Saturday, May 31, 2014

What I got from reading the slides " HIV update 2014 "

1) Dx of HIV - 
  • Traditional - ELISA screening -> Western bot
  • Now - 2 positive immunologic tests that are orthogonal ( different antigens or principles )
    - Ag/Ab test followed by Ab ONLY test
    - Ab test -> viral load assay
    - RAPID Ab test -> conventional immunoassay
    - A single non antibodies test ( p24, viral load ) is also diagnostic

2) Monitoring - viral load is better

3) Inclusion of stage 0
  • Indicate very early infection, when seroconversion is taking place
  • A sequence of discordant test results indicative of early HIV infection in which a negative or indeterminate result was within 180 days of a positive result
  • Negative or indeterminate ab, ab/ag or NAT within 6 months BEFORE a positive test of any type or
  • Positive test of viral specific markers within 6 mths of a negative / indeterminate antibody type
  • If > 180 days after stage 0 has been diagnosed, the stage is classified at stage 1,2,3 or unknown
  • Exception - stage 0 is NOT diagnosed if the negative / indeterminate HIV test was preceded > 60 days by a confirmed positive HIV test, a clinical dx of HIV, CD4 or opportunistic infection indicative of stage 3 infection

HIV and TB
1) Look out for 4 sxs of TB - fever, cough, night sweats and LOW - absence of 4 combos have high NPV

2) LTBI = TST/IGRA +ve but CXR and smear negative
- Daily INH for 9 months

3) TB tx in HIV
- EHRZ DAILY instead of 3X weekly
- Bactrim prophylaxis ( protect against toxoplasmosis and PCP ), at least for 6 months

4) When to start ART in TB



A new RCT suggests starting ART early in CD4 > 220 does not give any advantage over late ART

5) DIH ( Drug induced hepatitis )
- Dx if
  • Sxs + AST/ALT > 3X ULN
  • No Sxs + AST/ALT > 5X ULN
- Hepatotoxic anti TB drugs - INH and pyrazinamide are the most potent
  • Less - rifampin
  • Least -  ethambutol, streptomycin and FQ

6) Options to DIH
  • Stop it - if patient has less bacilli burden
  • Change to SEF ( least toxic ) combination if high bacilli burden ( disseminated, miliary or cavitation )

7) Overlapping toxicities
- Notice that NNRTIs have many overlapped toxicities with anti TB drugs
- Basically ALL ARV drugs are hepatotoxic


Change of HAART
1) Efavirenz
- Avoid in people working in night shifts
- Avoid in depression

2) Tenofovir - avoid in kidney disease, osteoporosis
    Zidovudine - can cause macrocytic anemia, so avoid in anemia
    Abacavir - avoid in heart disease
    
3) Avoid NVP and abacavir in very high viral load ( > 100,000 )

4) Tx failure - ask about adherence and potential side effects ( reasons of stopping )

5) Efavirenz and Nevirapine can BOTH cause rash

6) Algorithm


7) Early vs late switch
  • Less resistance developed in early switch, but more pricey
  • More resistance in late switch, but cheaper
8) NNRTI resistance is more common
  • Takes longer time to peak, so virus has time to adapt

9) NRTI resistance - common in 3TC based regimen ( + AZT or TNF ) 
  • NRTIs are structurally similar to purines and pyrimidines, so RT will not be able to differentiate between NRTIs and their natural counterparts -> so is incorporated into the synthesis of viral DNA -> NRTIs prevent the elongation of the DNA chain
  • Resistance can develop when the RT has reduced ability to incorporate the drug

HIV and CNS
1) HIV is neutropic drug

2) Toxoplasmosis can present with focal CNS lesions or encephalitis
  • IgM is not useful is dx, 90% is IgG
  • Rx and evaluate response after 2 weeks
  • Prophylaxis - Bactrim
3) Cryptococcosis
- Rx - liposomal amphotericin B + flucytosine and maintenance by fluconazole untol CSF fungal C and S is negative
- For high ICP, repeat LP or CSF shunt ( mannitol/ steroids NOT effective )

4) Timing of HAART after OI


Drug-drug interactions
1) Important rxns to note
  • CYP 3A4
    - Inducers - NVP, EFV
    Inhibitors - PIs ( Ritonavir )
  • CYP 1A2
    INDUCED by ritonavir
  • CYP 2C19
    - INDUCED by ritonavir 
Ritonavir INHIBITS CYP 3A4 but INDUCES other CYPs


2) AZT and d4T not to be used tgt - binding competition

3) AZT and ganciclovir NOT to be used tgt - bone marrow toxicity

4) Important DDIs


Credit to all the people that prepare these nice and beautiful figures !!


