Medical Urology for the Primary Care Provider

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Medical Urology for the Primary Care Provider

Supplement Editors:
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD, and Milton M. Lakin, MD

Contents

The recognition of urologic disease is a primary care issue, whether we've know it or not
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD, and Milton M. Lakin, MD

Screening for urologic malignancies in primary care: Pros, cons, and recommendations
Andrew J. Stephenson, MD; Louis Kuritzky, MD; and Steven C. Campbell, MD, PhD

Benign prostatic hyperplasia: When to 'watch and wait,' when and how to treat
Albert Levy, MD, and George P. Samraj, MD

Overactive bladder: Recognition requires vigilance for symptoms
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD; Diane K. Newman, RNC, MSN, CRNP; Christopher T. Tallman, BS; and Shari A. Page, CFNP

Erectile dysfunction: A sentinel marker for cardiovascular disease in primary care
Martin M. Miner, MD, and Louis Kuritzky, MD

Evolving issues in male hypogonadism: Evaluation, management, and related cormorbidities
Martin M. Miner, MD, and Richard Sadovsky, MD

Identifying and treating premature ejaculation: Importance of the sexual history
Richard E. Payne, MD, and Richard Sadovsky, MD

Interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome: Symptom recognition is key to early identification, treatment
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD; Diane K. Newman, RNC, MSN, CRNP; and Shari A. Page CFNP

Prostatitis: Infection, neuromuscular disorder, or pain syndrome? Proper patient classification is key
Jeannette Potts, MD, and Richard E. Payne, MD

Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(5)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S1-S71
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

Supplement Editors:
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD, and Milton M. Lakin, MD

Contents

The recognition of urologic disease is a primary care issue, whether we've know it or not
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD, and Milton M. Lakin, MD

Screening for urologic malignancies in primary care: Pros, cons, and recommendations
Andrew J. Stephenson, MD; Louis Kuritzky, MD; and Steven C. Campbell, MD, PhD

Benign prostatic hyperplasia: When to 'watch and wait,' when and how to treat
Albert Levy, MD, and George P. Samraj, MD

Overactive bladder: Recognition requires vigilance for symptoms
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD; Diane K. Newman, RNC, MSN, CRNP; Christopher T. Tallman, BS; and Shari A. Page, CFNP

Erectile dysfunction: A sentinel marker for cardiovascular disease in primary care
Martin M. Miner, MD, and Louis Kuritzky, MD

Evolving issues in male hypogonadism: Evaluation, management, and related cormorbidities
Martin M. Miner, MD, and Richard Sadovsky, MD

Identifying and treating premature ejaculation: Importance of the sexual history
Richard E. Payne, MD, and Richard Sadovsky, MD

Interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome: Symptom recognition is key to early identification, treatment
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD; Diane K. Newman, RNC, MSN, CRNP; and Shari A. Page CFNP

Prostatitis: Infection, neuromuscular disorder, or pain syndrome? Proper patient classification is key
Jeannette Potts, MD, and Richard E. Payne, MD

Supplement Editors:
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD, and Milton M. Lakin, MD

Contents

The recognition of urologic disease is a primary care issue, whether we've know it or not
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD, and Milton M. Lakin, MD

Screening for urologic malignancies in primary care: Pros, cons, and recommendations
Andrew J. Stephenson, MD; Louis Kuritzky, MD; and Steven C. Campbell, MD, PhD

Benign prostatic hyperplasia: When to 'watch and wait,' when and how to treat
Albert Levy, MD, and George P. Samraj, MD

Overactive bladder: Recognition requires vigilance for symptoms
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD; Diane K. Newman, RNC, MSN, CRNP; Christopher T. Tallman, BS; and Shari A. Page, CFNP

Erectile dysfunction: A sentinel marker for cardiovascular disease in primary care
Martin M. Miner, MD, and Louis Kuritzky, MD

