% of SSc-related deaths.8

Key elements of sclerodermal lung disease are inflammation, lung scarring, and pulmonary hypertension due to progressive scarring of the inner lining of the small arteries. Inflammation and scarring of lung tissue causes interstitial lung disease. This is more common in dSSc, whereas pulmonary hypertension is more common in lSSc.8 In ssSSc, pulmonary disease can occur without any skin involvement. High-resolution computer tomography scans of the lungs (HRCT) can sensitively detect scarring and severity of lung inflammation, while a simple chest x-ray cannot.9 Interstitial abnormalities on HRCT have been found in 90% of patients.9

Spirometry. Interstitial lung disease leads to a reduction in forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO). Significant pulmonary involvement is detectable in 25% of patients with SSc within 3 years of diagnosis.10 Interstitial fibrosis shows a restrictive pattern on spirometry. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and FVC are reduced, and the FEV1/FVC ratio is normal or increased.

 

 

No cure, but patient-specific Tx can improve quality of life

SSc greatly reduces a patient’s self-esteem and quality of life. Because there is no cure, many patients develop depression.11,12 However, depending on the patient, some treatments can control symptoms and complications, and thus improve quality of life.

Because SSc is an autoimmune disease, immunosuppressive agents are a pillar of treatment. Recent studies have shown that low-dose pulse cyclophosphamide can stabilize pulmonary function.13

Raynaud’s phenomenon is treated with low-dose calcium-channel blockers, such as amlodipine 5 mg/d that is gradually increased to as much as 20 mg/d to increase blood flow to the fingers.14

Fibrosis of the skin is treated with daily doses of PUVA (photochemotherapy) 0.25 J/cm2 or 0.4 J/cm2 for 3 to 8 weeks (total doses between 3.5 J/cm2 and 9.6 J/cm2); this results in improvements in hand closure, skin sclerosis index, and flexion of fingers or knee joints.15 D-penicillamine, an anti-fibrotic drug that has the ability to not only destabilize tissue collagen but also reduce its production, is started early with a low dose and then carefully increased.16

Our patient declined hospital care or treatment and refused referral to a physiotherapist for hand exercises, paraffin baths, massages, splints, or water aerobics. Her condition remained stable and she has been able to manage on her own, despite her advanced stage of CREST syndrome.

CORRESPONDENCE
Chandramani Thuraisingham, MBBS, FAFP, FRACGP, AM, DRM, PDOH, International Medical University, Clinical School Seremban, Jalan Rasah, 70300 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia; chandramani@imu.edu.my.

References

1. Scleroderma. American College of Rheumatology Web site. Available at: http://www.rheumatology.org/I-Am-A/Patient-Caregiver/Diseases-Conditions/Scleroderma. Accessed January 7, 2016.

2. Chatterjee S. Systemic scleroderma. Cleveland Clinic Web site. August 2010. Available at: http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/rheumatology/systemic-sclerosis/. Accessed January 7, 2016.

3. Hinchcliff M, Varga J. Systemic sclerosis/scleroderma: a treatable multisystem disease. Am Fam Physician. 2008;78:961-968.

4. Bunn CC, Denton CP, Shi-Wen X, et al. Anti-RNA polymerases and other autoantibody specificities in systemic sclerosis. Br J Rheumatol. 1998;37:15-20.

5. van den Hoogen F, Khanna D, Fransen J, et al. 2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: an American college of rheumatology/European league against rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1747-1755.

6. Pavlov-Dolijanovic S, Damjanov NS, Stojanovic RM, et al. Scleroderma pattern of nailfold capillary changes as predictive value for the development of a connective tissue disease: a follow-up study of 3,029 patients with primary Raynaud’s phenomenon. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32:3039-3045.

7. Lung involvement. University of Michigan Health System, Scleroderma Program Web site. Available at: https://www.med.umich.edu/scleroderma/patients/lung.htm. Accessed January 7, 2016.

8. Morelli S, Barbieri C, Sgreccia A, et al. Relationship between cutaneous and pulmonary involvement in systemic sclerosis. J Rheumatol. 1997;24:81-85.

9. Schurawitzki H, Stiglbauer R, Graninger W, et al. Interstitial lung disease in progressive systemic sclerosis: high-resolution CT versus radiography. Radiology. 1990;176:755-759.

10. Wells AU, Steen V, Valentini G. Pulmonary complications: one of the most challenging complications of systemic sclerosis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009;48:iii40-iii44.

11. Thombs BD, Taillefer SS, Hudson M, et al. Depression in patients with systemic sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:1089-1097.

12. Benrud-Larson LM, Heinberg LJ, Boling C, et al. Body image dissatisfaction among women with scleroderma: extent and relationship to psychosocial function. Health Psychol. 2003;22:130-139.

13. Iudici M, Cuomo G, Vettori S, et al. Low-dose pulse cyclophosphamide in interstitial lung disease associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc-ILD): efficacy of maintenance immunosuppression in responders and non-responders. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015;44:437-444.

14. Treatment of the Raynaud phenomenon resistant to initial therapy. UpToDate Website. Available at: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-of-the-raynaud-phenomenon-resistant-to-initial-therapy. Accessed January 7, 2016.

15. Kanekura T, Fukumaru S, Matsushita S, et al. Successful treatment of scleroderma with PUVA therapy. J Dermatol. 1996;23:455-459.

16. Jayson MI, Lovell C, Black CM, et al. Penicillamine therapy in systemic sclerosis. Proc R Soc Med. 1977;70:82-88.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Chandramani Thuraisingham, MBBS, FAFP, FRACGP, AM, DRM, PDOH
Davendralingam Sinniah, MD, DSC, FRACP, FRCPI, FAMM, DCH
International Medical University, Clinical School Seremban, Malaysia
chandramani@imu.edu.my

DEPARTMENT EDITOR
Richard P. Usatine, MD
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
121-124
Legacy Keywords
Chandramani Thuraisingham, MBBS, Davendralingam Sinniah, MD, DSC, FRACP, FRCPI, FAMM, DCH, systemic sclerosis, SSC, limited systemic sclerosis, lSSc, facial deformity, Raynaud's phenomenon, rare disease
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Chandramani Thuraisingham, MBBS, FAFP, FRACGP, AM, DRM, PDOH
Davendralingam Sinniah, MD, DSC, FRACP, FRCPI, FAMM, DCH
International Medical University, Clinical School Seremban, Malaysia
chandramani@imu.edu.my

DEPARTMENT EDITOR
Richard P. Usatine, MD
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Chandramani Thuraisingham, MBBS, FAFP, FRACGP, AM, DRM, PDOH
Davendralingam Sinniah, MD, DSC, FRACP, FRCPI, FAMM, DCH
International Medical University, Clinical School Seremban, Malaysia
chandramani@imu.edu.my

DEPARTMENT EDITOR
Richard P. Usatine, MD
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
 

A 47-year-old Malaysian aboriginal woman presented to our clinic with stiffness in her fingers and feet that had been bothering her for about 10 years. The patient had multiple facial deformities, including perioral fibrosis, which gave her face a bird-like appearance; micrognathia (which affected the alignment of her teeth); a narrow mouth with pursed, puckered lips; bound-down skin of the nose; and a loss of wrinkling.

Ivory-colored plaques of hard, thickened skin caused a pigmented, “salt and pepper” appearance on our patient’s face. She also had deformities of all of her fingers and toes that severely restricted her ability to move them (FIGURE).

Our patient lived in an aboriginal village with her mother. She had no history of trauma and no one in her family had a similar disease. Ten years ago, she had an episode of fever with joint pain and was hospitalized for 2 months. Her mother claimed that before that, she had been well and worked outside, gathering latex from rubber trees, but had to stop working due to her disability.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Dx: Limited systemic sclerosis

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare autoimmune disease that mainly affects women ages 30 to 50.1 SSc is classified according to the extent of skin involvement and includes limited SSc (lSSc), which is also called CREST syndrome, and diffuse SSc (dSSc).

CREST stands for:

  • calcinosis, or subcutaneous calcium deposits,
  • Raynaud’s phenomenon,
  • esophageal dysfunction,
  • sclerodactyly, which presents as tightening of the skin of the fingers or toes, and
  • telangiectasia, which is characterized by dilated superficial capillaries, usually on the face, arms, and hands.2

Patients like ours who have lSSc experience a gradual progression of symptoms. Their skin is affected in limited areas, such as the fingers, hands, face, lower arms, and feet. There is no involvement of the chest, abdomen, or internal organs, with the exception of the esophagus. Esophageal smooth muscle becomes atrophied and is replaced by fibrous tissue, leading to esophageal motility dysfunction. This is in contrast to dSSc, in which you would see involvement of internal organs such as the lungs, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tract.

Raynaud’s phenomenon is commonly the first symptom of lSSc, and often precedes other manifestations of the disease by years. Raynaud’s phenomenon is triggered by cold conditions and emotional stress, which cause spasms and narrowing of the blood vessels of the skin. Telangiectasia and calcinosis often follow skin tightening and thickening on the face and hands.

The differential diagnosis for lSSc includes dSSc, pseudoscleroderma, and systemic sclerosis sine scleroderma (ssSSc) (TABLE).2-4 In 2013, a joint committee of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism published revised classification criteria for SSc based on a scoring systemto improve sensitivity because the 1980 ACR criteria did not classify some cases of limited cutaneous SSc.5 Based on these revised criteria, patients having a total score of 9 or more are classified as having SSc. Our patient’s score was 15.

 

 

Lab tests, imaging studies are used to diagnose SSc

Generally, blood testing in patients with SSc may show thrombocytopenia, hypergammaglobulinemia, or (in patients with renal involvement of SSc) elevated blood urea and creatinine levels. Creatine kinase, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein may be elevated due to myositis, vasculitis, malignancy, or an overlap of systemic sclerosis with another autoimmune disease.3

Raynaud’s phenomenon is often the first symptom of limited systemic sclerosis.

Serologic testing. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are positive in 60% to 80% of patients with SSc.2 Antibodies to topoisomerase-1 (Scl-70 antibodies) are present in 30% of cases of dSSc.2 The presence of either anticentromere antibodies (ACA) or anti-Scl-70 is highly specific (95%-99%) for the diagnosis of lSSc and dSSc, respectively.2 Anti-polymerase 1 and 3 antibodies (RNAP) are associated with dSSc and a significantly higher incidence of renal involvement.4

Capillary microscopy can be helpful in showing dilated, tortuous, and enlarged capillaries in the nail fold and adjacent areas. It is an effective method for distinguishing between primary and secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon.6

Chest x-ray. The lungs are involved in approximately 80% of all patients with SSc, and lung involvement is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality.7 The 2 most common types of direct pulmonary involvement are interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension, which together account for 60% of SSc-related deaths.8

Key elements of sclerodermal lung disease are inflammation, lung scarring, and pulmonary hypertension due to progressive scarring of the inner lining of the small arteries. Inflammation and scarring of lung tissue causes interstitial lung disease. This is more common in dSSc, whereas pulmonary hypertension is more common in lSSc.8 In ssSSc, pulmonary disease can occur without any skin involvement. High-resolution computer tomography scans of the lungs (HRCT) can sensitively detect scarring and severity of lung inflammation, while a simple chest x-ray cannot.9 Interstitial abnormalities on HRCT have been found in 90% of patients.9

Spirometry. Interstitial lung disease leads to a reduction in forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO). Significant pulmonary involvement is detectable in 25% of patients with SSc within 3 years of diagnosis.10 Interstitial fibrosis shows a restrictive pattern on spirometry. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and FVC are reduced, and the FEV1/FVC ratio is normal or increased.

 

 

No cure, but patient-specific Tx can improve quality of life

SSc greatly reduces a patient’s self-esteem and quality of life. Because there is no cure, many patients develop depression.11,12 However, depending on the patient, some treatments can control symptoms and complications, and thus improve quality of life.

Because SSc is an autoimmune disease, immunosuppressive agents are a pillar of treatment. Recent studies have shown that low-dose pulse cyclophosphamide can stabilize pulmonary function.13

Raynaud’s phenomenon is treated with low-dose calcium-channel blockers, such as amlodipine 5 mg/d that is gradually increased to as much as 20 mg/d to increase blood flow to the fingers.14

Fibrosis of the skin is treated with daily doses of PUVA (photochemotherapy) 0.25 J/cm2 or 0.4 J/cm2 for 3 to 8 weeks (total doses between 3.5 J/cm2 and 9.6 J/cm2); this results in improvements in hand closure, skin sclerosis index, and flexion of fingers or knee joints.15 D-penicillamine, an anti-fibrotic drug that has the ability to not only destabilize tissue collagen but also reduce its production, is started early with a low dose and then carefully increased.16

Our patient declined hospital care or treatment and refused referral to a physiotherapist for hand exercises, paraffin baths, massages, splints, or water aerobics. Her condition remained stable and she has been able to manage on her own, despite her advanced stage of CREST syndrome.