Friday, May 23, 2014

Blalock-Taussig shunt, Norwood and Fontan surgery

Have always bee confused how do these all work up here i hope to simplify them

BTS
- Simply to connect left pulmonary artery and left subclavian artery
- Reason : there is limited pulmonary blood flow as in TOF or to become another source of pulmonary circulation ( as in Norwood procedure )

Bottom line
- We use BTS if there is not enough blood in pulmonary circulation
- Without blood going through lung, there will be no oxygenation of the blood and the kid will be in cyanosis ( as the circulating blood is deoxygenated blood )

Norwood
- BTS + Atrial septectomy + Anastomosis between MPA and aortic arch
- Reason to do this - only RV is working
- Distal MPA is transected and proximal MPA is anastomosed to aortic arch -> so now all blood is delivered to systemic circulation by RV
- Now the problem arises : from where pulmonary circulation gets the blood ? As MPA has already been transected....We use a BTS !!!
- To make sure the blood from LA gets to RV, atrial septectomy is done for shunting to right chambers to occur

Bottom line
- Norwood is done if we want temporary RV function to pump blood to systemic circulation

Fontan
- 2 stages - 1st stage - redirect all SVC blood to pulmonary circulation; 2nd stage, redirect IVC blood to pulmonary circulation BYPASSING RV
- Purpose - when ONLY one ventricle is working
- Done after Norwood
- By shunting all venous blood to pulmonary circulation, we spare RV

Now then RV is either not working ( Tricuspid atresia ) so the atrial septectomy done in Norwood can be used to shunt the blood to LV
If LV is not working, blood is shunted to right and RV is used to pump blood to systemic circulation

Note that
In Norwood, the blood in RV is mixed
In Fontan, RV is separated from vena cava by a tube - so ALL the blood in RV/LV is OXYGENATED blood

High yield JVP findings


Thursday, May 22, 2014

S1

S1 loud
- MS
- Hyperkinetic state ( anemia, thyrotoxicosis, beri beri )

S1 soft
- Valvular - Immobile MS, AR - regurgitant jet hitting the undersurface of MV
- LV - failure, hypertrophy
- Rhythm - AV block, LBBB

Split S1 ( M1-T1 )
- RV overload, hypertrophy
- Ebstein anomaly


Polyposis syndromes summary


Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Murmur and maneuver

4 big rules are all u have to remember
1) Preload = more blood more murmur, less blood less murmur
- Except MVP, MR and HOCM
- In MR, more blood SAME murmur, less blood less murmur
- MVP and HOCM more blood LESS murmur, less blood MORE murmur

2) Afterload
- Inverse relationship with EJECTION murmur - more afterload less ejection murmur and vice versa
- Direct relationship with REGURGITATION murmur - more afterload more regurgitation murmur

3) Inspiration increases all right sided murmur except ejection murmur ( PS )

4) Expiration increases ALL left sided murmur except MVP, MR and HOCM ( rule #1 applies )



New oral anticoagulants

Not the best in interpreting trials but well, this is a table i composed


Fair to say that in conclusion
1) New oral anticoagulants show promise in the prevention of stroke in non valvular AF with lower incidents of bleeding
2) Important to note that high dose Dabigatran can increase MI and GI bleed risk
3) This is an indirect comparison, a head to head trial is needed

