PRACTICAL POINTERS
FOR
PRIMARY CARE
ABSTRACTED MONTHLY FROM THE JOURNALS
SEPTEMBER 2005
“THE MEDICAL HUMANITIES” For Lack of a Better Term
THE MEDICAL HUMANITIES:
Attempting a Definition
SELF MONITORING BP IN THE DOCTOR’S OFFICE
THE METABOLIC SYNDROME; A New Worldwide Definition
INFUENZA A H5N1: Will It Become The Next Pandemic?
REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF SMOKING REDUCES LUNG CANCER RISK
“SNUS” (SNUFF): A Good
Method Of Nicotine Replacement To Reduce Cigarette
Consumption?
SCABIES: Eight Clinical
Points
REMARKABLE DECLINE IN DEATH FROM CORONARY DISEASE OVER 30 YEARS
SINGLE DOSE ORAL AZITHROMYCIN VS
INTRAMUSCULAR
BICILLIN LA FOR LATENT SYPHILIS
ADVERSE EFFECT OF GRAFITTI AND NEIGHBORHOOD
INCIVILITIES ON OBESITY.
INTEREST IN INHALED INSULIN GROWS
JAMA, NEJM, BMJ, LANCET PUBLISHED BY PRACTICAL
POINTERS, INC.
ARCHIVES INTERNAL
MEDICINE EDITED BY RICHARD T. JAMES JR. MD
ANNALS INTERNAL MEDICINE
DAVIDSON
NC 28036
Rjames6556@aol.com www.practicalpointers.org
This document is divided into two parts:
1) The Highlights
section contains brief comments patterned after the “abstract” placed on
the first page of many studies reported in journals. Highlights condenses the content of studies, and allows a
quick review of pertinent points of each article.
The Editorial Comments are the editor’s assessments of the clinical practicality
of articles based on his long-term review of the current literature and his
20-year publication of Practical Pointers.
2) The main Abstracts
section is designed as a reference. It presents structured summaries of the
content of articles in much more detail.
An Index containing all the Highlights is published twice a year. In
an evening or two, the reader can refresh memory of the entire content of practical
points abstracted from 6 major journals over the 6-month period.
I hope you will find Practical Pointers interesting and
helpful. The complete content of all issues for the past 5 years can be
accessed at www.practicalpointers.org
Richard T. James Jr,
M.D.
Editor/Publisher.
HIGHLIGHTS AND EDITORIAL COMMENTS SEPTEMBER 2005
9-1 “THE MEDICAL
HUMANITIES”, For
Lack Of A Better Term
So, what are “The medical humanities”
anyway?
The commentator (an established poet
and essayist) finds it very difficult to define.
We know intuitively that the way
medicine is now taught and practiced is simply wrong—that the humane is being
supplanted by unfeeling science and uncaring economics. The medical literature
describes the practice of medicine in the modern era as increasingly dominated
by economic constraints and technological hubris.
Medicine, in losing sight of how the
arts and humanities inform and elevate the work of healing, is following the
footsteps of larger societal trends.
“Distancing” is the process whereby
physicians remove themselves from the particulars of patients’ experiences of
illness so that they may render accurate diagnosis and treatment. It imperils
the work of doctoring, and has converted it from a sacred vocation, borne of a
desire and duty to alleviate suffering, into a mere financially rewarded,
technically challenging line of work.
The view of any kind of work as
simply a means to the all-important paycheck is widespread nowadays. “Distancing” pervades most human
interactions.
Perhaps it is expedient to blame the
shortcomings of modern biomedicine on the stereotypically bespectacled,
heartless philistine hiding behind his bleeping machines in his white coat,
rather than to look more critically at the economic pressures that have so
harshly changed medical practice. Can we really expect beleaguered clinicians
and medical educators to teach ethical thinking or to nurture compassion in
trainees who come to their prospective profession lacking in these fundamental
personal virtues that more appropriately ought to have been instilled in them
by their parents, or by immersion in what should be a healthier, more
universally humane society?
Only with omnipresent and immediately
accessible humanities resources for ourselves and our trainees can we nourish
in our profession “the art of medicine’ from which we have become so
estranged.
I do not agree that medical care is being” dehumanized”. I do not agree
that unfeeling science and uncaring economics are supplanting the “humane” in
medicine.
In my view, the editorialist’s criticism is much too harsh. I do not
believe that physicians are less “humane” (ie, less caring; less empathetic)
than they were in the 18th, 19th and 20th
centuries. Many health care practitioners simply do not have the opportunity to
establish an empathetic relation with patients. It takes time to develop a “connection”.
They are much more involved in the difficult task of providing the best of
evidence-based medicine and technology. (Little of evidence-based medicine and
present day technology existed before the mid-1900s.) They nevertheless retain
a desire and duty to alleviate suffering, and they do indeed alleviate
suffering. They are “humane” in a new and
different way.
Conscientiously applying the best of modern therapy and diagnosis to each
patient is an expression of caring ( “humaneness”). Expert use of a blinking machine, which will
often benefit
patients’ health and increase longevity, is an important part of
caring. I doubt many patients (including the editorialist) would be willing to
exchange the miracles of modern medicine, surgery, imaging, and anesthesia in
favor of a more consistent and personal “caring” connection with every
health-care provider.
