By Louis Kuritzky, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Kuritzky is an advisor for Endo, Kowa, Pricara, and Takeda.
How Often Do You Really Have to See Patients on Warfarin?
Source: Rose AJ, et al. Chest 2011;140: 359-365.
It has been customary to ask patients on warfarin, once controlled and stable, to return on a monthly basis for recheck. This interval has been based on tradition, rather than any firm scientific basis. Frequent visits in otherwise stable patients present a significant burden of time, cost, inconvenience, and even the opportunity for overzealous "fine tuning," and may not enhance the amount of time spent in the therapeutic range. It would, therefore, be desirable to have better insight into whether stable patients might be safely allowed longer intervals without risking either toxicity of supratherapeutic warfarin dose, or thrombotic risk of subtherapeutic levels.
Rose et al report on data obtained from a large population of persons receiving anticoagulation from the U.S. Veterans hospital system (n = 104,451). By comparing the interval between an in-range international normalized ratio (INR) and the next INR measurement with the likelihood of being in the therapeutic range on follow-up visit, they were able to discern that the first two visits after a therapeutic INR measurement are time sensitive: that is, extending the time until next follow-up beyond 4 weeks was associated with progressively greater likelihood of finding an out-of-range INR at the next visit. This relationship, however, was not seen in persons with consistently in-range INR readings, i.e., if a patient had experienced three consecutive INR in-range visits, extending the length of time until next follow-up was not associated with greater likelihood of an out-of-range INR.
At the current time, another trial comparing monthly with quarterly INR monitoring is underway. Pending results from that trial, this evidence suggests that until patients have at least three consecutive stable INR measurements, the traditional 4-week return policy is best. After that, a longer interval until next INR measurement is acceptable, but has only been studied as far out as 38 days.
Replacing Carbohydrates with Nuts in the Diabetic Diet
Source: Jenkins DJ, et al. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1706-1711.
Consumption of nuts, especially walnuts, has been associated with favorable health outcomes. For diabetics, maintenance of a healthy body weight, reduction of high-glycemic index foods, and lipid modulation through diet are each a potentially critical consideration. Because nuts have significant fat content, there has been concern that were diabetics to substitute nuts for other carbohydrates, a detrimental impact on either weight or lipids might be seen.
Jenkins et al randomized type 2 diabetics (n = 117) to substitute carbohydrates in their diets in one of three ways: mixed nut replacement, muffin replacement, or half-and-half nuts plus muffins. Based on energy requirements calculated with the Harris-Benedict equation, participants were asked to substitute their prescribed replacement supplement for whatever carbohydrate had previously comprised an equal caloric proportion of their diet. For instance, a person requiring 1600-2400 kcal/d was given 475 kcal of a replacement supplement. The trial lasted 3 months. The nut mix consisted of almonds, pistachios, walnuts, pecans, hazelnuts, peanuts, cashews, and macadamias. The muffin was whole wheat, with no sugar added. The absolute kcal content of the supplement was the same whether administered as nuts, muffin, or mixed.
The group supplemented with nuts enjoyed a statistically significant A1c reduction of 0.21%, but no significant A1c change was seen in the other two groups. Similarly, cholesterol, LDL, and cholesterol:HDL ratios were most favorably affected by the nut supplement. Nut replacement for carbohydrates has favorable effects in type 2 diabetes.
Hypertensive Emergency: The Prognostic Value of Elevated Troponins
Source: Afonso L, et al. J Clin Hypertens 2011;13:551-556.
Hypertensive emergency, characterized by marked elevation of blood pressure (typically > 180/120) associated with signs of target organ damage, is a common presenting issue in emergency departments. Since cardiac toxicity may be one of the signs of target organ damage, troponins are often measured, even though there may be no symptoms of myocardial ischemia or signs on EKG. Especially when troponins are measured in acute coronary syndromes, they have strong prognostic value. Whether they provide any discriminative value in persons with hypertensive emergency has not been previously well-studied.
A retrospective analysis was done on all patients with hypertensive emergency seen at two inner-city population hospitals in Detroit (n = 567) in whom troponins had been measured. Among this group, one-third demonstrated troponin elevation (mean peak = 4.06 ng/mL). However, follow-up of these patients did not find that the presence or degree of elevation of troponins predicted subsequent mortality over the next 3 years.
Elevation of troponins is commonly seen in patients with hypertensive emergency, but in the absence of an acute coronary syndrome, is not prognostically valuable.