References
Dabigatran versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
Stuart J. Connolly, M.D., Michael D. Ezekowitz, M.B., Ch.B., D.Phil., Salim Yusuf, F.R.C.P.C., D.Phil., John Eikelboom, M.D., Jonas Oldgren, M.D., Ph.D., Amit Parekh, M.D., Janice Pogue, M.Sc., Paul A. Reilly, Ph.D., Ellison Themeles, B.A., Jeanne Varrone, M.D., Susan Wang, Ph.D., Marco Alings, M.D., Ph.D., Denis Xavier, M.D., Jun Zhu, M.D., Rafael Diaz, M.D., Basil S. Lewis, M.D., Harald Darius, M.D., Hans-Christoph Diener, M.D., Ph.D., Campbell D. Joyner, M.D., Lars Wallentin, M.D., Ph.D., and the RE-LY Steering Committee and Investigators
N Engl J Med 2009; 361:1139-1151September 17, 2009DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905561

Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation
Manesh R. Patel, M.D., Kenneth W. Mahaffey, M.D., Jyotsna Garg, M.S., Guohua Pan, Ph.D., Daniel E. Singer, M.D., Werner Hacke, M.D., Ph.D., Günter Breithardt, M.D., Jonathan L. Halperin, M.D., Graeme J. Hankey, M.D., Jonathan P. Piccini, M.D., Richard C. Becker, M.D., Christopher C. Nessel, M.D., John F. Paolini, M.D., Ph.D., Scott D. Berkowitz, M.D., Keith A.A. Fox, M.B., Ch.B., Robert M. Califf, M.D., and the ROCKET AF Steering Committee for the ROCKET AF Investigators
N Engl J Med 2011; 365:883-891September 8, 2011DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009638

Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
Christopher B. Granger, M.D., John H. Alexander, M.D., M.H.S., John J.V. McMurray, M.D., Renato D. Lopes, M.D., Ph.D., Elaine M. Hylek, M.D., M.P.H., Michael Hanna, M.D., Hussein R. Al-Khalidi, Ph.D., Jack Ansell, M.D., Dan Atar, M.D., Alvaro Avezum, M.D., Ph.D., M. Cecilia Bahit, M.D., Rafael Diaz, M.D., J. Donald Easton, M.D., Justin A. Ezekowitz, M.B., B.Ch., Greg Flaker, M.D., David Garcia, M.D., Margarida Geraldes, Ph.D., Bernard J. Gersh, M.D., Sergey Golitsyn, M.D., Ph.D., Shinya Goto, M.D., Antonio G. Hermosillo, M.D., Stefan H. Hohnloser, M.D., John Horowitz, M.D., Puneet Mohan, M.D., Ph.D., Petr Jansky, M.D., Basil S. Lewis, M.D., Jose Luis Lopez-Sendon, M.D., Prem Pais, M.D., Alexander Parkhomenko, M.D., Freek W.A. Verheugt, M.D., Ph.D., Jun Zhu, M.D., and Lars Wallentin, M.D., Ph.D. for the ARISTOTLE Committees and Investigators
N Engl J Med 2011; 365:981-992September 15, 2011DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1107039

Edoxaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
Robert P. Giugliano, M.D., Christian T. Ruff, M.D., M.P.H., Eugene Braunwald, M.D., Sabina A. Murphy, M.P.H., Stephen D. Wiviott, M.D., Jonathan L. Halperin, M.D., Albert L. Waldo, M.D., Michael D. Ezekowitz, M.D., D.Phil., Jeffrey I. Weitz, M.D., Jindřich Špinar, M.D., Witold Ruzyllo, M.D., Mikhail Ruda, M.D., Yukihiro Koretsune, M.D., Joshua Betcher, Ph.D., Minggao Shi, Ph.D., Laura T. Grip, A.B., Shirali P. Patel, B.S., Indravadan Patel, M.D., James J. Hanyok, Pharm.D., Michele Mercuri, M.D., and Elliott M. Antman, M.D. for the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Investigators
N Engl J Med 2013; 369:2093-2104November 28, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310907

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

DPP4 inhibitors vs GLP-1 agonists

1) GLP 1a provides pharmacological levels ( supraphysiological ) of GLP, DPP4-i provides physiological levels ( endogenous secretion ) of GLP