Caring and technology are not mutually exclusive. Primary care clinicians
are blessed with the opportunity to combine the two. They care for patients and
families over time. This provides opportunity to connect and give support to
the cares and concerns of their patients; to elicit , understand,
and respond to each patient’s “story” in addition to attending the presenting
complaint.
Has the practice of medicine been “converted into a mere financially
rewarding line of work”? Not by a long shot. I do not believe young aspiring
physicians enter the profession for the purpose of making money.
Nowadays, in contrast to the past, maintaining an office staff is costly.
Technology is expensive. I doubt the income of the average physician,
especially primary care clinicians, exceeds that of other professions. Few
become “rich” as a result of their medical practice. But, it is important to
earn enough to provide the family with a comfortable, safe home, a good
education, and to save for retirement. This is also a form of “caring”.
Many
physicians give generously of their income to charitable organizations and
church. Many express humaneness by pro-bono work, caring for the less fortunate
in one of the
many free clinics scattered throughout the country.
The healing professions do not lack humaneness. The way it is expressed
has changed.
9-2 “THE MEDICAL
HUMANITIES”: Attempting A Definition
“A Humanity” is any product of human creativity
and any human relationship which promotes understanding, kindness, good will,
compassion, care, and caring.
“The Humanities” is the totality of all “A
Humanity”.
“A Medical Humanity” (“The Medical
Humanities”) does not differ from any other. However, medical professionals
(nurses, therapists, dieticians, and physicians) may have more opportunity to express ”A Humanity” because they care for others when the
others are most vulnerable.
“Doing It In
The Doctor’s Waiting Room May Be Better Than Doing It At Home.”
9-3 SELF MONITORING OF HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE
This issue of BMJ reports a
randomized trial on self
monitoring BP in the physician’s office
The self measured and the professionally measured BPs
were comparable. This suggests that hypertension guidelines are applicable to
self monitoring.
Patients were welcomed into the BP
measuring room of the practice and encouraged to measure their own BP at least
once a month using an electronic BP machine. They received instructions on how
to use the machine on their first visit. Patients were given an instruction
card showing their BP target (140/85). Monthly BP readings were recorded on the
card. Patients were asked to see the practitioner or nurse if BP exceeded
target on successive months, or if it was very high. More than 90% of patients
were seen by the medical staff during the year.
This is a switch from the usual studies on self monitoring BP at home.
I wonder if some primary care clinicians would be tempted to place a
validated electronic device in an alcove of the waiting room allowing any
patients who are waiting to measure their BP. I believe this would be more
meaningful and accurate than self measuring in a drug store.
9-4 THE METABOLIC SYNDROME—A New Worldwide
Definition
The ultimate importance of the MS is
that it identifies individuals at high risk for type 2
diabetes (DM2) and
cardiovascular disease (CVD).
The International Diabetes Federation
(2004) felt there was a strong need for one practical definition that would be
useful in any country for the identification of high risk of DM2 and CVD:
1) Central (abdominal) obesity is a
prerequisite to the diagnosis of the MS.
Waist
circumference 94 cm or more for white men of European origin; 80 cm or more for
women. (The cut
points for other ethnic groups have been changed (See text). In the
Central obesity is
related to each of the other components of the MS. If it is not present, the MS
is not diagnosed.
-----------------------------------------------------
Plus any two of the following four
factors:
2) Triglycerides 150 mg/dL and above.
3) HDL-cholesterol under 40 mg/dL in
man and under 50 mg in women.
Both 2) and 3) are commonly observed
in patients with DM2 and insulin resistance.
Both are risk factors for CVD.
4) BP 130 systolic and above;
diastolic 85 and above, or previously treated hypertension.
5) Fasting blood glucose 100 and above, or previously diagnosed diabetes.
If above 100, a glucose tolerance
test is strongly recommended.
Note that persons with 2), 3), 4) and 5) who do not have abdominal
obesity are not defined as having the MS.
Nevertheless, they are at increased risk. Not all 5 factors carry the
same weight. But, the more factors present, the higher the risk. Of course, the
other factors should be determined and treated.
I would wager that most men over age 50 in the
It would be reasonable to immediately recommend life-style changes for
them. Indeed, the need for lifestyle changes in the
I garnered some details from the web site of the IDF.
http://www.idf.org/webdata/docs/Metac_syndrome_def.pdf
The Big Question—Will It Mutate To
Facilitate Human-To-Human Transmission?
9-5 INFLUENZA A (“Bird
Flu”; H5N1): Will It Become The Next
Pandemic Influenza? Are We Ready?
Experts have predicted a next
pandemic flu for many years. They believe that the question is not whether
another pandemic will occur, but when. They fear an event like the Spanish flu
of 1918-19 (H1N1) which rapidly caused death of millions and reduced the
average life expectancy in the
Avian influenza (influenza A H5N1)
appears to have a similar potential.
Most flu viruses occur in birds.