Evolving issues in male hypogonadism: Evaluation, management, and related cormorbidities
Martin M. Miner, MD, and Richard Sadovsky, MD

Identifying and treating premature ejaculation: Importance of the sexual history
Richard E. Payne, MD, and Richard Sadovsky, MD

Interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome: Symptom recognition is key to early identification, treatment
Matt T. Rosenberg, MD; Diane K. Newman, RNC, MSN, CRNP; and Shari A. Page CFNP

Prostatitis: Infection, neuromuscular disorder, or pain syndrome? Proper patient classification is key
Jeannette Potts, MD, and Richard E. Payne, MD

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(5)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(5)
Page Number
S1-S71
Page Number
S1-S71
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Medical Urology for the Primary Care Provider
Display Headline
Medical Urology for the Primary Care Provider
Sections
Citation Override
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2007 May;74(5 suppl 3):S1-S71
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

Primary Focal Hyperhidrosis: Best Practice Recommendations for Treatment With Botulinum Toxin Type A

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Primary Focal Hyperhidrosis: Best Practice Recommendations for Treatment With Botulinum Toxin Type A
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from Allergan, Inc.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Issue
Cutis - 79(5)
Publications
Page Number
1-32
Legacy Keywords
Dee Anna Glaser, Adelaide A. Herbert, David M. Pariser, Nowell Solish, primary focal hyperhidrosis, palmar, plantar, eccrine, botox, botulinum toxin type A, antiperspirants, drionic, anticholinergic agents, benzodiazephines, anxiolytics, axillary sweat gland resection, curettage, permanganate, glutaraldehyde, efficacy, dermojet
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Article PDF
Article PDF
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from Allergan, Inc.
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from Allergan, Inc.
Issue
Cutis - 79(5)
Issue
Cutis - 79(5)
Page Number
1-32
Page Number
1-32
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Primary Focal Hyperhidrosis: Best Practice Recommendations for Treatment With Botulinum Toxin Type A
Display Headline
Primary Focal Hyperhidrosis: Best Practice Recommendations for Treatment With Botulinum Toxin Type A
Legacy Keywords
Dee Anna Glaser, Adelaide A. Herbert, David M. Pariser, Nowell Solish, primary focal hyperhidrosis, palmar, plantar, eccrine, botox, botulinum toxin type A, antiperspirants, drionic, anticholinergic agents, benzodiazephines, anxiolytics, axillary sweat gland resection, curettage, permanganate, glutaraldehyde, efficacy, dermojet
Legacy Keywords
Dee Anna Glaser, Adelaide A. Herbert, David M. Pariser, Nowell Solish, primary focal hyperhidrosis, palmar, plantar, eccrine, botox, botulinum toxin type A, antiperspirants, drionic, anticholinergic agents, benzodiazephines, anxiolytics, axillary sweat gland resection, curettage, permanganate, glutaraldehyde, efficacy, dermojet
Sections
Citation Override
Cutis. 2007;79(suppl 5):1-32.
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Proceedings of A National Dialogue on Biomedical Conflicts of Interest and Innovation Management

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Proceedings of a National Dialogue on Biomedical Conflicts of Interest and Innovation Management

Supplement Editor:
Guy M. Chisolm III, PhD

Contents

From the editor
The rapidly changing landscape of biomedical conflicts of interest
Guy M. Chisolm III, PhD, Vice Chairman, Lerner Research Institute, and Professor, Department of Cell Biology, Cleveland Clinic

Opening comments
The mandate of innovation management
Delos M. Cosgrove, MD, CEO and President, Cleveland Clinic

Research, Innovation, and Safety: Doing the Right Thing
Prologue: A case study in biomedical conflicts
Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, National Public Radio

Fostering innovation without compromising integrity
Philip A. Pizzo, MD, Dean and Professor of Pediatrics and of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine

Innovation and industry-academia interactions:Where conflicts arise and measures to avoid them
P. Roy Vagelos, MD, Chairman, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Chairman, Theravance, Inc.; Former CEO, Merck & Co., Inc.