2) Incretins are secreted fro GI that enhances insulin secretion in glucose dependant manner ( = it will only enhance insulin secretion when there is high level of glucose in GI )
- 50% of postprandial insulin production is due to the action by incretins

3) 2 types of incretins - GLP-1 and GIP ( glucose dependant insulinotropic peptide )

4) Actions - enhance insulin secretion, block glucagon secretion and promote satiety by slowing gastric emptying ( as amylin )


5) Why is GIP not used? In T2DM the GIP response is impaired ( does not amplify insulin response ) and together with GLP-1 can antagonize the action of GLP-1 inhibiting glucagon

6) Native GLP-1 is subjected to DPP4 degradation and therefore has short half life

7) DPP4 inhibitors inhibit the enzyme of degradation -> depends on endogenous production; GLP-1a is resistant to DPP4 and causes supraphysiologic levels of GLP receptors stimulation 

8) DPP4i - 3 FDA approved - sitagliptin, saxagliptin and linagliptin
  • Only linagliptin is not renally excreted
9) GLP-1a - exenatide, lixisenatide ( slow released form of exenatide ), liraglutide
  • Former two are renally excreted
  • Liraglutide is metabolized prior to excretion and no specific organs indicated for elimination
10) DPP4i - oral drug, GLP-1a - S/C injectable ( a peptide based hormone like insulin so prone to gastric enzymes degradation )

11) Benefits of GLP-1a over DPP4i
  • Both are glucose dependant - so do not cause hypoglycemia ( except when + with S/U )
  • Trials have shows that GLP-1a results in weight loss and better glycemic control ( lowers HbA1C more ) - due to supraphysiologic stimulation of GLP-1 receptors 
12) DPP4i is weight neutral ( limited by endogenous secretion )

13) Guidelines support use of either one in metformin failure patients

14) In pts with weight problem but HbA1C is 1-2% from the targe , GLP-1a is better even though only a small reduction of HbA1C is only needed 
  • Weight loss provides better long term outcome
15) However, if patient has cardiac failure, weight loss causes increased mortality risk; in this subgroup of patients, DPP4i is better **

16) DPP4i is preferred if the patient has NO weight issues and only requires small reduction of HbA1c to target level ( and obese cardiac failure patient )

17) Most frequent side effect of GLP-1a is nausea, but can be overcome with incremental dosing approach

18) Remember DPP4i and GLP-1a is a team player; monotherapy ONLY when entry HbA1C is < 7.5% ; Once > 7.5%, need combined therapy with metformin

References
GLP-1 Receptor Agonists vs. DPP-4 Inhibitors for Type 2 Diabetes
S. Brunton
Int J Clin Pract. 2014;68(5):557-567

Monday, May 19, 2014

Evidence behind DM

Sometimes, to study a disease means we have to understand the evidence behind it.

DM has been a problem for every country in the world, we know about metformin ( Glucophage ), insulin, sulfonylureas but why are those used and still stand as an important components of tx even though many new medications have emerged ( exenatide, pramlitide, acarbose, the new DPP4 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors )

These are the summaries of the landmark studies



Im not good in EBM but what i can conclude are :
1) UKPDS showed us the benefit of metformin in overweight patients

2) UKPDS-PTM showed us the benefit of early glycemic control ( = we have a window of opportunity to diagnose and treat DM and we must not miss this window; first 10 yrs of tx is important for future outcomes )

3) ACCORD trial showed us that aggressively lowering the HbA1C in high risk patients ( elders, with cardiovascular diseases ) does more harm than good

4) ADVANCE trial in contrast, showed that in LATE a target of 6.5% of HbA1C if achieved slowly over a few years, could provide good future outcomes

5) Gliclazide may have some role in late intervention ( In ADVANCE trial addition of gliclazide reduces the combined endpoint of micro and macrovascular events )

6) Insulin and sulfonylureas are used in UKPDS without any detrimental effect ( but these patients did not have pre-existing diabetic nephropathy )

Reference
Key landmark studies in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes: evolution or revolution?
D. R. Mat thews , Uni ted Kingdom
MEDICOGRAPHIA, Vol 33, No. 1, 22 2011

Heart sounds made easy