Aquatic waterfowl are their natural reservoir. Only a few types of the virus
have circulated widely in humans. “Bird flu” refers to both influenza in birds
and to instances when the virus jumps the species barrier to cause human
disease.
To cause a global pandemic the virus
needs three properties: 1) ability to
infect people, 2) substantially new antigenic properties to which humans are
not immune, and 3) efficient person-to-person
transmission. H5N1 has the first 2
properties, but there is only minimal evidence of 3).
Amantadine and rimantadine are not active
against H5N1 even though it is a type A virus.
Oseltamivir (Tamiflu; given orally)
and zanamivir (Relenza; given by
inhalation) are active in vitro and in animal models. Clinical utility for
treatment and prevention of H5N1 has not been rigorously studied. The supply is
inadequate for a global pandemic. Antiviral resistance does occur.
What about drug treatment and
prophylaxis? Early administration of
antiviral agents appears to be beneficial. Patients with suspected H5N1 should
promptly receive a neuraminidase inhibitor pending diagnosis by laboratory
testing. The optimal dose and duration of treatment are uncertain. Currently
approved regimens likely represent the minimum required. High levels of
resistance to Tamiflu have been
detected in several patients with H5N1. Amantadine and rimantadine are not
effective for H5N1. For prophylaxis, Tamiflu
is warranted for persons who have had a possible exposure to H5N1.
Current supplies of Tamiflu and Relenza are grossly insufficient for
prophylaxis and treatment of H5N1. Those of us who are knowledgeable about H5N1
and affluent enough to afford Tamiflu may be tempted to purchase and hoard a
supply for possible use. There are serious objections to this. The limited
supply should be reserved for treatment of individuals who are infected with
the flu virus. “Ring” prophylaxis may be a reasonable control measure. This involves quarantine and prophylactic
drug therapy of individuals (eg, family; health care workers) in close contact
with a patient with proven influenza. This may reduce likelihood of spread in
the community.
The North Carolina Department of Health has issued a statement strongly
discouraging personal stockpiling of Tamiflu. It points out: 1) There has been
no sustained human-to-human transmission in Asia; 2) There is no H5N1 in the
“Cutting Down” Reduces Risk Of Lung Cancer, But Not Risk Of Myocardial Infarction And
COPD.
9-6 EFFECT
OF SMOKING REDUCTION ON LUNG CANCER RISK
This study asks - Would “cutting
down” reduce risk of LC?
Divided into 6 groups according to
smoking habits:
1) Continued heavy smokers (> 15
cigarettes daily; mean = 20).
2) Reducers reduced smoking from >
15 per day by a minimum of 50% without quitting.
3) Continued light smokers (1-14 per
day).
4) Quitters (stopped between 1st
and 2nd examinations).
5) Stable ex-smokers.
6) Never smokers.
Groups: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)
Number 7351 832 3199 1355 2881 4066
Pack years at baseline 31 27 14 19 14
Number of LCs 576 52 104 52 52 28
% with LC 7.8 6.3 3.3 3.6 1,8 0.7
Adjusted hazard ratio for LC: 1.00 0.73 0.44 0.50 0.17 0.09
Absolute difference,
continued heavy smokers vs those who reduced consumption by 50% = 7.8% - 6.3% =
1.5%. Sixty two smokers would have to cut consumption by 50% to prevent one LC.
Twenty four would have to quit completely to prevent
one LC.
The authors previously investigated
the all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, and
hospitalization for COPD in smokers. They found no
reduction in risk associated with smoking reduction. “Cutting down” does not
reduce these risks. LC is more likely to
demonstrate a dose-response to cutting down.
See the following report on snuff. RTJ
Would You Advise Snuff For Nicotine
Replacement?
The British American Tobacco (BAT) company markets “snus” in
BAT is trying to….”extend the appeal
of snus to more adults smokers who have not heard of snus to try it.” BAT
claims that the move is part of their “continuing efforts in harm
reduction”. They claimed that the
biggest group of quitters in
Is it true that snus is a
harm-reduction product? It certainly is much less harmful than cigarettes. It
has not been associated with any increase in lung cancer. But, it is classified
as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. A recent
study reported an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Snus is not harmless.
Is it effective as an aid to quitting
cigarettes? Evidence is inadequate, but suggests that it may be effective for
some smokers. Many nicotine users favor it over tobacco smoke. The fact that
more Swedes choose snus rather than therapeutic nicotine replacement for
routine use suggests that it offers a better “fix”.
Is it addictive? This is
controversial. Nicotine replacement therapy is relatively non-addictive, but
there is a view that, if such therapy is to replace cigarettes it needs to be more
competitive, and this means more addictive.
It is possible (however reluctantly)
to agree that snus is a harm-reduction product, but only when compared with
cigarettes.
In view of the ban on cigarettes in many restaurants and bars, tobacco
companies are encouraging smokers to try snuff as an
alternative where smoking is forbidden. Is this ethical?
I abstracted this article to ask myself—if my patient stated he had
absolutely no intention of quitting, or was unable to quit after many tries,
would I suggest his switching to snuff?