CORRESPONDENCE
Chandramani Thuraisingham, MBBS, FAFP, FRACGP, AM, DRM, PDOH, International Medical University, Clinical School Seremban, Jalan Rasah, 70300 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia; chandramani@imu.edu.my.

 

A 47-year-old Malaysian aboriginal woman presented to our clinic with stiffness in her fingers and feet that had been bothering her for about 10 years. The patient had multiple facial deformities, including perioral fibrosis, which gave her face a bird-like appearance; micrognathia (which affected the alignment of her teeth); a narrow mouth with pursed, puckered lips; bound-down skin of the nose; and a loss of wrinkling.

Ivory-colored plaques of hard, thickened skin caused a pigmented, “salt and pepper” appearance on our patient’s face. She also had deformities of all of her fingers and toes that severely restricted her ability to move them (FIGURE).

Our patient lived in an aboriginal village with her mother. She had no history of trauma and no one in her family had a similar disease. Ten years ago, she had an episode of fever with joint pain and was hospitalized for 2 months. Her mother claimed that before that, she had been well and worked outside, gathering latex from rubber trees, but had to stop working due to her disability.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Dx: Limited systemic sclerosis

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare autoimmune disease that mainly affects women ages 30 to 50.1 SSc is classified according to the extent of skin involvement and includes limited SSc (lSSc), which is also called CREST syndrome, and diffuse SSc (dSSc).

CREST stands for:

  • calcinosis, or subcutaneous calcium deposits,
  • Raynaud’s phenomenon,
  • esophageal dysfunction,
  • sclerodactyly, which presents as tightening of the skin of the fingers or toes, and
  • telangiectasia, which is characterized by dilated superficial capillaries, usually on the face, arms, and hands.2

Patients like ours who have lSSc experience a gradual progression of symptoms. Their skin is affected in limited areas, such as the fingers, hands, face, lower arms, and feet. There is no involvement of the chest, abdomen, or internal organs, with the exception of the esophagus. Esophageal smooth muscle becomes atrophied and is replaced by fibrous tissue, leading to esophageal motility dysfunction. This is in contrast to dSSc, in which you would see involvement of internal organs such as the lungs, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tract.

Raynaud’s phenomenon is commonly the first symptom of lSSc, and often precedes other manifestations of the disease by years. Raynaud’s phenomenon is triggered by cold conditions and emotional stress, which cause spasms and narrowing of the blood vessels of the skin. Telangiectasia and calcinosis often follow skin tightening and thickening on the face and hands.

The differential diagnosis for lSSc includes dSSc, pseudoscleroderma, and systemic sclerosis sine scleroderma (ssSSc) (TABLE).2-4 In 2013, a joint committee of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism published revised classification criteria for SSc based on a scoring systemto improve sensitivity because the 1980 ACR criteria did not classify some cases of limited cutaneous SSc.5 Based on these revised criteria, patients having a total score of 9 or more are classified as having SSc. Our patient’s score was 15.

 

 

Lab tests, imaging studies are used to diagnose SSc

Generally, blood testing in patients with SSc may show thrombocytopenia, hypergammaglobulinemia, or (in patients with renal involvement of SSc) elevated blood urea and creatinine levels. Creatine kinase, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein may be elevated due to myositis, vasculitis, malignancy, or an overlap of systemic sclerosis with another autoimmune disease.3

Raynaud’s phenomenon is often the first symptom of limited systemic sclerosis.

Serologic testing. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are positive in 60% to 80% of patients with SSc.2 Antibodies to topoisomerase-1 (Scl-70 antibodies) are present in 30% of cases of dSSc.2 The presence of either anticentromere antibodies (ACA) or anti-Scl-70 is highly specific (95%-99%) for the diagnosis of lSSc and dSSc, respectively.2 Anti-polymerase 1 and 3 antibodies (RNAP) are associated with dSSc and a significantly higher incidence of renal involvement.4

Capillary microscopy can be helpful in showing dilated, tortuous, and enlarged capillaries in the nail fold and adjacent areas. It is an effective method for distinguishing between primary and secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon.6

Chest x-ray. The lungs are involved in approximately 80% of all patients with SSc, and lung involvement is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality.7 The 2 most common types of direct pulmonary involvement are interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension, which together account for 60% of SSc-related deaths.8

Key elements of sclerodermal lung disease are inflammation, lung scarring, and pulmonary hypertension due to progressive scarring of the inner lining of the small arteries. Inflammation and scarring of lung tissue causes interstitial lung disease. This is more common in dSSc, whereas pulmonary hypertension is more common in lSSc.8 In ssSSc, pulmonary disease can occur without any skin involvement. High-resolution computer tomography scans of the lungs (HRCT) can sensitively detect scarring and severity of lung inflammation, while a simple chest x-ray cannot.9 Interstitial abnormalities on HRCT have been found in 90% of patients.9

Spirometry. Interstitial lung disease leads to a reduction in forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO). Significant pulmonary involvement is detectable in 25% of patients with SSc within 3 years of diagnosis.10 Interstitial fibrosis shows a restrictive pattern on spirometry. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and FVC are reduced, and the FEV1/FVC ratio is normal or increased.

 

 

No cure, but patient-specific Tx can improve quality of life

SSc greatly reduces a patient’s self-esteem and quality of life. Because there is no cure, many patients develop depression.11,12 However, depending on the patient, some treatments can control symptoms and complications, and thus improve quality of life.

Because SSc is an autoimmune disease, immunosuppressive agents are a pillar of treatment. Recent studies have shown that low-dose pulse cyclophosphamide can stabilize pulmonary function.13

Raynaud’s phenomenon is treated with low-dose calcium-channel blockers, such as amlodipine 5 mg/d that is gradually increased to as much as 20 mg/d to increase blood flow to the fingers.14

Fibrosis of the skin is treated with daily doses of PUVA (photochemotherapy) 0.25 J/cm2 or 0.4 J/cm2 for 3 to 8 weeks (total doses between 3.5 J/cm2 and 9.6 J/cm2); this results in improvements in hand closure, skin sclerosis index, and flexion of fingers or knee joints.15 D-penicillamine, an anti-fibrotic drug that has the ability to not only destabilize tissue collagen but also reduce its production, is started early with a low dose and then carefully increased.16

Our patient declined hospital care or treatment and refused referral to a physiotherapist for hand exercises, paraffin baths, massages, splints, or water aerobics. Her condition remained stable and she has been able to manage on her own, despite her advanced stage of CREST syndrome.

CORRESPONDENCE
Chandramani Thuraisingham, MBBS, FAFP, FRACGP, AM, DRM, PDOH, International Medical University, Clinical School Seremban, Jalan Rasah, 70300 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia; chandramani@imu.edu.my.

References

1. Scleroderma. American College of Rheumatology Web site. Available at: http://www.rheumatology.org/I-Am-A/Patient-Caregiver/Diseases-Conditions/Scleroderma. Accessed January 7, 2016.

2. Chatterjee S. Systemic scleroderma. Cleveland Clinic Web site. August 2010. Available at: http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/rheumatology/systemic-sclerosis/. Accessed January 7, 2016.

3. Hinchcliff M, Varga J. Systemic sclerosis/scleroderma: a treatable multisystem disease. Am Fam Physician. 2008;78:961-968.

4. Bunn CC, Denton CP, Shi-Wen X, et al. Anti-RNA polymerases and other autoantibody specificities in systemic sclerosis. Br J Rheumatol. 1998;37:15-20.

5. van den Hoogen F, Khanna D, Fransen J, et al. 2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: an American college of rheumatology/European league against rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1747-1755.

6. Pavlov-Dolijanovic S, Damjanov NS, Stojanovic RM, et al. Scleroderma pattern of nailfold capillary changes as predictive value for the development of a connective tissue disease: a follow-up study of 3,029 patients with primary Raynaud’s phenomenon. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32:3039-3045.

7. Lung involvement. University of Michigan Health System, Scleroderma Program Web site. Available at: https://www.med.umich.edu/scleroderma/patients/lung.htm. Accessed January 7, 2016.

8. Morelli S, Barbieri C, Sgreccia A, et al. Relationship between cutaneous and pulmonary involvement in systemic sclerosis. J Rheumatol. 1997;24:81-85.

9. Schurawitzki H, Stiglbauer R, Graninger W, et al. Interstitial lung disease in progressive systemic sclerosis: high-resolution CT versus radiography. Radiology. 1990;176:755-759.

10. Wells AU, Steen V, Valentini G. Pulmonary complications: one of the most challenging complications of systemic sclerosis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009;48:iii40-iii44.

11. Thombs BD, Taillefer SS, Hudson M, et al. Depression in patients with systemic sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:1089-1097.

12. Benrud-Larson LM, Heinberg LJ, Boling C, et al. Body image dissatisfaction among women with scleroderma: extent and relationship to psychosocial function. Health Psychol. 2003;22:130-139.

13. Iudici M, Cuomo G, Vettori S, et al. Low-dose pulse cyclophosphamide in interstitial lung disease associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc-ILD): efficacy of maintenance immunosuppression in responders and non-responders. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015;44:437-444.

14. Treatment of the Raynaud phenomenon resistant to initial therapy. UpToDate Website. Available at: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-of-the-raynaud-phenomenon-resistant-to-initial-therapy. Accessed January 7, 2016.

15. Kanekura T, Fukumaru S, Matsushita S, et al. Successful treatment of scleroderma with PUVA therapy. J Dermatol. 1996;23:455-459.

16. Jayson MI, Lovell C, Black CM, et al. Penicillamine therapy in systemic sclerosis. Proc R Soc Med. 1977;70:82-88.

References

1. Scleroderma. American College of Rheumatology Web site. Available at: http://www.rheumatology.org/I-Am-A/Patient-Caregiver/Diseases-Conditions/Scleroderma. Accessed January 7, 2016.

2. Chatterjee S. Systemic scleroderma. Cleveland Clinic Web site. August 2010. Available at: http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/rheumatology/systemic-sclerosis/. Accessed January 7, 2016.

3. Hinchcliff M, Varga J. Systemic sclerosis/scleroderma: a treatable multisystem disease. Am Fam Physician. 2008;78:961-968.

4. Bunn CC, Denton CP, Shi-Wen X, et al. Anti-RNA polymerases and other autoantibody specificities in systemic sclerosis. Br J Rheumatol. 1998;37:15-20.

5. van den Hoogen F, Khanna D, Fransen J, et al. 2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: an American college of rheumatology/European league against rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1747-1755.

6. Pavlov-Dolijanovic S, Damjanov NS, Stojanovic RM, et al. Scleroderma pattern of nailfold capillary changes as predictive value for the development of a connective tissue disease: a follow-up study of 3,029 patients with primary Raynaud’s phenomenon. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32:3039-3045.

7. Lung involvement. University of Michigan Health System, Scleroderma Program Web site. Available at: https://www.med.umich.edu/scleroderma/patients/lung.htm. Accessed January 7, 2016.

8. Morelli S, Barbieri C, Sgreccia A, et al. Relationship between cutaneous and pulmonary involvement in systemic sclerosis. J Rheumatol. 1997;24:81-85.

9. Schurawitzki H, Stiglbauer R, Graninger W, et al. Interstitial lung disease in progressive systemic sclerosis: high-resolution CT versus radiography. Radiology. 1990;176:755-759.

10. Wells AU, Steen V, Valentini G. Pulmonary complications: one of the most challenging complications of systemic sclerosis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009;48:iii40-iii44.

11. Thombs BD, Taillefer SS, Hudson M, et al. Depression in patients with systemic sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:1089-1097.

12. Benrud-Larson LM, Heinberg LJ, Boling C, et al. Body image dissatisfaction among women with scleroderma: extent and relationship to psychosocial function. Health Psychol. 2003;22:130-139.

13. Iudici M, Cuomo G, Vettori S, et al. Low-dose pulse cyclophosphamide in interstitial lung disease associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc-ILD): efficacy of maintenance immunosuppression in responders and non-responders. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015;44:437-444.

14. Treatment of the Raynaud phenomenon resistant to initial therapy. UpToDate Website. Available at: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-of-the-raynaud-phenomenon-resistant-to-initial-therapy. Accessed January 7, 2016.

15. Kanekura T, Fukumaru S, Matsushita S, et al. Successful treatment of scleroderma with PUVA therapy. J Dermatol. 1996;23:455-459.