Overregulation of conflicts hinders medical progress
Thomas P. Stossel, MD, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Panel discussion: Research, innovation, and safety: Doing the right thing
Moderated by Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, National Public Radio
Panelists: Philip A. Pizzo, MD; Thomas P. Stossel, MD; and P. Roy Vagelos, MD

Guiding Principles:Where Are We Headed?
Conflict-of-interest management: Efforts and insights from the Association of American Medical Colleges
Darrell G. Kirch, MD, President and CEO, Association of American Medical Colleges

Medical devices and conflict of interest: Unique issues and an industry code to address them
Paul A. LaViolette, MBA, Chief Operating Officer, Boston Scientific Corporation; Member, Board of Directors, and Chairman, Special Committee on Codes of Ethics, AdvaMed

The challenge for NIH ethics policies: Preserving public trust and biomedical progress
Norka Ruiz Bravo, PhD, Deputy Director for Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health

Panel discussion: Guiding principles:Where are we headed?
Moderated by Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, National Public Radio
Panelists: Darrell G. Kirch, MD; Paul A. LaViolette, MBA; and Norka Ruiz Bravo, PhD

Keynote Address
Building and retaining trust in the biomedical community
Dick Thornburgh, Counsel, K & L Gates; Former Governor of Pennsylvania; Former Attorney General of the United States

Applications in the Real World: Defining Boundaries and Managing Innovation
Interactions of the public and private sectors in drug development: Boundaries to protect scientific values while preserving innovation
Gail H. Cassell, PhD, DSc (hon), Vice President, Scientific Affairs, and Distinguished Lilly Research Scholar for Infectious Diseases, Eli Lilly and Company

Beyond disclosure: The necessity of trust in biomedical research
Jeffrey P. Kahn, PhD, MPH, Maas Family Chair in Bioethics and Director, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota

Panel discussion: Applications in the real world: Case studies in defining boundaries and managing innovation
Moderated by Claudia R. Adkison, JD, PhD, Executive Associate Dean, Administration and Faculty Affairs, Emory University School of Medicine
Case studies submitted by Michael J. Meehan, Esq., Senior Counsel and Corporate Assistant Secretary, Cleveland Clinic, and Claudia R. Adkison, JD, PhD
Panelists: Gail H. Cassell, PhD, DSc (hon); Jeffrey P. Kahn, PhD, MPH; Philip A. Pizzo, MD; and Thomas P. Stossel, MD

Conflicts, Compliance, and Enforcement: Government Priorities and Initiatives
Protecting subjects without hampering research progress: Guidance from the Office for Human Research Protections
Bernard A. Schwetz, DVM, PhD, Director, Office for Human Research Protections, US Department of Health and Human Services

Fraud, conflict of interest, and other enforcement issues in clinical research
James G. Sheehan, Associate US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, US Department of Justice

Panel discussion: Conflicts, compliance, and enforcement: Government priorities and initiatives
Moderated by Jeffrey P. Kahn, PhD, MPH, Maas Family Chair in Bioethics and Director, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota
Panelists: Bernard A. Schwetz, DVM, PhD, and James G. Sheehan

Guidelines and Performance: Creating a Culture of Ethics
Creating an institutional conflict-of-interest policy at Johns Hopkins: Progress and lessons learned
Edward D. Miller, MD, Dean of the Medical Faculty, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; CEO, Johns Hopkins Medicine

Managing ethical performance in organizations: Insights from the corporate world
Edward Soule, CPA, PhD, Associate Professor, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University

Panel discussion: Guidelines and performance: Creating a culture of ethics
Moderated by Susan H. Ehringhaus, JD, Associate General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Association of American Medical Colleges
Panelists: Edward D. Miller, MD, and Edward Soule, CPA, PhD

Articles in these proceedings were developed by the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine staff from transcripts of audiotaped presentations at the “National Dialogue on Biomedical Conflicts of Interest and Innovation Management” and then reviewed and revised by the respective speakers.

Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S1-S80
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

Supplement Editor:
Guy M. Chisolm III, PhD

Contents

From the editor
The rapidly changing landscape of biomedical conflicts of interest
Guy M. Chisolm III, PhD, Vice Chairman, Lerner Research Institute, and Professor, Department of Cell Biology, Cleveland Clinic

Opening comments
The mandate of innovation management
Delos M. Cosgrove, MD, CEO and President, Cleveland Clinic

Research, Innovation, and Safety: Doing the Right Thing
Prologue: A case study in biomedical conflicts
Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, National Public Radio

Fostering innovation without compromising integrity
Philip A. Pizzo, MD, Dean and Professor of Pediatrics and of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine

Innovation and industry-academia interactions:Where conflicts arise and measures to avoid them
P. Roy Vagelos, MD, Chairman, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Chairman, Theravance, Inc.; Former CEO, Merck & Co., Inc.

Overregulation of conflicts hinders medical progress
Thomas P. Stossel, MD, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Panel discussion: Research, innovation, and safety: Doing the right thing
Moderated by Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, National Public Radio
Panelists: Philip A. Pizzo, MD; Thomas P. Stossel, MD; and P. Roy Vagelos, MD

Guiding Principles:Where Are We Headed?
Conflict-of-interest management: Efforts and insights from the Association of American Medical Colleges
Darrell G. Kirch, MD, President and CEO, Association of American Medical Colleges

Medical devices and conflict of interest: Unique issues and an industry code to address them
Paul A. LaViolette, MBA, Chief Operating Officer, Boston Scientific Corporation; Member, Board of Directors, and Chairman, Special Committee on Codes of Ethics, AdvaMed

The challenge for NIH ethics policies: Preserving public trust and biomedical progress
Norka Ruiz Bravo, PhD, Deputy Director for Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health

Panel discussion: Guiding principles:Where are we headed?
Moderated by Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, National Public Radio
Panelists: Darrell G. Kirch, MD; Paul A. LaViolette, MBA; and Norka Ruiz Bravo, PhD

Keynote Address
Building and retaining trust in the biomedical community
Dick Thornburgh, Counsel, K & L Gates; Former Governor of Pennsylvania; Former Attorney General of the United States

Applications in the Real World: Defining Boundaries and Managing Innovation
Interactions of the public and private sectors in drug development: Boundaries to protect scientific values while preserving innovation
Gail H. Cassell, PhD, DSc (hon), Vice President, Scientific Affairs, and Distinguished Lilly Research Scholar for Infectious Diseases, Eli Lilly and Company

Beyond disclosure: The necessity of trust in biomedical research
Jeffrey P. Kahn, PhD, MPH, Maas Family Chair in Bioethics and Director, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota

Panel discussion: Applications in the real world: Case studies in defining boundaries and managing innovation
Moderated by Claudia R. Adkison, JD, PhD, Executive Associate Dean, Administration and Faculty Affairs, Emory University School of Medicine
Case studies submitted by Michael J. Meehan, Esq., Senior Counsel and Corporate Assistant Secretary, Cleveland Clinic, and Claudia R. Adkison, JD, PhD
Panelists: Gail H. Cassell, PhD, DSc (hon); Jeffrey P. Kahn, PhD, MPH; Philip A. Pizzo, MD; and Thomas P. Stossel, MD

Conflicts, Compliance, and Enforcement: Government Priorities and Initiatives
Protecting subjects without hampering research progress: Guidance from the Office for Human Research Protections
Bernard A. Schwetz, DVM, PhD, Director, Office for Human Research Protections, US Department of Health and Human Services

Fraud, conflict of interest, and other enforcement issues in clinical research
James G. Sheehan, Associate US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, US Department of Justice