(Snuff in the
We accept risk with every drug we prescribe. With preventive therapy,
(eg, aspirin, statin drugs; antihypertension drugs) patients seem quite willing
to accept the risks. I abstracted this article to ask—should we consider snuff
a preventive drug (ie, one that reduces risk)?
Would the patient sue if he developed oral cancer after being informed of
the risk and accepting it?
I would merely point this article out to the patient and let him decide
on his own. I would not prescribe snuff. Indeed, I would place in the record
that I advise cessation of all tobacco products.
9-8 SCABIES: Diagnosis
And Treatment
Eight clinical
points.
Cluster headache (CH) is one of the most severe pain syndromes. It is underdiagnosed
and suboptimally managed in primary care. It has substantial effects on
functioning, even when appropriate treatments are used.
Headaches often start about 1 to 2
hours after falling asleep, or in the early morning. Attacks can strike up to 8
times a day, are relatively short-lived (18 to 180 minutes) ,
and are characterized by very severe unilateral head pain localized in or
around the eye. Attacks may occur daily for some weeks followed by a period of
complete remission. (CH is cyclic.)
Patients with CH, unlike those with
migraine, are restless and prefer to pace about or sit and rock back and forth.
Some will isolate themselves or leave the house to get into cold air. Some
become aggressive.
Unilateral autonomic symptoms
ipsilateral to the pain occur only during attacks: ptosis and pupil constriction (a partial
Horner’s syndrome); as well as lacrimation, conjunctival injection, rhinorrhea,
and nasal congestion. This indicates parasympathetic hyperactivity, and
sympathetic impairment. Sweating and blood flow to the skin increase on the
painful side.
The author presents a long list of
suggested drugs for treatment and prevention. (The rather large number of
choices suggests that none is “best” and individual trials are necessary. RTJ)
Primary care clinicians, if they practice long enough, will encounter a
patient with CH. Recognition and treatment will provide most welcome relief,
and may even be life-saving. (CH has been termed the “Suicide Headache” because
the severe unremitting pain may drive some patients to take their own life.)
Therapy may be tried in primary care. Complicated cases require referral
to a headache clinic.
Primary Prevention Is Much More
Rewarding
Since the 1980s, coronary heart
disease (CHD) mortality rates have
halved. Studies consistently suggest that 50% to 75% of the decrease in cardiac
deaths can be attributed to population-wide improvements in the major risk
factors, particularly smoking, cholesterol, and high blood pressure. Modern
cardiological treatments for CHD generally explain the remaining 25% to 50% of
the fall in mortality.
Fall in mortality from CHD
attributable to changes in risk factors:
Deaths prevented or postponed yearly
(2000 vs 1981)
% changes* Primary
prevention Secondary prevention Total
Smoking - 35% 24
000 5000 29 000
Cholesterol - 4.2 4700 3100 7900
Blood pressure -7.7 7200 500 7700
All 3 36 000 8700 45
000
(* % changes in the risk factor level
in the population)
This article places our efforts to reduce risks (by enthusiastic
prescription and by example) in concrete terms. This is a major public health
achievement. Congratulations to all involved
If weight reduction and physical activity were also considered, benefits
would be larger.
We never know, however, which individuals in our practices and in the
general population are benefited.
This should not deter us.
I abstracted this article mainly to point out how important improvements
in public health are. Certainly, primary care clinicians contributed a great
deal.
This study asked—Would a regimen
based on a calcium channel blocker (CCB) + an angiotensin converting
enzyme inhibitor (ACE) lead to more
favorable outcomes than a regimen based on a beta-blocker (BB) + a Thiazide
diuretic?
The study was stopped prematurely
after a median of 5.5 years (over 106 000 patient-years) because fewer patients
in the CCB-ACE group had the primary endpoint.
(Note: this did not reach
statistical significance.)
Outcomes over 5.5 years ACE + CCB BB + Thiazide NNT*
(n = 9639) (n = 9618)
Primary endpoint 429 474 208**
Stroke (fatal & non-fatal) 327 422 65
Total cardiovascular
events & procedures 1362 1602 25
All-cause mortality 738 820 116
Incidence of diabetes 567 799 24***
(* NNT for 5.5 years to benefit one
patient. ** Not statistically significant. The
authors attributed this to under powering of the study. *** NNT to harm one patient (develop
diabetes) (My calculations. RTJ)
“The findings of ASCOT-BPLA show that
in hypertensive patients at moderate
risk of developing cardiovascular events, an antihypertensive drug
regimen starting with amlodipine adding perindopril, as required, is better
than one starting with atenolol adding a thiazide, as required, in terms of
reducing the incidence of all types of cardiovascular events and all-cause
mortality, and in terms of risk of subsequent new-onset diabetes.”
“Pending further information, we
believe the combination of a beta-blocker and a diuretic should not be
recommended in preference to the comparator regimen used in ASCOT-BPLA for
routine use, but only for specific circumstances.”
This is an extraordinary (and expensive) study. I congratulate the
investigators on their persistence. I
feel they (and Pfizer) are disappointed with the outcome.
Benefits of antihypertension drug therapy would be much less when used
for primary prevention.