16. Jayson MI, Lovell C, Black CM, et al. Penicillamine therapy in systemic sclerosis. Proc R Soc Med. 1977;70:82-88.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Page Number
121-124
Page Number
121-124
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Stiff hands and feet, facial deformities
Display Headline
Stiff hands and feet, facial deformities
Legacy Keywords
Chandramani Thuraisingham, MBBS, Davendralingam Sinniah, MD, DSC, FRACP, FRCPI, FAMM, DCH, systemic sclerosis, SSC, limited systemic sclerosis, lSSc, facial deformity, Raynaud's phenomenon, rare disease
Legacy Keywords
Chandramani Thuraisingham, MBBS, Davendralingam Sinniah, MD, DSC, FRACP, FRCPI, FAMM, DCH, systemic sclerosis, SSC, limited systemic sclerosis, lSSc, facial deformity, Raynaud's phenomenon, rare disease
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Kidney stones? It’s time to rethink those meds

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Kidney stones? It’s time to rethink those meds

 

PRACTICE CHANGER

Do not prescribe tamsulosin or nifedipine for stone expulsion in patients with ureteral stones ≤10 mm.1

Strength of recommendation

A: Based on a high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:341-349.

 

 

Illustrative case

Bob Z, age 48, presents to the emergency department (ED) with unspecified groin pain. A computed tomography scan of the kidney, ureter, and bladder (CT KUB) finds evidence of a single ureteral stone measuring 8 mm. He’s prescribed medication for the pain and discharged. The day after his ED visit, he comes to your office to discuss further treatment options. Should you prescribe tamsulosin or nifedipine to help him pass the stone?

The most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found kidney stones affect 8.8% of the population.2 Outpatient therapy is indicated for patients with ureteric colic secondary to stones ≤10 mm who do not have uncontrolled pain, impaired kidney function, or severe infection. Routine outpatient care includes oral hydration, antiemetics, and pain medications. Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is also used to facilitate stone passage. MET is increasingly becoming part of routine care; use of MET in kidney stone patients in the United States has grown from 14% in 2009 to 64% in 2012.3,4

The joint European Association of Urology/American Urological Association Nephrolithiasis Guideline Panel supports the use of MET.5 Meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) or a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine) can reduce pain and lead to quicker stone passage and a higher rate of eventual stone passage when compared to placebo or observation.6,7 However, these reviews included small, heterogeneous studies with a high or unclear risk of bias.

Treatment with tamsulosin or nifedipine provided no benefits in terms of rate of kidney stone passage, time to passage, analgesic use, or pain.

STUDY SUMMARY: MET doesn’t increase the rate of stone passage

The SUSPEND (Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage ENabled by Drugs) trial1 was a multicenter RCT designed to determine the effectiveness of tamsulosin or nifedipine as MET for patients ages 18 to 65 years with a single ureteric stone measuring ≤10 mm on CT KUB, which has 98% diagnostic accuracy.8 (Stones >10 mm typically require surgery or lithotripsy.)

In this RCT, 1167 adults were randomized to take tamsulosin 0.4 mg/d, nifedipine 30 mg/d, or placebo for 4 weeks or until the stone spontaneously passed, whichever came first. The participants, clinicians, and research staff were blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone, as indicated in patient self-reported questionnaires and case-report forms completed by researchers. Secondary outcomes were time to stone passage and pain as assessed by analgesic use and a visual analogue scale (VAS).

At 4 weeks, 1136 (97%) of the randomized participants had data available for analysis. The proportion of participants who passed their stone did not differ between MET and placebo; 80% of the placebo group (303 of 379 participants) passed the stone, compared with 81% (307 of 378) of the tamsulosin group and 80% (304 of 379) of the nifedipine group. The odds ratio (OR) for MET vs placebo was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.43) and the OR for tamsulosin vs nifedipine was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.53). These findings did not change with further subgroup analysis, including by sex, stone size (≤5 mm vs >5 mm), or stone location.

There were no differences between groups in time to stone passage as measured by clinical report and confirmed by imaging. Time to passage of stone was available for 237 (21%) of participants. The mean days to stone passage was 15.9 (n=84) for placebo, 16.5 (n=79) for tamsulosin and 16.2 (n=74) for nifedipine, with a MET vs placebo difference of 0.5 days (95% CI, -2.9 to 3.9; P=.78). Sensitivity analysis accounting for bias from missing data did not change this outcome.

No differences in analgesic use or pain. Self-reported use of pain medication during the first 4 weeks was similar between groups: 59% (placebo patients), 56% (tamsulosin), and 56% (nifedipine). The mean days of pain medication use was 10.5 for placebo, 11.6 for tamsulosin, and 10.7 for nifedipine, with a MET vs placebo difference of 0.6 days (95% CI, -1.6 to 2.8; P=.45).

There was no difference between groups in the VAS pain score at 4 weeks. The MET vs placebo difference was 0.0 (95% CI, -0.4 to 0.4; P=.96) and the mean VAS pain score was 1.2 for placebo, 1.0 for tamsulosin, and 1.3 for nifedipine.

 

 

WHAT'S NEW: This large RCT contradicts results from previous meta-analyses

The SUSPEND study is the first large, multi­center RCT of MET with tamsulosin or nifedipine for kidney stones that used patient-oriented outcomes to find no benefit for stone expulsion, analgesic use, or reported pain compared to placebo. The discrepancy with prior meta-analyses is not unusual. Up to one-third of meta-analyses that show positive outcomes of a therapy are subsequently altered by the inclusion of results from a single, large, multicenter, well-designed RCT.9

CAVEATS: This trial included fewer women than previous studies

The SUSPEND study included a smaller proportion of women than previously published case series due to a need for a diagnostic CT KUB, which excluded more women than men due to radiation concerns. However, the proportion of women was balanced across all groups in this trial, and there was no evidence that sex impacted the efficacy of treatment for the primary outcome.1

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

We see no challenges to the implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Click here to view PURL METHODOLOGY

Files
References

 

1. Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:341-349.

2. Scales CD Jr., Smith AC, Hanley JM, et al. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012;62:160-165.

3. Fwu CU, Eggers PW, Kimmel PL, et al. Emergency department visits, use of imaging, and drugs for urolithiasis have increased in the United States. Kidney Int. 2013;89:479-486.

4. Bagga H, Appa A, Wang R, et al. 2257 medical expulsion therapy is underutilized in women presenting to an emergency department with acute urinary stone disease. J Urol. 2013;189:e925-e926.

5. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc; European Association of Urology. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1610-1631.

6. Campschroer T, Zhu Y, Duijvesz D, et al. Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;4:CD008509.

7. Seitz C, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F, et al. Medical therapy to facilitate the passage of stones: what is the evidence? Eur Urol. 2009;56:455-471.

8. Worster A, Preyra I, Weaver B, et al. The accuracy of noncontrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:280-286.

9. LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:536-542.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Andrew H. Slattengren, DO
Shailendra Prasad, MBBS, MPH
Jennie B. Jarrett, PharmD, BCPS

North Memorial Family Medicine Residency, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (Drs. Slattengren and Prasad); Family Medicine Residency Program, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center St. Margaret, Pa (Dr. Jarrett)

DEPUTY EDITOR
Anne Mounsey, MD
University of North Carolina, Department of Family Medicine

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
118-120
Legacy Keywords
Andrew H. Slattengren, DO, Shailendra Prasad, MBBS, MPH, Jennie B. Jarrett, PharmD, BCPS, kidney stones, nephrology, ureteral stone, medical expulsive therapy, urology, Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage ENabled by Drugs, renal
Sections
Files
Files
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Andrew H. Slattengren, DO
Shailendra Prasad, MBBS, MPH
Jennie B. Jarrett, PharmD, BCPS

North Memorial Family Medicine Residency, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (Drs. Slattengren and Prasad); Family Medicine Residency Program, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center St. Margaret, Pa (Dr. Jarrett)

DEPUTY EDITOR
Anne Mounsey, MD
University of North Carolina, Department of Family Medicine

Author and Disclosure Information

 

Andrew H. Slattengren, DO
Shailendra Prasad, MBBS, MPH
Jennie B. Jarrett, PharmD, BCPS

North Memorial Family Medicine Residency, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (Drs. Slattengren and Prasad); Family Medicine Residency Program, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center St. Margaret, Pa (Dr. Jarrett)

DEPUTY EDITOR
Anne Mounsey, MD
University of North Carolina, Department of Family Medicine

Article PDF
Article PDF

 

PRACTICE CHANGER

Do not prescribe tamsulosin or nifedipine for stone expulsion in patients with ureteral stones ≤10 mm.1

Strength of recommendation

A: Based on a high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:341-349.

 

 

Illustrative case

Bob Z, age 48, presents to the emergency department (ED) with unspecified groin pain. A computed tomography scan of the kidney, ureter, and bladder (CT KUB) finds evidence of a single ureteral stone measuring 8 mm. He’s prescribed medication for the pain and discharged. The day after his ED visit, he comes to your office to discuss further treatment options. Should you prescribe tamsulosin or nifedipine to help him pass the stone?

The most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found kidney stones affect 8.8% of the population.2 Outpatient therapy is indicated for patients with ureteric colic secondary to stones ≤10 mm who do not have uncontrolled pain, impaired kidney function, or severe infection. Routine outpatient care includes oral hydration, antiemetics, and pain medications. Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is also used to facilitate stone passage. MET is increasingly becoming part of routine care; use of MET in kidney stone patients in the United States has grown from 14% in 2009 to 64% in 2012.3,4

The joint European Association of Urology/American Urological Association Nephrolithiasis Guideline Panel supports the use of MET.5 Meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) or a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine) can reduce pain and lead to quicker stone passage and a higher rate of eventual stone passage when compared to placebo or observation.6,7 However, these reviews included small, heterogeneous studies with a high or unclear risk of bias.

Treatment with tamsulosin or nifedipine provided no benefits in terms of rate of kidney stone passage, time to passage, analgesic use, or pain.

STUDY SUMMARY: MET doesn’t increase the rate of stone passage

The SUSPEND (Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage ENabled by Drugs) trial1 was a multicenter RCT designed to determine the effectiveness of tamsulosin or nifedipine as MET for patients ages 18 to 65 years with a single ureteric stone measuring ≤10 mm on CT KUB, which has 98% diagnostic accuracy.8 (Stones >10 mm typically require surgery or lithotripsy.)

In this RCT, 1167 adults were randomized to take tamsulosin 0.4 mg/d, nifedipine 30 mg/d, or placebo for 4 weeks or until the stone spontaneously passed, whichever came first. The participants, clinicians, and research staff were blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone, as indicated in patient self-reported questionnaires and case-report forms completed by researchers. Secondary outcomes were time to stone passage and pain as assessed by analgesic use and a visual analogue scale (VAS).

At 4 weeks, 1136 (97%) of the randomized participants had data available for analysis. The proportion of participants who passed their stone did not differ between MET and placebo; 80% of the placebo group (303 of 379 participants) passed the stone, compared with 81% (307 of 378) of the tamsulosin group and 80% (304 of 379) of the nifedipine group. The odds ratio (OR) for MET vs placebo was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.43) and the OR for tamsulosin vs nifedipine was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.53). These findings did not change with further subgroup analysis, including by sex, stone size (≤5 mm vs >5 mm), or stone location.

There were no differences between groups in time to stone passage as measured by clinical report and confirmed by imaging. Time to passage of stone was available for 237 (21%) of participants. The mean days to stone passage was 15.9 (n=84) for placebo, 16.5 (n=79) for tamsulosin and 16.2 (n=74) for nifedipine, with a MET vs placebo difference of 0.5 days (95% CI, -2.9 to 3.9; P=.78). Sensitivity analysis accounting for bias from missing data did not change this outcome.

No differences in analgesic use or pain. Self-reported use of pain medication during the first 4 weeks was similar between groups: 59% (placebo patients), 56% (tamsulosin), and 56% (nifedipine). The mean days of pain medication use was 10.5 for placebo, 11.6 for tamsulosin, and 10.7 for nifedipine, with a MET vs placebo difference of 0.6 days (95% CI, -1.6 to 2.8; P=.45).

There was no difference between groups in the VAS pain score at 4 weeks. The MET vs placebo difference was 0.0 (95% CI, -0.4 to 0.4; P=.96) and the mean VAS pain score was 1.2 for placebo, 1.0 for tamsulosin, and 1.3 for nifedipine.

 

 

WHAT'S NEW: This large RCT contradicts results from previous meta-analyses

The SUSPEND study is the first large, multi­center RCT of MET with tamsulosin or nifedipine for kidney stones that used patient-oriented outcomes to find no benefit for stone expulsion, analgesic use, or reported pain compared to placebo. The discrepancy with prior meta-analyses is not unusual. Up to one-third of meta-analyses that show positive outcomes of a therapy are subsequently altered by the inclusion of results from a single, large, multicenter, well-designed RCT.9

CAVEATS: This trial included fewer women than previous studies

The SUSPEND study included a smaller proportion of women than previously published case series due to a need for a diagnostic CT KUB, which excluded more women than men due to radiation concerns. However, the proportion of women was balanced across all groups in this trial, and there was no evidence that sex impacted the efficacy of treatment for the primary outcome.1

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

We see no challenges to the implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Click here to view PURL METHODOLOGY

 

PRACTICE CHANGER

Do not prescribe tamsulosin or nifedipine for stone expulsion in patients with ureteral stones ≤10 mm.1

Strength of recommendation

A: Based on a high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:341-349.