Panel discussion: Conflicts, compliance, and enforcement: Government priorities and initiatives
Moderated by Jeffrey P. Kahn, PhD, MPH, Maas Family Chair in Bioethics and Director, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota
Panelists: Bernard A. Schwetz, DVM, PhD, and James G. Sheehan

Guidelines and Performance: Creating a Culture of Ethics
Creating an institutional conflict-of-interest policy at Johns Hopkins: Progress and lessons learned
Edward D. Miller, MD, Dean of the Medical Faculty, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; CEO, Johns Hopkins Medicine

Managing ethical performance in organizations: Insights from the corporate world
Edward Soule, CPA, PhD, Associate Professor, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University

Panel discussion: Guidelines and performance: Creating a culture of ethics
Moderated by Susan H. Ehringhaus, JD, Associate General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Association of American Medical Colleges
Panelists: Edward D. Miller, MD, and Edward Soule, CPA, PhD

Articles in these proceedings were developed by the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine staff from transcripts of audiotaped presentations at the “National Dialogue on Biomedical Conflicts of Interest and Innovation Management” and then reviewed and revised by the respective speakers.

Supplement Editor:
Guy M. Chisolm III, PhD

Contents

From the editor
The rapidly changing landscape of biomedical conflicts of interest
Guy M. Chisolm III, PhD, Vice Chairman, Lerner Research Institute, and Professor, Department of Cell Biology, Cleveland Clinic

Opening comments
The mandate of innovation management
Delos M. Cosgrove, MD, CEO and President, Cleveland Clinic

Research, Innovation, and Safety: Doing the Right Thing
Prologue: A case study in biomedical conflicts
Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, National Public Radio

Fostering innovation without compromising integrity
Philip A. Pizzo, MD, Dean and Professor of Pediatrics and of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine

Innovation and industry-academia interactions:Where conflicts arise and measures to avoid them
P. Roy Vagelos, MD, Chairman, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Chairman, Theravance, Inc.; Former CEO, Merck & Co., Inc.

Overregulation of conflicts hinders medical progress
Thomas P. Stossel, MD, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Panel discussion: Research, innovation, and safety: Doing the right thing
Moderated by Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, National Public Radio
Panelists: Philip A. Pizzo, MD; Thomas P. Stossel, MD; and P. Roy Vagelos, MD

Guiding Principles:Where Are We Headed?
Conflict-of-interest management: Efforts and insights from the Association of American Medical Colleges
Darrell G. Kirch, MD, President and CEO, Association of American Medical Colleges

Medical devices and conflict of interest: Unique issues and an industry code to address them
Paul A. LaViolette, MBA, Chief Operating Officer, Boston Scientific Corporation; Member, Board of Directors, and Chairman, Special Committee on Codes of Ethics, AdvaMed

The challenge for NIH ethics policies: Preserving public trust and biomedical progress
Norka Ruiz Bravo, PhD, Deputy Director for Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health

Panel discussion: Guiding principles:Where are we headed?
Moderated by Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, National Public Radio
Panelists: Darrell G. Kirch, MD; Paul A. LaViolette, MBA; and Norka Ruiz Bravo, PhD

Keynote Address
Building and retaining trust in the biomedical community
Dick Thornburgh, Counsel, K & L Gates; Former Governor of Pennsylvania; Former Attorney General of the United States

Applications in the Real World: Defining Boundaries and Managing Innovation
Interactions of the public and private sectors in drug development: Boundaries to protect scientific values while preserving innovation
Gail H. Cassell, PhD, DSc (hon), Vice President, Scientific Affairs, and Distinguished Lilly Research Scholar for Infectious Diseases, Eli Lilly and Company

Beyond disclosure: The necessity of trust in biomedical research
Jeffrey P. Kahn, PhD, MPH, Maas Family Chair in Bioethics and Director, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota

Panel discussion: Applications in the real world: Case studies in defining boundaries and managing innovation
Moderated by Claudia R. Adkison, JD, PhD, Executive Associate Dean, Administration and Faculty Affairs, Emory University School of Medicine
Case studies submitted by Michael J. Meehan, Esq., Senior Counsel and Corporate Assistant Secretary, Cleveland Clinic, and Claudia R. Adkison, JD, PhD
Panelists: Gail H. Cassell, PhD, DSc (hon); Jeffrey P. Kahn, PhD, MPH; Philip A. Pizzo, MD; and Thomas P. Stossel, MD

Conflicts, Compliance, and Enforcement: Government Priorities and Initiatives
Protecting subjects without hampering research progress: Guidance from the Office for Human Research Protections
Bernard A. Schwetz, DVM, PhD, Director, Office for Human Research Protections, US Department of Health and Human Services

Fraud, conflict of interest, and other enforcement issues in clinical research
James G. Sheehan, Associate US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, US Department of Justice

Panel discussion: Conflicts, compliance, and enforcement: Government priorities and initiatives
Moderated by Jeffrey P. Kahn, PhD, MPH, Maas Family Chair in Bioethics and Director, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota
Panelists: Bernard A. Schwetz, DVM, PhD, and James G. Sheehan

Guidelines and Performance: Creating a Culture of Ethics
Creating an institutional conflict-of-interest policy at Johns Hopkins: Progress and lessons learned
Edward D. Miller, MD, Dean of the Medical Faculty, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; CEO, Johns Hopkins Medicine

Managing ethical performance in organizations: Insights from the corporate world
Edward Soule, CPA, PhD, Associate Professor, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University

Panel discussion: Guidelines and performance: Creating a culture of ethics
Moderated by Susan H. Ehringhaus, JD, Associate General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Association of American Medical Colleges
Panelists: Edward D. Miller, MD, and Edward Soule, CPA, PhD

Articles in these proceedings were developed by the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine staff from transcripts of audiotaped presentations at the “National Dialogue on Biomedical Conflicts of Interest and Innovation Management” and then reviewed and revised by the respective speakers.

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(3)
Page Number
S1-S80
Page Number
S1-S80
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Proceedings of a National Dialogue on Biomedical Conflicts of Interest and Innovation Management
Display Headline
Proceedings of a National Dialogue on Biomedical Conflicts of Interest and Innovation Management
Sections
Citation Override
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2007 March;74(3 suppl 2):S1-S80
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

Inpatient management of diabetes: An increasing challenge to the hospitalist physician

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Inpatient management of diabetes: An increasing challenge to the hospitalist physician

In this supplement, Avoiding Complications in the Hospitalized Patient: The Case for Tight Glycemic Control, Dr. Susan S. Braithwaite defines specific populations, disorders, and hospital settings for which there now is strong evidence supporting the belief that short‐term glycemic control will affect outcomes during the course of hospital treatment.1 She provides a comprehensive summary of key studies showing the benefits of tight glycemic control in hospitalized patients. Dr. James S. Krinsley reviews the evidence that supports more intensive glucose control, along with a real‐world success story that demonstrates how to apply the new glycemic targets in a multidisciplinary performance improvement project.2 He discusses important issues surrounding the successful implementation of a tight glycemic control protocol, including barriers to implementation, setting the glycemic target, and tips for choosing the right protocol. Dr. Franklin Michota describes a practical guideline for how to implement a more physiologic and sensible insulin regimen for management of inpatient hyperglycemia.3 He reports on the disadvantages of the sliding scale and recommends the implementation of a standardized subcutaneous insulin order set with the use of scheduled basal and nutritional insulin in the inpatient management of diabetes. Drs. Asudani and Calles‐Escandon focus on the management of noncritically ill patients with hyperglycemia in medical and surgical units.4 They propose a successful insulin regimen to be used in non‐ICU settings that is based on the combined use of basal, alimentary (prandial), and corrective insulin. This supplement provides the hospitalist physician with the necessary tools to implement glycemic control programs in critical care and noncritical care units and can be summarized as follows.