But, there is an extraordinary degree of “spin” in this detailed 12-page
article. As noted, the absolute differences between groups is
small. And the NNT to benefit one patient over 5.5 years is large (25 to 208).
I believe these differences are of little clinical significance.
The number needed to treat unnecessarily for 5.5 years, with the amlodipine regimen
as compared with the atenolol regimen, to achieve
benefit for one patient is high, varying from 24 to 207.
I calculated the MNT (money needed to treat) for 5.5 years to benefit one
patient. According to my pharmacy:
Cost per day $ Cost for 5.5 years $ Total $
Atenolol 50 mg 0.15 240
Hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg
(I could not access cost of
bendroflumethiazide) 0.09 180 481
Amlodipine (Norvasc
2.5 mg) 1.45 2910
Perindopril (Aceon
2 mg) 1.15 2308 5,218
Money needed to treat (MNT) with CCB + ACE vs BB + thiazide (at minimal
doses) to prevent one adverse outcome over 5.5 years:
To treat 208 patients for 5.5 years to prevent one MI or one
cardiovascular death::
CCB + ACE = 5218 X 208 = $1,085,344
BB + thiazide = 481 X 208 = $100,048
Difference = $
$985,296
To treat 25 patients for 5.5 years to prevent total cardiovascular events
and procedures =
$130,450 and $ 12,025
Difference = $118,425
(My calculations RTJ)
Application of lifestyle interventions would be much more effective at no
cost.
Study supported mainly by Pfizer.
See the following abstract for additional analysis.
(This article, by the same investigators,
expands on the previous trial)
Differences between the groups
included BP, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, potassium, fasting glucose, heart
rate, and body mass index. All of these variables were significantly associated
with rates of coronary events and stroke during the trial. (CCB-ACE, in
addition to a slightly greater reduction in BP, was associated with reductions
in other risk factors.) The
investigators offer no explanation except . . .”That it remains possible that
differential effects of the two treatment regimens on other variables also
contributed to the different rates noted”.
These factors influenced outcomes
favoring the CCB-ACE group. After adjusting for these factors the investigators
determined that they accounted for about half the reported difference in
coronary events and about 40% of the differences in stroke noted between the
two groups. (Ie, the reported benefits in the CCB-ACE group were attenuated
because, overall, the
differences in risk factors favored this group.)
Note—the “spin” continues. If there is any benefit of CCB - ACE over
BB-Thiazide, it is certainly minimal. This additional analysis markedly
increases the number of patients needed-to-treat to
more clinically insignificant levels. It also greatly increases the NNT(unnecessarily) and the “Money Needed to Treat” to
benefit one patient.
It does not convince me to change first-line therapy away from BB-
Thiazide. I would begin with a diuretic.
The Difference Between
Relative Risk Reduction And Absolute Risk Reduction
9-13 EVIDENCE THAT NEW ANTIHYPERTENSIVES ARE
SUPERIOR TO OLDER DRUGS
(This editorial comments, in generally favorable terms, on the preceding
articles.)
“The amlodipine-based
regimen in
“On balance, the
Note again how misleading relative risk reductions can be. In absolute
terms, the percentage reductions are by my calculation:
Relative risk reduction (%)
Absolute risk reduction (%)
Major C-V endpoints 16 0.5
Stroke 23 1.0
Cardiovascular mortality 24 0.5
Total mortality 11 0.9
Absolute risk would be further reduced if the adjustments cited in the
second study were considered.
Journal editors and investigators should not present relative risk
reductions in their studies.
Equivalent Efficacy For Treating Early and Latent Syphilis, but Resistance May
Occur
9-14 SINGLE-DOSE AZITHROMYCIN
VERSUS PENICILLIN G BENZATHINE FOR THE TREATMENT OF EARLY SYPHILIS
A single intramuscular dose of 2.4
million units of penicillin G benzathine (Bicillin
LA) is the recommended therapy for early syphilis. It is low cost.
Adherence is no problem. Disadvantages
include pain, the relatively high prevalence of self-reported penicillin
allergy, and the need for injection equipment and trained personnel. In addition, there is some risk of
transmission of blood-borne infections if the injection equipment is reused.
Azithromycin (Zithromax), a macrolide
antibiotic with a long half-life (68 hours), would overcome some of these
disadvantages. Efficacy against Chlamydia
trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Haemophilus ducreyi has been
established. (Penicillin is not indicated and is ineffective against these
organisms.)
Azithromycin is a promising candidate for
treatment of primary and latent syphilis. [Latent syphilis is defined by 1) a
positive serological test, 2) a normal CSF, and 3) no clinical manifestations.]
This study compared effectiveness of
oral azithromycin vs intramuscular penicillin G benzathine in
There have been reports of
azithromycin-resistant strains T pallidum
in the
An accompanying editorial comments on
two important reasons for caution: 1) The sustained success (50 years) of penicillin G
benzathine. 2) The recent emergence of
resistance to azithromycin.
Penicillin G benzathine is marketed as Bicillin LA. Bicillin LA is composed of one molecule of
dibenzylethylene diamine + two molecules of penicillin G. Given intramuscularly, it maintains blood
levels for 2 weeks or more.