 

 

Illustrative case

Bob Z, age 48, presents to the emergency department (ED) with unspecified groin pain. A computed tomography scan of the kidney, ureter, and bladder (CT KUB) finds evidence of a single ureteral stone measuring 8 mm. He’s prescribed medication for the pain and discharged. The day after his ED visit, he comes to your office to discuss further treatment options. Should you prescribe tamsulosin or nifedipine to help him pass the stone?

The most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found kidney stones affect 8.8% of the population.2 Outpatient therapy is indicated for patients with ureteric colic secondary to stones ≤10 mm who do not have uncontrolled pain, impaired kidney function, or severe infection. Routine outpatient care includes oral hydration, antiemetics, and pain medications. Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is also used to facilitate stone passage. MET is increasingly becoming part of routine care; use of MET in kidney stone patients in the United States has grown from 14% in 2009 to 64% in 2012.3,4

The joint European Association of Urology/American Urological Association Nephrolithiasis Guideline Panel supports the use of MET.5 Meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) or a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine) can reduce pain and lead to quicker stone passage and a higher rate of eventual stone passage when compared to placebo or observation.6,7 However, these reviews included small, heterogeneous studies with a high or unclear risk of bias.

Treatment with tamsulosin or nifedipine provided no benefits in terms of rate of kidney stone passage, time to passage, analgesic use, or pain.

STUDY SUMMARY: MET doesn’t increase the rate of stone passage

The SUSPEND (Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage ENabled by Drugs) trial1 was a multicenter RCT designed to determine the effectiveness of tamsulosin or nifedipine as MET for patients ages 18 to 65 years with a single ureteric stone measuring ≤10 mm on CT KUB, which has 98% diagnostic accuracy.8 (Stones >10 mm typically require surgery or lithotripsy.)

In this RCT, 1167 adults were randomized to take tamsulosin 0.4 mg/d, nifedipine 30 mg/d, or placebo for 4 weeks or until the stone spontaneously passed, whichever came first. The participants, clinicians, and research staff were blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone, as indicated in patient self-reported questionnaires and case-report forms completed by researchers. Secondary outcomes were time to stone passage and pain as assessed by analgesic use and a visual analogue scale (VAS).

At 4 weeks, 1136 (97%) of the randomized participants had data available for analysis. The proportion of participants who passed their stone did not differ between MET and placebo; 80% of the placebo group (303 of 379 participants) passed the stone, compared with 81% (307 of 378) of the tamsulosin group and 80% (304 of 379) of the nifedipine group. The odds ratio (OR) for MET vs placebo was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.43) and the OR for tamsulosin vs nifedipine was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.53). These findings did not change with further subgroup analysis, including by sex, stone size (≤5 mm vs >5 mm), or stone location.

There were no differences between groups in time to stone passage as measured by clinical report and confirmed by imaging. Time to passage of stone was available for 237 (21%) of participants. The mean days to stone passage was 15.9 (n=84) for placebo, 16.5 (n=79) for tamsulosin and 16.2 (n=74) for nifedipine, with a MET vs placebo difference of 0.5 days (95% CI, -2.9 to 3.9; P=.78). Sensitivity analysis accounting for bias from missing data did not change this outcome.

No differences in analgesic use or pain. Self-reported use of pain medication during the first 4 weeks was similar between groups: 59% (placebo patients), 56% (tamsulosin), and 56% (nifedipine). The mean days of pain medication use was 10.5 for placebo, 11.6 for tamsulosin, and 10.7 for nifedipine, with a MET vs placebo difference of 0.6 days (95% CI, -1.6 to 2.8; P=.45).

There was no difference between groups in the VAS pain score at 4 weeks. The MET vs placebo difference was 0.0 (95% CI, -0.4 to 0.4; P=.96) and the mean VAS pain score was 1.2 for placebo, 1.0 for tamsulosin, and 1.3 for nifedipine.

 

 

WHAT'S NEW: This large RCT contradicts results from previous meta-analyses

The SUSPEND study is the first large, multi­center RCT of MET with tamsulosin or nifedipine for kidney stones that used patient-oriented outcomes to find no benefit for stone expulsion, analgesic use, or reported pain compared to placebo. The discrepancy with prior meta-analyses is not unusual. Up to one-third of meta-analyses that show positive outcomes of a therapy are subsequently altered by the inclusion of results from a single, large, multicenter, well-designed RCT.9

CAVEATS: This trial included fewer women than previous studies

The SUSPEND study included a smaller proportion of women than previously published case series due to a need for a diagnostic CT KUB, which excluded more women than men due to radiation concerns. However, the proportion of women was balanced across all groups in this trial, and there was no evidence that sex impacted the efficacy of treatment for the primary outcome.1

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

We see no challenges to the implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Click here to view PURL METHODOLOGY

References

 

1. Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:341-349.

2. Scales CD Jr., Smith AC, Hanley JM, et al. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012;62:160-165.

3. Fwu CU, Eggers PW, Kimmel PL, et al. Emergency department visits, use of imaging, and drugs for urolithiasis have increased in the United States. Kidney Int. 2013;89:479-486.

4. Bagga H, Appa A, Wang R, et al. 2257 medical expulsion therapy is underutilized in women presenting to an emergency department with acute urinary stone disease. J Urol. 2013;189:e925-e926.

5. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc; European Association of Urology. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1610-1631.

6. Campschroer T, Zhu Y, Duijvesz D, et al. Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;4:CD008509.

7. Seitz C, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F, et al. Medical therapy to facilitate the passage of stones: what is the evidence? Eur Urol. 2009;56:455-471.

8. Worster A, Preyra I, Weaver B, et al. The accuracy of noncontrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:280-286.

9. LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:536-542.

References

 

1. Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:341-349.

2. Scales CD Jr., Smith AC, Hanley JM, et al. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012;62:160-165.

3. Fwu CU, Eggers PW, Kimmel PL, et al. Emergency department visits, use of imaging, and drugs for urolithiasis have increased in the United States. Kidney Int. 2013;89:479-486.

4. Bagga H, Appa A, Wang R, et al. 2257 medical expulsion therapy is underutilized in women presenting to an emergency department with acute urinary stone disease. J Urol. 2013;189:e925-e926.

5. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al; American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc; European Association of Urology. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1610-1631.

6. Campschroer T, Zhu Y, Duijvesz D, et al. Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;4:CD008509.

7. Seitz C, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F, et al. Medical therapy to facilitate the passage of stones: what is the evidence? Eur Urol. 2009;56:455-471.

8. Worster A, Preyra I, Weaver B, et al. The accuracy of noncontrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:280-286.

9. LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:536-542.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Page Number
118-120
Page Number
118-120
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Kidney stones? It’s time to rethink those meds
Display Headline
Kidney stones? It’s time to rethink those meds
Legacy Keywords
Andrew H. Slattengren, DO, Shailendra Prasad, MBBS, MPH, Jennie B. Jarrett, PharmD, BCPS, kidney stones, nephrology, ureteral stone, medical expulsive therapy, urology, Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage ENabled by Drugs, renal
Legacy Keywords
Andrew H. Slattengren, DO, Shailendra Prasad, MBBS, MPH, Jennie B. Jarrett, PharmD, BCPS, kidney stones, nephrology, ureteral stone, medical expulsive therapy, urology, Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage ENabled by Drugs, renal
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Copyright © 2016. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Article PDF Media
Media Files

Is lower BP worth it in higher-risk patients with diabetes or coronary disease?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Is lower BP worth it in higher-risk patients with diabetes or coronary disease?
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER:

There is no simple answer; the risk/benefit picture is complicated. Controlling blood pressure to a target of 130/80 mm Hg or lower produces mixed results in patients with diabetes and coronary disease equivalents (chronic kidney disease [CKD], coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, and previous stroke).

No evidence indicates that patients with diabetes or most patients with CKD have better outcomes if their blood pressure is controlled below 140/90 mm Hg. Patients with diabetes controlled to lower systolic blood pressure targets (below 120 mm Hg) have fewer strokes, but more serious adverse events. Achieving diastolic blood pressure targets below 80 mm Hg doesn’t reduce mortality, strokes, myocardial infarction, or congestive heart failure (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A, systematic review of randomized controlled trials [RCTs]).

Tight blood pressure control (approximately 130/80 mm Hg or lower) reduces the risk of kidney failure by 27% in CKD patients with proteinuria at baseline. In patients without proteinuria, it doesn’t add benefit over standard blood pressure control (140/90 mm Hg) for reducing kidney failure, mortality, or cardiovascular events (SOR: A, meta-analysis of RCTs).

Controlling hypertension to 130/80 mm Hg or lower in patients with coronary artery disease reduces heart failure (27%) and stroke (18%) but increases the incidence of hypotensive episodes (220%) when compared with standard 140/90 mm Hg target blood pressure. Lower target pressures don’t affect total or cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or angina, but do increase the need for revascularization in 6% of patients (SOR: A, meta-analysis of RCTs).

Controlling systolic blood pressure to a target of 120 mm Hg, compared with the standard target of 140 mm Hg, reduces a composite outcome (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, congestive heart failure, or cardiovascular death) by 25% and a secondary outcome of all-cause mortality by 27% in patients ages 50 and older with cardiovascular risk factors (but not diabetes or previous stroke).

However, intensive control doesn’t significantly improve the composite outcome in patients who are female, black, or younger than 75 years, or who have systolic blood pressures above 132 mm Hg, previous CKD, or previous cardiovascular disease. Intensive control causes more hypotension, syncope, and electrolyte abnormalities, but not falls resulting in injuries (SOR: B, large RCT).

No evidence-based studies exist to guide BP control in patients with peripheral artery disease or previous stroke. Current guidelines recommend treating hypertension to a target of 140/90 mm Hg in these patients.

 

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A Cochrane systematic review of 5 RCTs with a total of 7314 patients evaluated cardiovascular outcomes after 4.7 years follow-up in patients with diabetes who were treated for hypertension to either “lower” or “standard” target blood pressures.1 One trial in the review (ACCORD, 4734 patients) compared outcomes from significantly lower and standard systolic blood pressures (119/64 mm Hg vs 134/71 mm Hg; P<.0001) in patients with diabetes and either cardiovascular disease or 2 risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The authors evaluated outcomes based on achieved systolic blood pressures rather than intention to treat.

They found a reduced incidence of stroke (risk ratio [RR]=0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.88; P=.009; number needed to treat [NNT]=91) but no change in mortality (RR=1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.30) at lower blood pressures. Achieving the lower systolic blood pressure increased the number of serious adverse effects, however (RR=2.58; 95% CI, 1.70-3.91; P<.0001; absolute risk increase=2%; number needed to harm=50).

 

 

Four RCTs (2580 patients) in the systematic review compared clinical outcomes produced by achieving significantly lower or standard diastolic blood pressure targets (128/76 mm Hg vs 135/83 mm Hg; P<.0001). The trials found no significant difference in total mortality (RR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.01), stroke (RR=0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.05), myocardial infarction (RR=0.95; 95% CI, 0.64-1.40), or congestive heart failure (RR=1.06; 95% CI, 0.58-1.92). Sensitivity analysis of trials comparing diastolic blood pressure targets below 80 mm Hg and below 90 mm Hg showed similar results.

The 4 RCTs didn’t report end-stage renal failure or total serious adverse events. The authors stated that there was a high risk of selection bias in favor of lower blood pressure targets.

Patients with CKD

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 RCTs (9287 patients) compared outcomes of achieving lower blood pressure targets or standard targets in patients with CKD. Intensive blood pressure treatment reduced the risk of kidney failure only in patients with proteinuria at baseline (hazard ratio [HR]=0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86; 5 trials, 1703 patients).2 Investigators didn’t report the degree of proteinuria for all the trials, but in one trial, patients had proteinuria of 1 to 3 g/d.

Achieved blood pressures in the intensive therapy group averaged 7.7/4.9 mm Hg lower, with pressures typically ranging from 75 to 80 mm Hg diastolic and 125 to 135 mm Hg systolic. Intensive blood pressure lowering didn’t reduce kidney failure in patients without baseline proteinuria (HR=1.12; 95% CI, 0.67-1.87; 3 trials, 1218 patients). Nor did it reduce death (RR=0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.05; 10 trials, 6788 patients) or major cardiovascular outcomes (RR=1.09; 95% CI, 0.83-1.42; 5 trials, 5308 patients).

Patients with coronary artery disease

A meta-analysis of 15 RCTs (66,504 patients) that evaluated tight control of hypertension (≤130/80 mm Hg) compared with standard control (<140/90 mm Hg) in patients with coronary artery disease found reduced rates of heart failure (RR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84; 10 trials, 37,990 patients) and stroke (RR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; 9 trials, 8344 patients) but increased rates of hypotension (RR=2.19; 95% CI, 1.80-2.66; 6 trials, 17,836 patients).3

Achieving lower blood pressure targets didn’t reduce all-cause mortality (RR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.04; 13 trials, 39,262 patients), cardiovascular mortality (RR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.07; 11 trials, 38,452 patients), myocardial infarction (RR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-1.00; 14 trials, 39,696 patients), or angina (RR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.0; 11 trials, 28,007 patients).  But it slightly increased the need for revascularization (RR=1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12; 11 trials, 38,450 patients).

 

 

The SPRINT trial: Promising results for intensive treatment of some patients

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), a large RCT, found that targeting systolic blood pressures below 120 mm Hg (compared with a target below 140 mm Hg) in middle-aged and older patients with increased cardiovascular risk reduced a composite outcome that included cardiovascular death by 25%.4

Researchers recruited 9361 patients older than 50 years (mean age 68 years; >28% older than 75 years) with systolic blood pressure between 130 and 180 mm Hg and increased cardiovascular risk defined by one or more of the following: preexisting cardiovascular disease, CKD with estimated glomerular filtration rate between 20 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, age >75 years, and Framingham 10-year risk of 15% or more. They excluded patients with diabetes or previous stroke.

Patients were randomized to intensive treatment (target systolic BP <120; mean achieved 121.4) or standard treatment (target systolic BP <140; mean achieved 136.2). Treatment typically comprised 3 (intensive) or 2 (standard) agents. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, congestive heart failure, or cardiovascular death.

The study, which was originally intended to run for 5 years, was stopped at 3.26 years based on positive results. Intensive treatment improved the primary composite outcome overall (1.65% vs 2.19%; HR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.89; P<.001; NNT=61 over 3.26 years), all-cause mortality (HR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.90; P=.003; NNT=90), and cardiovascular death (HR=0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.85; P=.005; NNT=172).

However, intensive treatment didn’t significantly improve the primary composite outcome in these subgroups:

  • female patients (HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.62-1.14)
  • black patients (HR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.55-1.06)
  • patients with preexisting CKD (HR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.63-1.07) or cardiovascular disease (HR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.62-1.09)
  • patients younger than 75 years (HR=0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00)
  • patients with systolic blood pressures higher than 132 mm Hg (BP >132 to <145 mm Hg, HR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.57-1.03; BP ≥145 mm Hg, HR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.09).

While the SPRINT study found that targeting systolic BP below 120 mm Hg reduced a composite outcome that included cardiovascular death, it didn’t improve this outcome in certain patient subgroups.

Intensive treatment also produced more net serious adverse events (HR=1.88; 4.7% vs 2.5%; P<.001), including: ≥30% decrease of glomerular filtration rates to values below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR=3.49; 95% CI, 2.44-5.10; P<.001), syncope (HR=1.44; 3.5% vs 2.4%; P=.003), hypotension (HR=1.70; 3.4% vs 2.0%; P<.001), and electrolyte abnormalities (HR=1.38; 3.8% vs 2.8%; P=.006). It didn’t cause injurious falls (HR=1.00; P=.97) or orthostatic hypotension in clinic (HR=0.88; 16.6% vs 18.3%; P=.01).

Guidelines for patients with peripheral artery disease, previous stroke

A national guideline by an expert panel recommended treating patients with hypertension who have peripheral artery disease or previous stroke to standard values for the general population: <140/90 mm Hg if ages 60 years or younger, <150/90 mm Hg if older than 60 years.5 

References

1. Arguedas JA, Leiva V, Wright JM. Blood pressure targets for hypertension in people with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(10):CD008277.

2. Lv J, Ehteshami P, Sarnak M, et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on the progression of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2013;185:949-957.

3. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Volodarskiy A, et al. Blood pressure targets in patients with coronary artery disease: observations from traditional and Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart. 2013;99:601-613.

4. SPRINT Research Group, Wright JT, Williamson JD, Whelton PK, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2103-2116.

5. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311:507-520.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Gary Kelsberg, MD
Telly Russell, MD

University of Washington at Valley Family Medicine Residency, Renton

Sarah Safranek, MLIS
University of Washington Health Sciences Library, Seattle

DEPUTY EDITOR
Jon Neher, MD

University of Washington at Valley Family Medicine Residency, Renton

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
129-131
Legacy Keywords
Gary Kelsberg, MD, Telly Russell, MD, Sarah Safranek, MLIS, blood pressure, BP, coronary disease, diabetes, cardiovascular
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Gary Kelsberg, MD
Telly Russell, MD

University of Washington at Valley Family Medicine Residency, Renton

Sarah Safranek, MLIS
University of Washington Health Sciences Library, Seattle

DEPUTY EDITOR
Jon Neher, MD

University of Washington at Valley Family Medicine Residency, Renton

Author and Disclosure Information

Gary Kelsberg, MD
Telly Russell, MD

University of Washington at Valley Family Medicine Residency, Renton

Sarah Safranek, MLIS
University of Washington Health Sciences Library, Seattle

DEPUTY EDITOR
Jon Neher, MD

University of Washington at Valley Family Medicine Residency, Renton

Article PDF
Article PDF
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER:

There is no simple answer; the risk/benefit picture is complicated. Controlling blood pressure to a target of 130/80 mm Hg or lower produces mixed results in patients with diabetes and coronary disease equivalents (chronic kidney disease [CKD], coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, and previous stroke).

No evidence indicates that patients with diabetes or most patients with CKD have better outcomes if their blood pressure is controlled below 140/90 mm Hg. Patients with diabetes controlled to lower systolic blood pressure targets (below 120 mm Hg) have fewer strokes, but more serious adverse events. Achieving diastolic blood pressure targets below 80 mm Hg doesn’t reduce mortality, strokes, myocardial infarction, or congestive heart failure (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A, systematic review of randomized controlled trials [RCTs]).

Tight blood pressure control (approximately 130/80 mm Hg or lower) reduces the risk of kidney failure by 27% in CKD patients with proteinuria at baseline. In patients without proteinuria, it doesn’t add benefit over standard blood pressure control (140/90 mm Hg) for reducing kidney failure, mortality, or cardiovascular events (SOR: A, meta-analysis of RCTs).

Controlling hypertension to 130/80 mm Hg or lower in patients with coronary artery disease reduces heart failure (27%) and stroke (18%) but increases the incidence of hypotensive episodes (220%) when compared with standard 140/90 mm Hg target blood pressure. Lower target pressures don’t affect total or cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or angina, but do increase the need for revascularization in 6% of patients (SOR: A, meta-analysis of RCTs).

Controlling systolic blood pressure to a target of 120 mm Hg, compared with the standard target of 140 mm Hg, reduces a composite outcome (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, congestive heart failure, or cardiovascular death) by 25% and a secondary outcome of all-cause mortality by 27% in patients ages 50 and older with cardiovascular risk factors (but not diabetes or previous stroke).

However, intensive control doesn’t significantly improve the composite outcome in patients who are female, black, or younger than 75 years, or who have systolic blood pressures above 132 mm Hg, previous CKD, or previous cardiovascular disease. Intensive control causes more hypotension, syncope, and electrolyte abnormalities, but not falls resulting in injuries (SOR: B, large RCT).

No evidence-based studies exist to guide BP control in patients with peripheral artery disease or previous stroke. Current guidelines recommend treating hypertension to a target of 140/90 mm Hg in these patients.

 

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A Cochrane systematic review of 5 RCTs with a total of 7314 patients evaluated cardiovascular outcomes after 4.7 years follow-up in patients with diabetes who were treated for hypertension to either “lower” or “standard” target blood pressures.1 One trial in the review (ACCORD, 4734 patients) compared outcomes from significantly lower and standard systolic blood pressures (119/64 mm Hg vs 134/71 mm Hg; P<.0001) in patients with diabetes and either cardiovascular disease or 2 risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The authors evaluated outcomes based on achieved systolic blood pressures rather than intention to treat.

They found a reduced incidence of stroke (risk ratio [RR]=0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.88; P=.009; number needed to treat [NNT]=91) but no change in mortality (RR=1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.30) at lower blood pressures. Achieving the lower systolic blood pressure increased the number of serious adverse effects, however (RR=2.58; 95% CI, 1.70-3.91; P<.0001; absolute risk increase=2%; number needed to harm=50).

 

 

Four RCTs (2580 patients) in the systematic review compared clinical outcomes produced by achieving significantly lower or standard diastolic blood pressure targets (128/76 mm Hg vs 135/83 mm Hg; P<.0001). The trials found no significant difference in total mortality (RR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.01), stroke (RR=0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.05), myocardial infarction (RR=0.95; 95% CI, 0.64-1.40), or congestive heart failure (RR=1.06; 95% CI, 0.58-1.92). Sensitivity analysis of trials comparing diastolic blood pressure targets below 80 mm Hg and below 90 mm Hg showed similar results.

The 4 RCTs didn’t report end-stage renal failure or total serious adverse events. The authors stated that there was a high risk of selection bias in favor of lower blood pressure targets.

Patients with CKD

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 RCTs (9287 patients) compared outcomes of achieving lower blood pressure targets or standard targets in patients with CKD. Intensive blood pressure treatment reduced the risk of kidney failure only in patients with proteinuria at baseline (hazard ratio [HR]=0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86; 5 trials, 1703 patients).2 Investigators didn’t report the degree of proteinuria for all the trials, but in one trial, patients had proteinuria of 1 to 3 g/d.

Achieved blood pressures in the intensive therapy group averaged 7.7/4.9 mm Hg lower, with pressures typically ranging from 75 to 80 mm Hg diastolic and 125 to 135 mm Hg systolic. Intensive blood pressure lowering didn’t reduce kidney failure in patients without baseline proteinuria (HR=1.12; 95% CI, 0.67-1.87; 3 trials, 1218 patients). Nor did it reduce death (RR=0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.05; 10 trials, 6788 patients) or major cardiovascular outcomes (RR=1.09; 95% CI, 0.83-1.42; 5 trials, 5308 patients).

Patients with coronary artery disease

A meta-analysis of 15 RCTs (66,504 patients) that evaluated tight control of hypertension (≤130/80 mm Hg) compared with standard control (<140/90 mm Hg) in patients with coronary artery disease found reduced rates of heart failure (RR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84; 10 trials, 37,990 patients) and stroke (RR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; 9 trials, 8344 patients) but increased rates of hypotension (RR=2.19; 95% CI, 1.80-2.66; 6 trials, 17,836 patients).3

Achieving lower blood pressure targets didn’t reduce all-cause mortality (RR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.04; 13 trials, 39,262 patients), cardiovascular mortality (RR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.07; 11 trials, 38,452 patients), myocardial infarction (RR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-1.00; 14 trials, 39,696 patients), or angina (RR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.0; 11 trials, 28,007 patients).  But it slightly increased the need for revascularization (RR=1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12; 11 trials, 38,450 patients).

 

 

The SPRINT trial: Promising results for intensive treatment of some patients

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), a large RCT, found that targeting systolic blood pressures below 120 mm Hg (compared with a target below 140 mm Hg) in middle-aged and older patients with increased cardiovascular risk reduced a composite outcome that included cardiovascular death by 25%.4

Researchers recruited 9361 patients older than 50 years (mean age 68 years; >28% older than 75 years) with systolic blood pressure between 130 and 180 mm Hg and increased cardiovascular risk defined by one or more of the following: preexisting cardiovascular disease, CKD with estimated glomerular filtration rate between 20 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, age >75 years, and Framingham 10-year risk of 15% or more. They excluded patients with diabetes or previous stroke.

Patients were randomized to intensive treatment (target systolic BP <120; mean achieved 121.4) or standard treatment (target systolic BP <140; mean achieved 136.2). Treatment typically comprised 3 (intensive) or 2 (standard) agents. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, congestive heart failure, or cardiovascular death.

The study, which was originally intended to run for 5 years, was stopped at 3.26 years based on positive results. Intensive treatment improved the primary composite outcome overall (1.65% vs 2.19%; HR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.89; P<.001; NNT=61 over 3.26 years), all-cause mortality (HR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.90; P=.003; NNT=90), and cardiovascular death (HR=0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.85; P=.005; NNT=172).

However, intensive treatment didn’t significantly improve the primary composite outcome in these subgroups:

  • female patients (HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.62-1.14)
  • black patients (HR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.55-1.06)
  • patients with preexisting CKD (HR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.63-1.07) or cardiovascular disease (HR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.62-1.09)
  • patients younger than 75 years (HR=0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00)
  • patients with systolic blood pressures higher than 132 mm Hg (BP >132 to <145 mm Hg, HR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.57-1.03; BP ≥145 mm Hg, HR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.09).