It has been confused with Bicillin
C-R, a combination of penicillin G benzathine and penicillin procaine G which
produces blood levels more rapidly and of shorter duration. It is not indicated for treatment of
syphilis.
Not too long ago, syphilis was considered a major stand-alone course in
medical school. I remember well giving treatment with arsphenamine and
neo-arsphenamine intravenously. The miracle of penicillin changed all that. The
problem of syphilis remains, but is less a problem, at least in the
Environmental Incivilities And Graffiti Have An Adverse Effect On Health
9-15 GRAFFITI, GREENERY, AND OBESITY
Independently of individual
characteristics, the place of residence may be associated with health outcomes,
including body size, and health-related behaviors such as the level of physical
exercise. Perceived attractiveness of neighborhoods has been related to levels
of physical activity. Incivilities, such as litter and graffiti, are associated
with adverse effects on general wellbeing.
This study hypothesized that areas which
are unpleasant, with many incivilities and few green areas,
might discourage people from exercising, and thus influence the levels of
obesity.
For individuals living in neighborhoods
with high amounts of greenery, the likelihood of being more active was more
than 3 times as high as that of those living in neighborhoods with low levels
of greenery.
For respondents whose residential
environment contained high levels of incivilities, the likelihood of being more
physically active was about 50% less, and the likelihood of being overweight/obese was about 50% higher.
“In efforts to promote physical
activity and reduce weight, attention should be paid to environmental facilitators
and barriers as well as individual factors.”
What does this have to do about primary care? A great deal. Economically disadvantaged patients are also
medically disadvantaged. Those who live in dangerous neighborhoods will, with
good reason, not walk the recommended mile or two daily. And they do not have
the means to go to a spa.
I recall an article I abstracted in December 2004 “Economics of Obesity”
(Practical Pointers December 2004 [12-6]).
This suggests that economics plays a large part in the obesity epidemic.
Foods high in fat and sugar have become less expensive as obesity rates have risen. The poor are more likely to depend on these foods.
The economic situation of low-income people forces them to adopt “obesogenic”
diets. “If you live in the inner city you aren’t going to suddenly start eating
mangos and playing tennis.”
These articles should make us more understanding and compassionate, and
less critical. “Non-adherence” and “non-compliance” are often not due to lack
of motivation, but to poverty and lack of opportunity.
Of course, obesity also occurs more and more frequently in the affluent.
Just observe the crowd in an upscale Mall.
The cause of obesity is multi-factorial. Down-graded neighborhoods and
lack of economic advantages is an important factor.
9-16 INTEREST IN INHALED INSULIN GROWS
The lungs provide a large surface
area for drug absorption. Inhaled insulin is absorbed more rapidly than regular
insulin given subcutaneously. The time to peak concentration of most inhaled
insulins is nearly superimposable with the rapid-acting insulin analogues.
Controlled trials compared Exubera (one brand of inhaled insulin) +
oral agents with injected insulin + oral agents. After
2 years, Exubera provided continuing glycemic control. HbA1c decreased 1.8%,
compared with a 1.5% decrease in the injected insulin group.
Is it safe? Some studies have reported no adverse
pulmonary events; some have reported cough as the most common side effect. A
slight decline in carbon-monoxide-diffusing capacity occurred. Hypoglycemia, headache and
dizziness have been reported. Patients with asthma absorbed lower amounts of
insulin.
Longer term studies (a decade or
more) are required to evaluate pulmonary function and insulin-binding antibodies, as well as use in children and smokers.
ABSTRACTS SEPTEMBER 2005
9-1 “THE MEDICAL HUMANITIES”, For Lack Of A
Better Term
The essayist presents this provocative essay in more eloquent language
than I have indicated in the abstract. I chose a few points on which to
comment. Read the original. I believe most primary care clinicians will
disagree with many of his observations. RTJ
Recently, an international conference
of scientists and artists entitled “The Medical Humanities” was held in
So, what are “The medical humanities”
anyway?
The commentator (an established poet
and essayist) finds it very difficult to define.
We know intuitively that the way
medicine is now taught and practiced is simply wrong—that the humane is being
supplanted by unfeeling science and uncaring economics. The medical literature
describes the practice of medicine in the modern era as increasingly dominated
by economic constraints and technological hubris.
“Distancing” is the process whereby
physicians remove themselves from the particulars of patients’ experiences of
illness so that they may render accurate diagnosis and treatment. It imperils the work of doctoring, converting
it from a sacred vocation, borne of a desire and duty to alleviate suffering,
into a mere financially rewarded, technically
challenging line of work.
Medicine, in losing sight of how the
arts and humanities inform and elevate the work of healing, is following the
footsteps of larger societal trends. The view of any kind of work as simply a
means to the all-important paycheck is widespread nowadays. Many find
themselves looking instinctively to the humanities as a source of renewal, reconnection , and meaning. Alas, “the medical humanities”
may ultimately provide little help in relieving the predicament. It does not assert
the goal of educating aspiring physicians to be more empathetic. It fails to
stipulate just what in its far-reaching realm is truly relevant to the ill and
their caregivers.