While the SPRINT study found that targeting systolic BP below 120 mm Hg reduced a composite outcome that included cardiovascular death, it didn’t improve this outcome in certain patient subgroups.

Intensive treatment also produced more net serious adverse events (HR=1.88; 4.7% vs 2.5%; P<.001), including: ≥30% decrease of glomerular filtration rates to values below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR=3.49; 95% CI, 2.44-5.10; P<.001), syncope (HR=1.44; 3.5% vs 2.4%; P=.003), hypotension (HR=1.70; 3.4% vs 2.0%; P<.001), and electrolyte abnormalities (HR=1.38; 3.8% vs 2.8%; P=.006). It didn’t cause injurious falls (HR=1.00; P=.97) or orthostatic hypotension in clinic (HR=0.88; 16.6% vs 18.3%; P=.01).

Guidelines for patients with peripheral artery disease, previous stroke

A national guideline by an expert panel recommended treating patients with hypertension who have peripheral artery disease or previous stroke to standard values for the general population: <140/90 mm Hg if ages 60 years or younger, <150/90 mm Hg if older than 60 years.5 

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER:

There is no simple answer; the risk/benefit picture is complicated. Controlling blood pressure to a target of 130/80 mm Hg or lower produces mixed results in patients with diabetes and coronary disease equivalents (chronic kidney disease [CKD], coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, and previous stroke).

No evidence indicates that patients with diabetes or most patients with CKD have better outcomes if their blood pressure is controlled below 140/90 mm Hg. Patients with diabetes controlled to lower systolic blood pressure targets (below 120 mm Hg) have fewer strokes, but more serious adverse events. Achieving diastolic blood pressure targets below 80 mm Hg doesn’t reduce mortality, strokes, myocardial infarction, or congestive heart failure (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A, systematic review of randomized controlled trials [RCTs]).

Tight blood pressure control (approximately 130/80 mm Hg or lower) reduces the risk of kidney failure by 27% in CKD patients with proteinuria at baseline. In patients without proteinuria, it doesn’t add benefit over standard blood pressure control (140/90 mm Hg) for reducing kidney failure, mortality, or cardiovascular events (SOR: A, meta-analysis of RCTs).

Controlling hypertension to 130/80 mm Hg or lower in patients with coronary artery disease reduces heart failure (27%) and stroke (18%) but increases the incidence of hypotensive episodes (220%) when compared with standard 140/90 mm Hg target blood pressure. Lower target pressures don’t affect total or cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or angina, but do increase the need for revascularization in 6% of patients (SOR: A, meta-analysis of RCTs).

Controlling systolic blood pressure to a target of 120 mm Hg, compared with the standard target of 140 mm Hg, reduces a composite outcome (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, congestive heart failure, or cardiovascular death) by 25% and a secondary outcome of all-cause mortality by 27% in patients ages 50 and older with cardiovascular risk factors (but not diabetes or previous stroke).

However, intensive control doesn’t significantly improve the composite outcome in patients who are female, black, or younger than 75 years, or who have systolic blood pressures above 132 mm Hg, previous CKD, or previous cardiovascular disease. Intensive control causes more hypotension, syncope, and electrolyte abnormalities, but not falls resulting in injuries (SOR: B, large RCT).

No evidence-based studies exist to guide BP control in patients with peripheral artery disease or previous stroke. Current guidelines recommend treating hypertension to a target of 140/90 mm Hg in these patients.

 

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A Cochrane systematic review of 5 RCTs with a total of 7314 patients evaluated cardiovascular outcomes after 4.7 years follow-up in patients with diabetes who were treated for hypertension to either “lower” or “standard” target blood pressures.1 One trial in the review (ACCORD, 4734 patients) compared outcomes from significantly lower and standard systolic blood pressures (119/64 mm Hg vs 134/71 mm Hg; P<.0001) in patients with diabetes and either cardiovascular disease or 2 risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The authors evaluated outcomes based on achieved systolic blood pressures rather than intention to treat.

They found a reduced incidence of stroke (risk ratio [RR]=0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.88; P=.009; number needed to treat [NNT]=91) but no change in mortality (RR=1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.30) at lower blood pressures. Achieving the lower systolic blood pressure increased the number of serious adverse effects, however (RR=2.58; 95% CI, 1.70-3.91; P<.0001; absolute risk increase=2%; number needed to harm=50).

 

 

Four RCTs (2580 patients) in the systematic review compared clinical outcomes produced by achieving significantly lower or standard diastolic blood pressure targets (128/76 mm Hg vs 135/83 mm Hg; P<.0001). The trials found no significant difference in total mortality (RR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.01), stroke (RR=0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.05), myocardial infarction (RR=0.95; 95% CI, 0.64-1.40), or congestive heart failure (RR=1.06; 95% CI, 0.58-1.92). Sensitivity analysis of trials comparing diastolic blood pressure targets below 80 mm Hg and below 90 mm Hg showed similar results.

The 4 RCTs didn’t report end-stage renal failure or total serious adverse events. The authors stated that there was a high risk of selection bias in favor of lower blood pressure targets.

Patients with CKD

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 RCTs (9287 patients) compared outcomes of achieving lower blood pressure targets or standard targets in patients with CKD. Intensive blood pressure treatment reduced the risk of kidney failure only in patients with proteinuria at baseline (hazard ratio [HR]=0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86; 5 trials, 1703 patients).2 Investigators didn’t report the degree of proteinuria for all the trials, but in one trial, patients had proteinuria of 1 to 3 g/d.

Achieved blood pressures in the intensive therapy group averaged 7.7/4.9 mm Hg lower, with pressures typically ranging from 75 to 80 mm Hg diastolic and 125 to 135 mm Hg systolic. Intensive blood pressure lowering didn’t reduce kidney failure in patients without baseline proteinuria (HR=1.12; 95% CI, 0.67-1.87; 3 trials, 1218 patients). Nor did it reduce death (RR=0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.05; 10 trials, 6788 patients) or major cardiovascular outcomes (RR=1.09; 95% CI, 0.83-1.42; 5 trials, 5308 patients).

Patients with coronary artery disease

A meta-analysis of 15 RCTs (66,504 patients) that evaluated tight control of hypertension (≤130/80 mm Hg) compared with standard control (<140/90 mm Hg) in patients with coronary artery disease found reduced rates of heart failure (RR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84; 10 trials, 37,990 patients) and stroke (RR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; 9 trials, 8344 patients) but increased rates of hypotension (RR=2.19; 95% CI, 1.80-2.66; 6 trials, 17,836 patients).3

Achieving lower blood pressure targets didn’t reduce all-cause mortality (RR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.04; 13 trials, 39,262 patients), cardiovascular mortality (RR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.07; 11 trials, 38,452 patients), myocardial infarction (RR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-1.00; 14 trials, 39,696 patients), or angina (RR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.0; 11 trials, 28,007 patients).  But it slightly increased the need for revascularization (RR=1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12; 11 trials, 38,450 patients).

 

 

The SPRINT trial: Promising results for intensive treatment of some patients

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), a large RCT, found that targeting systolic blood pressures below 120 mm Hg (compared with a target below 140 mm Hg) in middle-aged and older patients with increased cardiovascular risk reduced a composite outcome that included cardiovascular death by 25%.4

Researchers recruited 9361 patients older than 50 years (mean age 68 years; >28% older than 75 years) with systolic blood pressure between 130 and 180 mm Hg and increased cardiovascular risk defined by one or more of the following: preexisting cardiovascular disease, CKD with estimated glomerular filtration rate between 20 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, age >75 years, and Framingham 10-year risk of 15% or more. They excluded patients with diabetes or previous stroke.

Patients were randomized to intensive treatment (target systolic BP <120; mean achieved 121.4) or standard treatment (target systolic BP <140; mean achieved 136.2). Treatment typically comprised 3 (intensive) or 2 (standard) agents. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, congestive heart failure, or cardiovascular death.

The study, which was originally intended to run for 5 years, was stopped at 3.26 years based on positive results. Intensive treatment improved the primary composite outcome overall (1.65% vs 2.19%; HR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.89; P<.001; NNT=61 over 3.26 years), all-cause mortality (HR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.90; P=.003; NNT=90), and cardiovascular death (HR=0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.85; P=.005; NNT=172).

However, intensive treatment didn’t significantly improve the primary composite outcome in these subgroups:

  • female patients (HR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.62-1.14)
  • black patients (HR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.55-1.06)
  • patients with preexisting CKD (HR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.63-1.07) or cardiovascular disease (HR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.62-1.09)
  • patients younger than 75 years (HR=0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00)
  • patients with systolic blood pressures higher than 132 mm Hg (BP >132 to <145 mm Hg, HR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.57-1.03; BP ≥145 mm Hg, HR=0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.09).

While the SPRINT study found that targeting systolic BP below 120 mm Hg reduced a composite outcome that included cardiovascular death, it didn’t improve this outcome in certain patient subgroups.

Intensive treatment also produced more net serious adverse events (HR=1.88; 4.7% vs 2.5%; P<.001), including: ≥30% decrease of glomerular filtration rates to values below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR=3.49; 95% CI, 2.44-5.10; P<.001), syncope (HR=1.44; 3.5% vs 2.4%; P=.003), hypotension (HR=1.70; 3.4% vs 2.0%; P<.001), and electrolyte abnormalities (HR=1.38; 3.8% vs 2.8%; P=.006). It didn’t cause injurious falls (HR=1.00; P=.97) or orthostatic hypotension in clinic (HR=0.88; 16.6% vs 18.3%; P=.01).

Guidelines for patients with peripheral artery disease, previous stroke

A national guideline by an expert panel recommended treating patients with hypertension who have peripheral artery disease or previous stroke to standard values for the general population: <140/90 mm Hg if ages 60 years or younger, <150/90 mm Hg if older than 60 years.5 

References

1. Arguedas JA, Leiva V, Wright JM. Blood pressure targets for hypertension in people with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(10):CD008277.

2. Lv J, Ehteshami P, Sarnak M, et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on the progression of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2013;185:949-957.

3. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Volodarskiy A, et al. Blood pressure targets in patients with coronary artery disease: observations from traditional and Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart. 2013;99:601-613.

4. SPRINT Research Group, Wright JT, Williamson JD, Whelton PK, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2103-2116.

5. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311:507-520.

References

1. Arguedas JA, Leiva V, Wright JM. Blood pressure targets for hypertension in people with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(10):CD008277.

2. Lv J, Ehteshami P, Sarnak M, et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on the progression of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2013;185:949-957.

3. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Volodarskiy A, et al. Blood pressure targets in patients with coronary artery disease: observations from traditional and Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart. 2013;99:601-613.

4. SPRINT Research Group, Wright JT, Williamson JD, Whelton PK, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2103-2116.

5. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311:507-520.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Page Number
129-131
Page Number
129-131
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Is lower BP worth it in higher-risk patients with diabetes or coronary disease?
Display Headline
Is lower BP worth it in higher-risk patients with diabetes or coronary disease?
Legacy Keywords
Gary Kelsberg, MD, Telly Russell, MD, Sarah Safranek, MLIS, blood pressure, BP, coronary disease, diabetes, cardiovascular
Legacy Keywords
Gary Kelsberg, MD, Telly Russell, MD, Sarah Safranek, MLIS, blood pressure, BP, coronary disease, diabetes, cardiovascular
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Evidence-based answers from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network

Disallow All Ads
Article PDF Media

Do corticosteroid injections improve carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Do corticosteroid injections improve carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms?
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER:

Yes. Injected corticosteroids reduce symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) more effectively than placebo or systemic steroids, but no better than anti-inflammatory medication and splinting, from one to 12 weeks after therapy (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A, meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and consistent RCT).

A 40-mg injection of methylprednisolone reduces symptoms as effectively as an 80-mg injection for as long as 10 weeks, but the 80-mg dose reduces progression to surgery at one year (SOR: B, RCT). Long-term effects of injections decrease by 12 months (SOR: B, RCT).

After corticosteroid injections, 14% of patients proceed to surgery at one year, and 33% proceed to surgery at 5 years (SOR: B, cohort trial).

 

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2007 Cochrane review of 12 RCTs with 671 patients compared the efficacy of corticosteroid injections for CTS with placebo injections or other nonsurgical interventions.1 Patients who received corticosteroid injections showed clinical improvement at one month or less compared with placebo (2 trials, 141 patients; 73% corticosteroids vs 28% placebo; relative risk [RR]=2.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-3.87; number needed to treat [NNT]=2).

Compared with systemic corticosteroids, corticosteroid injections didn’t improve symptoms on a Global Symptom Score (scale of 0-50, with 50 indicating the most severe symptoms) at 2 weeks (one trial, 60 patients; mean difference [MD]= −4.2; 95% CI, −8.7 to 0.26), but did improve symptoms at 8 weeks (MD= −7.16; 95% CI, −11.5 to −2.86) and 12 weeks (MD= −7.1; 95% CI, −11.7 to −2.52).

Patients showed no difference in scores between corticosteroid injection and oral anti-inflammatory medication with neutral angle wrist splints on the Symptom Severity Scale (1 to 5, with 5 indicating the most severe symptoms) at 2 weeks (1 trial, 23 patients [37 wrists]; MD=0.0; 95% CI, −0.64 to 0.64) or 8 weeks (MD=0.1; 95% CI, −0.33 to 0.53).

 

 

Higher corticosteroid dose reduces surgery at one year

A 2013 high-quality RCT with 111 patients assessed pain relief and rates of surgery at one year with local corticosteroid injections for CTS.2 This trial had 3 arms with 37 patients in each: 80-mg methylprednisolone injection, 40-mg methylprednisolone injection, or placebo injection.

Both corticosteroid groups showed greater improvement on the Symptom Severity Scale at 10 weeks compared with placebo (40-mg methylprednisolone group: MD= −0.88; 95% CI, −1.3 to −0.46; 80-mg methylprednisolone group: MD= −0.64; 95% CI, −1.06 to −0.21). There was no difference between the methylprednisolone groups.

The incidence of surgery at one year was lower in the 80-mg methylprednisolone group compared with placebo (73% vs 92%; RR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99; NNT=5) but not in the 40-mg methylprednisolone group compared with placebo (81% vs 92%; RR=0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.06).

Corticosteroids improve symptoms and disability, but effects wear off

A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 2010 examined the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections given by general practitioners to 69 patients with CTS.3 Patients were randomized to receive 10 mg of either triamcinolone or saline. They were reassessed after one week, and patients in the saline injection group who had inadequate symptom relief received a triamcinolone injection as bail-out treatment. Follow-up by patient questionnaire was done at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

Investigators assessed symptoms and disability using the Symptom Severity Scale and Functional Disability Scale, which are part of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. Like the Symptom Severity Scale, the Functional Disability Scale is scored from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability.

One week after treatment, the corticosteroid group showed greater improvement in symptom severity and functional disability than the saline group (symptom severity decreased from 2.9 to 1.9 with triamcinolone vs 2.8 to 2.5 with saline; MD=0.64; 95% CI, 0.32-0.96; functional disability decreased from 2.5 to 1.9 with triamcinolone but remained at 2.4 with saline; MD=0.59; 95% CI, 0.23-0.94).

Long-term follow-up of 35 patients who responded to corticosteroid injections found that the effects wore off over 12 months when assessed using the Symptom Severity Scale (mean score 1.5 at 1 month, 2.0 at 12 months; P=.08).

Surgery rates at one and 5 years

A 2012 prospective cohort study examined the 5-year rate of surgical intervention after a 20-mg methylprednisolone injection in 824 patients diagnosed with CTS who had failed conservative treatment.4 A total of 500 patients had a relapse of symptoms, and 372 of them elected to have a second injection. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis determined rates of surgical intervention to be 14.5% (95% CI, 11.9-17) at one year and 33.2% (95% CI, 28.7-37.8) at 5 years.

RECOMMENDATION

A 2010 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons evidence-based practice guideline on the treatment of CTS  recommends corticosteroid injection before considering surgery (Grade B, Level 1 suggested recommendation with good evidence).5

References

1. Marshall S, Tardif G, Ashworth N. Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD001554.

2. Atroshi I, Flondell M, Hofer M, et al. Methylprednisolone injections for the carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:309-317.

3. Peters-Veluthamaningal C, Winters JC, Gronier KH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of local corticosteroid injections for carpal tunnel syndrome in general practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2010;11:54.

4. Jenkins PJ, Duckworth AD, Watts AC, et al. Corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome: a 5-year survivorship analysis. Hand. 2012;7:151-156.

5. Keith MW, Masear V, Chung KC, et al. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:218-219.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Corey Lyon, DO
Jonathan Syfert, MD

University of Colorado Family Medicine Residency, Denver

Joan Nashelsky, MLS
University of Iowa, Iowa City

DEPUTY EDITOR
Rick Guthmann, MD

Advocate Illinois Masonic Family Medicine Residency, Chicago

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
125,128
Legacy Keywords
Corey Lyon, DO, Jonathan Syfert, MD, Joan Nashelsky, MLS, corticosteroid injections, corticosteroids, orthopedics, carpal tunnel, hand, pain, pharmacotherapy
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Corey Lyon, DO
Jonathan Syfert, MD

University of Colorado Family Medicine Residency, Denver

Joan Nashelsky, MLS
University of Iowa, Iowa City

DEPUTY EDITOR
Rick Guthmann, MD

Advocate Illinois Masonic Family Medicine Residency, Chicago

Author and Disclosure Information

Corey Lyon, DO
Jonathan Syfert, MD

University of Colorado Family Medicine Residency, Denver

Joan Nashelsky, MLS
University of Iowa, Iowa City

DEPUTY EDITOR
Rick Guthmann, MD

Advocate Illinois Masonic Family Medicine Residency, Chicago

Article PDF
Article PDF
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER:

Yes. Injected corticosteroids reduce symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) more effectively than placebo or systemic steroids, but no better than anti-inflammatory medication and splinting, from one to 12 weeks after therapy (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A, meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and consistent RCT).

A 40-mg injection of methylprednisolone reduces symptoms as effectively as an 80-mg injection for as long as 10 weeks, but the 80-mg dose reduces progression to surgery at one year (SOR: B, RCT). Long-term effects of injections decrease by 12 months (SOR: B, RCT).

After corticosteroid injections, 14% of patients proceed to surgery at one year, and 33% proceed to surgery at 5 years (SOR: B, cohort trial).

 

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2007 Cochrane review of 12 RCTs with 671 patients compared the efficacy of corticosteroid injections for CTS with placebo injections or other nonsurgical interventions.1 Patients who received corticosteroid injections showed clinical improvement at one month or less compared with placebo (2 trials, 141 patients; 73% corticosteroids vs 28% placebo; relative risk [RR]=2.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-3.87; number needed to treat [NNT]=2).

Compared with systemic corticosteroids, corticosteroid injections didn’t improve symptoms on a Global Symptom Score (scale of 0-50, with 50 indicating the most severe symptoms) at 2 weeks (one trial, 60 patients; mean difference [MD]= −4.2; 95% CI, −8.7 to 0.26), but did improve symptoms at 8 weeks (MD= −7.16; 95% CI, −11.5 to −2.86) and 12 weeks (MD= −7.1; 95% CI, −11.7 to −2.52).

Patients showed no difference in scores between corticosteroid injection and oral anti-inflammatory medication with neutral angle wrist splints on the Symptom Severity Scale (1 to 5, with 5 indicating the most severe symptoms) at 2 weeks (1 trial, 23 patients [37 wrists]; MD=0.0; 95% CI, −0.64 to 0.64) or 8 weeks (MD=0.1; 95% CI, −0.33 to 0.53).

 

 

Higher corticosteroid dose reduces surgery at one year

A 2013 high-quality RCT with 111 patients assessed pain relief and rates of surgery at one year with local corticosteroid injections for CTS.2 This trial had 3 arms with 37 patients in each: 80-mg methylprednisolone injection, 40-mg methylprednisolone injection, or placebo injection.

Both corticosteroid groups showed greater improvement on the Symptom Severity Scale at 10 weeks compared with placebo (40-mg methylprednisolone group: MD= −0.88; 95% CI, −1.3 to −0.46; 80-mg methylprednisolone group: MD= −0.64; 95% CI, −1.06 to −0.21). There was no difference between the methylprednisolone groups.

The incidence of surgery at one year was lower in the 80-mg methylprednisolone group compared with placebo (73% vs 92%; RR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99; NNT=5) but not in the 40-mg methylprednisolone group compared with placebo (81% vs 92%; RR=0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.06).

Corticosteroids improve symptoms and disability, but effects wear off

A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 2010 examined the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections given by general practitioners to 69 patients with CTS.3 Patients were randomized to receive 10 mg of either triamcinolone or saline. They were reassessed after one week, and patients in the saline injection group who had inadequate symptom relief received a triamcinolone injection as bail-out treatment. Follow-up by patient questionnaire was done at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

Investigators assessed symptoms and disability using the Symptom Severity Scale and Functional Disability Scale, which are part of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. Like the Symptom Severity Scale, the Functional Disability Scale is scored from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability.

One week after treatment, the corticosteroid group showed greater improvement in symptom severity and functional disability than the saline group (symptom severity decreased from 2.9 to 1.9 with triamcinolone vs 2.8 to 2.5 with saline; MD=0.64; 95% CI, 0.32-0.96; functional disability decreased from 2.5 to 1.9 with triamcinolone but remained at 2.4 with saline; MD=0.59; 95% CI, 0.23-0.94).

Long-term follow-up of 35 patients who responded to corticosteroid injections found that the effects wore off over 12 months when assessed using the Symptom Severity Scale (mean score 1.5 at 1 month, 2.0 at 12 months; P=.08).

Surgery rates at one and 5 years

A 2012 prospective cohort study examined the 5-year rate of surgical intervention after a 20-mg methylprednisolone injection in 824 patients diagnosed with CTS who had failed conservative treatment.4 A total of 500 patients had a relapse of symptoms, and 372 of them elected to have a second injection. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis determined rates of surgical intervention to be 14.5% (95% CI, 11.9-17) at one year and 33.2% (95% CI, 28.7-37.8) at 5 years.

RECOMMENDATION

A 2010 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons evidence-based practice guideline on the treatment of CTS  recommends corticosteroid injection before considering surgery (Grade B, Level 1 suggested recommendation with good evidence).5

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER:

Yes. Injected corticosteroids reduce symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) more effectively than placebo or systemic steroids, but no better than anti-inflammatory medication and splinting, from one to 12 weeks after therapy (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A, meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and consistent RCT).

A 40-mg injection of methylprednisolone reduces symptoms as effectively as an 80-mg injection for as long as 10 weeks, but the 80-mg dose reduces progression to surgery at one year (SOR: B, RCT). Long-term effects of injections decrease by 12 months (SOR: B, RCT).

After corticosteroid injections, 14% of patients proceed to surgery at one year, and 33% proceed to surgery at 5 years (SOR: B, cohort trial).

 

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2007 Cochrane review of 12 RCTs with 671 patients compared the efficacy of corticosteroid injections for CTS with placebo injections or other nonsurgical interventions.1 Patients who received corticosteroid injections showed clinical improvement at one month or less compared with placebo (2 trials, 141 patients; 73% corticosteroids vs 28% placebo; relative risk [RR]=2.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-3.87; number needed to treat [NNT]=2).

Compared with systemic corticosteroids, corticosteroid injections didn’t improve symptoms on a Global Symptom Score (scale of 0-50, with 50 indicating the most severe symptoms) at 2 weeks (one trial, 60 patients; mean difference [MD]= −4.2; 95% CI, −8.7 to 0.26), but did improve symptoms at 8 weeks (MD= −7.16; 95% CI, −11.5 to −2.86) and 12 weeks (MD= −7.1; 95% CI, −11.7 to −2.52).

Patients showed no difference in scores between corticosteroid injection and oral anti-inflammatory medication with neutral angle wrist splints on the Symptom Severity Scale (1 to 5, with 5 indicating the most severe symptoms) at 2 weeks (1 trial, 23 patients [37 wrists]; MD=0.0; 95% CI, −0.64 to 0.64) or 8 weeks (MD=0.1; 95% CI, −0.33 to 0.53).

 

 

Higher corticosteroid dose reduces surgery at one year

A 2013 high-quality RCT with 111 patients assessed pain relief and rates of surgery at one year with local corticosteroid injections for CTS.2 This trial had 3 arms with 37 patients in each: 80-mg methylprednisolone injection, 40-mg methylprednisolone injection, or placebo injection.

Both corticosteroid groups showed greater improvement on the Symptom Severity Scale at 10 weeks compared with placebo (40-mg methylprednisolone group: MD= −0.88; 95% CI, −1.3 to −0.46; 80-mg methylprednisolone group: MD= −0.64; 95% CI, −1.06 to −0.21). There was no difference between the methylprednisolone groups.

The incidence of surgery at one year was lower in the 80-mg methylprednisolone group compared with placebo (73% vs 92%; RR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99; NNT=5) but not in the 40-mg methylprednisolone group compared with placebo (81% vs 92%; RR=0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.06).