Perhaps it is expedient to blame the
shortcomings of modern biomedicine on the stereotypically bespectacled,
heartless philistine hiding behind his bleeping machines in his white coat,
rather than to look more critically at the economic pressures that have so harshly
changed medical practice. Can we really expect beleaguered clinicians and
medical educators to teach ethical thinking or to nurture compassion in
trainees who come to their prospective profession lacking in these fundamental
personal virtues that more appropriately ought to have been instilled in them
by their parents, or by immersion in what should be a healthier, more
universally humane society? Can we even
be sure that teaching humanities in a medical context might in fact humanize
medical care? Would it ultimately provide more patient-centered, and thus more
attentive and probably more effective care?
Only with omnipresent and immediately
accessible humanities resources for ourselves and our trainees can we nourish
in our profession “the art of medicine’ from which we have become so estranged.
Thus, many of us find ourselves
looking instinctively to the humanities as a source of renewal, reconnection,
and meaning.
JAMA September 9, 2005; 294: 1009-1011 “A Piece
of My Mind”, Editorial by Rafael Campo,
9-2 “THE
MEDICAL HUMANITIES”: Attempting A Definition
I tried, along with the editorialist,
to more clearly define “The Medical Humanities”, or more specifically
“Humanities” It became confusing. Consider these definitions supplied by my
dictionary:
HUMAN
Noun:
A bipedal animal of the family Hominidae, species Homo sapiens.
A human being.
Man, broadly, as
distinguished from a divine entity and from lower animals. [My dictionary is dated.]
HUMANITY
Noun:
The state of being human
HUMANE; HUMANENESS
Adjective: 1) Marked by compassion, sympathy, or
consideration for humans and animals.
2) Having the good qualities of human
beings—kindness, mercy, compassion.
Noun:
Used as a noun “The Humane” encompasses all the above qualities.
HUMANITIES
Noun: The branches of learning (philosophy, arts,
language) that investigate human constructs and concerns as opposite to natural
processes and social relations.
Those branches of
knowledge concerned with man and his culture, as philosophy, literature, and
fine arts.
The study of
classical languages and literature—Latin and Greek.
If to be “human” is to have all the
attributes of being “man”, logically this would include both:
1) The benevolent
attributes (compassion, sympathy, caring, kindness, mercy, and consideration
for others) and,
2) The malevolent
attributes (brutality, oppression, hubris, domination, injustice, racism,
sexism, elitism, violence, war, genocide, arrogance, greed, and 100 other
evils.)
It seems to me that over human
history 2) has outweighed 1).
Thus, it seems contradictory to morph
“human” (good and evil) into humane. Ironically, adding the
“e”
eliminates 2) and focuses only on 1) What
a switch!
The question remains - What are “The
Medical Humanities”?
The goal of the discipline is to help
individuals attain the most complete maturity possible. A most important aspect
of becoming a complete adult in our society is the ability to accurately comprehend
the feelings of others and to act on them. This is not easily achieved. The
“art of comprehending”, just as “the art of listening”, is a life-long quest.
Very few individuals attain complete maturity..
How do we help ourselves and others
attain complete maturity?
I agree with the editorialist that the ability and the desire to
care for others are best instilled from an early age, by example and
instruction at home. I also believe that an appreciation of “The Humanities”
can and should be taught in college and graduate school. I applaud the change
in emphasis of premedical training over the decades from the “sciences” to
history, art, languages, and social studies. Perhaps “humaneness” can be taught
in formal terms. But, that is only a part of the learning curve.
The editorialist asks—“What
high-powered, busy professional—lawyer, banker, architect, or business
executive—has the imaginative wherewithal, or even the inclination to integrate
an appreciation of Bach or O’Keeffe amidst his or her daily tasks? Would this make anyone more “humane”? Does reading great literature add to one’s
“humaneness”? The ability to address a
patient in his own language certainly does help to “connect”.
Perhaps a study of “The Humanities” can
help one achieve a higher degree of maturity. But I believe humaneness is best
taught by example. A medical trainee would more likely remember and be guided
by an example of caring demonstrated by a mentor than to remember the content
of a course on bioethics. Achieving “humaneness” is a lifelong quest.
Developing full “medical humanity” (the art of medicine) is a life-long
quest. Just as is its counterpart, “the
art of listening.”
So, to attempt a definition:
“A Humanity” is any product of human creativity
and any human relationship which promotes understanding, kindness, good will,
compassion, care, and caring.
“The Humanities” is the totality of
all “A Humanity”.
“A Medical Humanity” (“The Medical
Humanities”) does not differ from any other. However, medical professionals
(nurses, therapists, dieticians, and physicians) may have more opportunity to
express
”A Humanity” because they care for others when the others are most vulnerable.
Practical Pointers September 2005,
Commentary by the Editor.
===========================================================================
“Doing It In The Doctor’s Waiting
Room May Be Better Than Doing It At Home.”
9-3 SELF MONITORING OF HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE
Effective care of hypertension
requires rigorous management with regular review and willingness to intensify
drug treatment. The outcome of regular care depends on patients as much, or more than, it does on practitioners. Managing
chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes emphasizes the value of patients’
participation. The same is probably true for self monitoring of blood pressure.
Validated electronic measuring
devices are now available to the public. Self monitoring satisfies the public’s
demand for more self control and knowledge about health and disease.
This issue of BMJ reports a
randomized trial1 on self monitoring BP in the physician’s office The self
measured and the professionally measured BPs were comparable. This suggests
that hypertension guidelines are applicable to self monitoring.
The study reported a cost effective
reduction in treatment of hypertension with no increase in anxiety.
Previous studies reported that home
monitoring is more effective in controlling BP and achieving targets. This is
probably explained by the absence of a white coat effect and better adherence
to treatment.
Self monitoring of BP should be part
of a plan to include patients in decisions about treatments. It allows active
participation by patients without losing professional supervision. Office self
monitoring may prove an advantage over self monitoring at home.
BMJ September 5, 2005; 331:
466-67 Editorial, first author J
Carel Bakx,
1
“Targets
and Self Monitoring in Hypertension” BMJ
September 3, 2005; 331: 493-96 Original investigation first author R J McManus,
Note that this study assessed patient
self determination of BP in the doctor’s office, not at home.
Patients were welcomed into the BP
measuring room of the practice and encouraged to measure their own BP at least
once a month using an electronic BP machine. They received instructions on how
to use the machine on their first visit. Patients were given an instruction
card showing their BP target (140/85). Monthly BP readings were recorded on the
card. Patients were asked to see the practitioner or nurse if BP exceeded
target on successive months, or if it was very high. More than 90% of patients
were seen by the medical staff during the year.
==========================================================================
9-4 THE
METABOLIC SYNDROME—A New Worldwide Definition
The metabolic syndrome (MS) (visceral obesity, dyslipidemia,
hyperglycemia, and hypertension) has become a major public-health challenge
world wide.
The association of several of these
risk factors has been known for 80 years, but received scant attention until
Reaven in 1988 described “Syndrome X”:
insulin resistance, hypertension, low HDL-cholesterol, and raised
VLDL-triglycerides. He omitted obesity (especially central obesity) which is now
considered an essential component of the MS.
Several definitions have been
proposed over the years.
Several of the factors are related to
life-style.
The ultimate importance of the MS is
that it identifies individuals at high risk for type 2
diabetes (DM2) and
cardiovascular disease (CVD).
The conceptual framework used to
underpin the MS (and hence drive definitions) has not been agreed upon.
Opinions vary as to whether MS should be defined mainly to indicate insulin
resistance, the metabolic consequences of obesity, or simply a collection of
statistically related factors. The
prevalence of the syndrome has been similar in any given population regardless
of which definition is used, but different individuals are identified.
Another difficulty has been the
applicability of the MS to different ethnic groups.
The International Diabetes Federation
(2004) felt there was a strong need for one practical definition that would be
useful in any country for the identification of high risk of DM2 and CVD:
1) Central (abdominal) obesity is a
prerequisite to the diagnosis of the MS.
Waist circumference
94 cm or more for white men of European origin; 80 cm or more for women. (The cut points for other ethnic
groups have been changed (See text) In the USA, cut points of 100 cm and
88 cm are likely to be retained in the definition.
Waist circumference is highly related to insulin
sensitivity.
If body mass index is
over 30, central obesity can be assumed, and waist circumference does not need
to be measured.
Central obesity is
related to each of the other components of the MS. If it is not present, the MS
is not diagnosed.
-----------------------------------------------------
Plus any two of the following four
factors:
2) Triglycerides 150 mg/dL and above.
3) HDL-cholesterol under 40 mg/dL in
man and under 50 mg in women.
Both 2) and 3) are commonly observed
in patients with DM2 and insulin resistance.
Both are risk factors for CVD.
4) BP 130 systolic and above;
diastolic 85 and above, or previously treated hypertension.
5) Fasting blood glucose 100 and above, or previously diagnosed diabetes.
If above 100, a glucose tolerance
test is strongly recommended.
Insulin resistance, which is
difficult to measure, is not included.
Clinicians should use the new
criteria for the identification of high-risk individuals.
Preventive measures are needed for
those identified. Lifestyle modification with weight loss and increased
physical activity will be beneficial.
Drug therapy may be needed to address individual abnormalities if
lifestyle therapy fails. There is no
specific treatment.
Primary intervention
Moderate calorie
restriction to achieve up to 10% loss of body weight in the first year.
Moderate increase
in physical activity.
Change in dietary composition.
Clinical benefits are
associated with small weight loss in terms of preventing (or at least delaying)
conversion of persons with glucose intolerance to clinical DM2.
Secondary intervention:
In persons for whom
lifestyle changes are not enough and who are considered at high risk for CVD,
drug therapy for individual components of the MS may be required:
1) Dyslipidemia: Lower triglycerides; Raise HDL-c levels; Lower LDL-c levels
Fibrates improve all components of the
dyslipidemia. They appear to reduce the risk of CVD in persons with the MS.
Statins reduce LDL-c. Several studies have
confirmed the benefits of statins in the MS.
2) Elevated BP: C