Corticosteroids improve symptoms and disability, but effects wear off

A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 2010 examined the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections given by general practitioners to 69 patients with CTS.3 Patients were randomized to receive 10 mg of either triamcinolone or saline. They were reassessed after one week, and patients in the saline injection group who had inadequate symptom relief received a triamcinolone injection as bail-out treatment. Follow-up by patient questionnaire was done at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

Investigators assessed symptoms and disability using the Symptom Severity Scale and Functional Disability Scale, which are part of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. Like the Symptom Severity Scale, the Functional Disability Scale is scored from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability.

One week after treatment, the corticosteroid group showed greater improvement in symptom severity and functional disability than the saline group (symptom severity decreased from 2.9 to 1.9 with triamcinolone vs 2.8 to 2.5 with saline; MD=0.64; 95% CI, 0.32-0.96; functional disability decreased from 2.5 to 1.9 with triamcinolone but remained at 2.4 with saline; MD=0.59; 95% CI, 0.23-0.94).

Long-term follow-up of 35 patients who responded to corticosteroid injections found that the effects wore off over 12 months when assessed using the Symptom Severity Scale (mean score 1.5 at 1 month, 2.0 at 12 months; P=.08).

Surgery rates at one and 5 years

A 2012 prospective cohort study examined the 5-year rate of surgical intervention after a 20-mg methylprednisolone injection in 824 patients diagnosed with CTS who had failed conservative treatment.4 A total of 500 patients had a relapse of symptoms, and 372 of them elected to have a second injection. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis determined rates of surgical intervention to be 14.5% (95% CI, 11.9-17) at one year and 33.2% (95% CI, 28.7-37.8) at 5 years.

RECOMMENDATION

A 2010 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons evidence-based practice guideline on the treatment of CTS  recommends corticosteroid injection before considering surgery (Grade B, Level 1 suggested recommendation with good evidence).5

References

1. Marshall S, Tardif G, Ashworth N. Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD001554.

2. Atroshi I, Flondell M, Hofer M, et al. Methylprednisolone injections for the carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:309-317.

3. Peters-Veluthamaningal C, Winters JC, Gronier KH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of local corticosteroid injections for carpal tunnel syndrome in general practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2010;11:54.

4. Jenkins PJ, Duckworth AD, Watts AC, et al. Corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome: a 5-year survivorship analysis. Hand. 2012;7:151-156.

5. Keith MW, Masear V, Chung KC, et al. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:218-219.

References

1. Marshall S, Tardif G, Ashworth N. Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD001554.

2. Atroshi I, Flondell M, Hofer M, et al. Methylprednisolone injections for the carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:309-317.

3. Peters-Veluthamaningal C, Winters JC, Gronier KH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of local corticosteroid injections for carpal tunnel syndrome in general practice. BMC Fam Pract. 2010;11:54.

4. Jenkins PJ, Duckworth AD, Watts AC, et al. Corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome: a 5-year survivorship analysis. Hand. 2012;7:151-156.

5. Keith MW, Masear V, Chung KC, et al. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:218-219.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Page Number
125,128
Page Number
125,128
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Do corticosteroid injections improve carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms?
Display Headline
Do corticosteroid injections improve carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms?
Legacy Keywords
Corey Lyon, DO, Jonathan Syfert, MD, Joan Nashelsky, MLS, corticosteroid injections, corticosteroids, orthopedics, carpal tunnel, hand, pain, pharmacotherapy
Legacy Keywords
Corey Lyon, DO, Jonathan Syfert, MD, Joan Nashelsky, MLS, corticosteroid injections, corticosteroids, orthopedics, carpal tunnel, hand, pain, pharmacotherapy
Sections
PURLs Copyright

Evidence-based answers from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network

Disallow All Ads
Article PDF Media

Which “truths” will be proven false this year?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Which “truths” will be proven false this year?

When I went to medical school in the early 1970s, one of my professors said, “At least half of what I teach you will not be correct in the future, but I don’t know which half.” I think that was an underestimate; perhaps she should have said two-thirds. I continue to be amazed at the widespread changes in what we consider to be the correct approach to diagnosis and treatment of even common ailments. Several articles in this issue discuss new “truths,” or at least truths as we know them today.

For years, I was taught there was no effective way to detect early-stage lung cancer. However, the National Lung Screening Trial provides evidence that routine low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can be effective, provided the guidelines are followed strictly and the operative morbidity and mortality is sufficiently low.1 This is certainly a practice-changer, but balancing risks and benefits of CT screening also depends on judicious management of the “incidentalomas” that are discovered, as described in the article by Yunus and Mazzone. (See “Pulmonary nodule on x-ray: An alogrithmic approach”.)

“At least half of what I teach you will not be correct in the future,” a professor of mine once said, “but I don’t know which half.”

In this issue, Hawes et al discussed which oral agents to consider after metformin for patients with type 2 diabetes. (See page “What next when metformin isn't enough for type 2 diabetes?”) I have been skeptical about the value of oral antidiabetic medications other than metformin for preventing cardiovascular complications of diabetes. A recently published large randomized controlled trial (RCT) of empagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitor), however, showed significantly lower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (3.7% vs 5.9% in the placebo group), hospitalization for heart failure (2.7% vs 4.1%, respectively), and death from any cause (5.7% vs 8.3%, respectively).2 Perhaps an SGLT2 inhibitor should be the preferred second choice?

Finally, I admit to hopping on the bandwagon for using tamsulosin or nifedipine to avoid surgical interventions for ureteral calculi, based on data from small RCTs. However, this issue’s PURL discusses a recently published large RCT3 that shows that for small stones (≤10 mm), these medications are no more effective than placebo. (See page “Kidney stones? It's time to rethink those meds”.)

I wonder which “truths” will be proven false this year?

References

1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395-409.

2. Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al; EMPA-REG OUTCOME Investigators. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-2128.

3. Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:341-349.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
79
Legacy Keywords
John Hickner, MD, MSc, type 2 diabetes, diabetes, cardiovascular, incidentalomas, SGLT2, kidney stones
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Author and Disclosure Information

John Hickner, MD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

When I went to medical school in the early 1970s, one of my professors said, “At least half of what I teach you will not be correct in the future, but I don’t know which half.” I think that was an underestimate; perhaps she should have said two-thirds. I continue to be amazed at the widespread changes in what we consider to be the correct approach to diagnosis and treatment of even common ailments. Several articles in this issue discuss new “truths,” or at least truths as we know them today.

For years, I was taught there was no effective way to detect early-stage lung cancer. However, the National Lung Screening Trial provides evidence that routine low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can be effective, provided the guidelines are followed strictly and the operative morbidity and mortality is sufficiently low.1 This is certainly a practice-changer, but balancing risks and benefits of CT screening also depends on judicious management of the “incidentalomas” that are discovered, as described in the article by Yunus and Mazzone. (See “Pulmonary nodule on x-ray: An alogrithmic approach”.)

“At least half of what I teach you will not be correct in the future,” a professor of mine once said, “but I don’t know which half.”

In this issue, Hawes et al discussed which oral agents to consider after metformin for patients with type 2 diabetes. (See page “What next when metformin isn't enough for type 2 diabetes?”) I have been skeptical about the value of oral antidiabetic medications other than metformin for preventing cardiovascular complications of diabetes. A recently published large randomized controlled trial (RCT) of empagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitor), however, showed significantly lower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (3.7% vs 5.9% in the placebo group), hospitalization for heart failure (2.7% vs 4.1%, respectively), and death from any cause (5.7% vs 8.3%, respectively).2 Perhaps an SGLT2 inhibitor should be the preferred second choice?

Finally, I admit to hopping on the bandwagon for using tamsulosin or nifedipine to avoid surgical interventions for ureteral calculi, based on data from small RCTs. However, this issue’s PURL discusses a recently published large RCT3 that shows that for small stones (≤10 mm), these medications are no more effective than placebo. (See page “Kidney stones? It's time to rethink those meds”.)

I wonder which “truths” will be proven false this year?

When I went to medical school in the early 1970s, one of my professors said, “At least half of what I teach you will not be correct in the future, but I don’t know which half.” I think that was an underestimate; perhaps she should have said two-thirds. I continue to be amazed at the widespread changes in what we consider to be the correct approach to diagnosis and treatment of even common ailments. Several articles in this issue discuss new “truths,” or at least truths as we know them today.

For years, I was taught there was no effective way to detect early-stage lung cancer. However, the National Lung Screening Trial provides evidence that routine low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can be effective, provided the guidelines are followed strictly and the operative morbidity and mortality is sufficiently low.1 This is certainly a practice-changer, but balancing risks and benefits of CT screening also depends on judicious management of the “incidentalomas” that are discovered, as described in the article by Yunus and Mazzone. (See “Pulmonary nodule on x-ray: An alogrithmic approach”.)

“At least half of what I teach you will not be correct in the future,” a professor of mine once said, “but I don’t know which half.”

In this issue, Hawes et al discussed which oral agents to consider after metformin for patients with type 2 diabetes. (See page “What next when metformin isn't enough for type 2 diabetes?”) I have been skeptical about the value of oral antidiabetic medications other than metformin for preventing cardiovascular complications of diabetes. A recently published large randomized controlled trial (RCT) of empagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitor), however, showed significantly lower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (3.7% vs 5.9% in the placebo group), hospitalization for heart failure (2.7% vs 4.1%, respectively), and death from any cause (5.7% vs 8.3%, respectively).2 Perhaps an SGLT2 inhibitor should be the preferred second choice?

Finally, I admit to hopping on the bandwagon for using tamsulosin or nifedipine to avoid surgical interventions for ureteral calculi, based on data from small RCTs. However, this issue’s PURL discusses a recently published large RCT3 that shows that for small stones (≤10 mm), these medications are no more effective than placebo. (See page “Kidney stones? It's time to rethink those meds”.)

I wonder which “truths” will be proven false this year?

References

1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395-409.

2. Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al; EMPA-REG OUTCOME Investigators. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-2128.

3. Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:341-349.

References

1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395-409.

2. Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al; EMPA-REG OUTCOME Investigators. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-2128.

3. Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:341-349.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(2)
Page Number
79
Page Number
79
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Which “truths” will be proven false this year?
Display Headline
Which “truths” will be proven false this year?
Legacy Keywords
John Hickner, MD, MSc, type 2 diabetes, diabetes, cardiovascular, incidentalomas, SGLT2, kidney stones
Legacy Keywords
John Hickner, MD, MSc, type 2 diabetes, diabetes, cardiovascular, incidentalomas, SGLT2, kidney stones
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Obstructive sleep apnea: Who should be tested, and how?

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Obstructive sleep apnea: Who should be tested, and how?

Only 10% of people with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are diagnosed—a dismal statistic considering the consequences. So who’s at risk? Common risk factors include obesity, resistant hypertension, retrognathia, large neck circumference (> 17 inches in men, > 16 inches in women), and history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, nocturnal arrhythmias, heart failure, and pulmonary hypertension. Patients who have risk factors for OSA or who report symptoms should be screened for it, first with a complete sleep history and standardized questionnaire, and then by objective testing if indicated. Read the full article at the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: http://www.ccjm.org/topics/obesity-weight-management/single-article-page/obstructive-sleep-apnea-who-should-be-tested-and-how/a486844138b1eb76c90923d6d1d1a255.html.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, sleep disorders, sleep
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Only 10% of people with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are diagnosed—a dismal statistic considering the consequences. So who’s at risk? Common risk factors include obesity, resistant hypertension, retrognathia, large neck circumference (> 17 inches in men, > 16 inches in women), and history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, nocturnal arrhythmias, heart failure, and pulmonary hypertension. Patients who have risk factors for OSA or who report symptoms should be screened for it, first with a complete sleep history and standardized questionnaire, and then by objective testing if indicated. Read the full article at the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: http://www.ccjm.org/topics/obesity-weight-management/single-article-page/obstructive-sleep-apnea-who-should-be-tested-and-how/a486844138b1eb76c90923d6d1d1a255.html.

Only 10% of people with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are diagnosed—a dismal statistic considering the consequences. So who’s at risk? Common risk factors include obesity, resistant hypertension, retrognathia, large neck circumference (> 17 inches in men, > 16 inches in women), and history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, nocturnal arrhythmias, heart failure, and pulmonary hypertension. Patients who have risk factors for OSA or who report symptoms should be screened for it, first with a complete sleep history and standardized questionnaire, and then by objective testing if indicated. Read the full article at the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: http://www.ccjm.org/topics/obesity-weight-management/single-article-page/obstructive-sleep-apnea-who-should-be-tested-and-how/a486844138b1eb76c90923d6d1d1a255.html.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Obstructive sleep apnea: Who should be tested, and how?
Display Headline
Obstructive sleep apnea: Who should be tested, and how?
Legacy Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, sleep disorders, sleep
Legacy Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, sleep disorders, sleep
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article