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients is a common, serious, and costly health care problem with profound medical consequences. Thirty‐eight percent of patients admitted to the hospital have hyperglycemia, about one third of whom have no history of diabetes before admission.5 Increasing evidence indicates that the development of hyperglycemia during acute medical or surgical illness is not a physiologic or benign condition but is a marker of poor clinical outcome and mortality.510 Evidence from observational studies indicates that the development of hyperglycemia in critical illness is associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality, a longer hospital stay, a higher rate of admission to the ICU, and a higher likelihood that transitional or nursing home care after hospital discharge will be required.5, 7, 914 Prospective randomized trials with critical care patients have shown that aggressive glycemic control reduces short‐ and long‐term mortality, multiorgan failure, systemic infections, and length of hospital and ICU stays7, 911 and lower the total cost of hospitalization.15 Controlling hyperglycemia is also important for adult patients admitted to general surgical and medical wards. In such patients, the presence of hyperglycemia is associated with prolonged hospital stay, infection, disability after hospital discharge, and death.5, 11, 16

Insulin, given either intravenously as a continuous infusion or subcutaneously, is currently the only available agent for effectively controlling glycemia in the hospital. In the critical care setting, a variety of intravenous infusion protocols have been shown to be effective in achieving glycemic control with a low‐rate of hypoglycemic events and in improving hospital outcomes.1723 However, no prospective and randomized interventional studies have focused on the optimal management of hyperglycemia and its effect on clinical outcome among noncritically ill patients admitted to general medicine services. Fear of hypoglycemia leads physicians to inappropriately hold to their patients' previous outpatient diabetic regimens and to initiate sliding‐scale insulin coverage, a practice associated with limited therapeutic success.20, 24, 25 The most physiologic and effective insulin therapy provides both basal and nutritional insulin.11 The basal insulin requirement is the amount of exogenous insulin necessary to regulate hepatic glucose production and peripheral glucose uptake and to prevent ketogenesis. The nutritional, or prandial, insulin requirement is the amount of insulin necessary to cover meals and the administration of intravenous dextrose, TPN, and enteral feedings. Prandial or mealtime insulin replacement has its main effect on peripheral glucose disposal. In addition to the basal and nutritional insulin requirements, patients often require supplemental or correction doses of insulin to treat unexpected hyperglycemia. The supplemental algorithm should not be confused with the sliding scale, which traditionally has been used alone, with no scheduled dose. Insulins used for basal requirements are NPH (which is intermediate acting) and long‐acting insulin analogues (glargine and detemir). To cover nutritional need, regular insulin or rapid‐acting analogues (lispro, aspart, glulisine) can be used. Although no inpatient controlled trials using the basal‐nutritional insulin regimen have been reported, the use of basal and nutritional insulin regimen may be a better alternative to the use of intermediate insulin (NPH) and regular insulin in hospitalized patients.

Hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients with diabetes is a concern, and it has been a major barrier to aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia in the hospital. Severe hypoglycemia, defined as a glucose level less than 40 mg/dL, occurred at least once in 5.1% of patients in the intensively treated group in Van den Berghe's surgical ICU study, versus 0.8% of patients in the conventionally treated group.19 The incidence of severe hypoglycemia (40 mg/dL) reported by Krinsley et al. prior to institution of the intensified protocol was 0.35% of all values obtained, compared to 0.34% of those obtained during the treatment period, again without any overt adverse consequences.26 Factors that increase the risk of hypoglycemia in the hospital include inadequate glucose monitoring, lack of clear communication or coordination between the dietary team, transportation, and nursing staff, and indecipherable orders. Clear algorithms for insulin orders and clear hypoglycemia protocols are critical to preventing hypoglycemia.

What should the target blood glucose level be in noncritically ill patients with diabetes? A recent position statement of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology with cosponsorship by the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the Endocrine Society, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the Society of Hospital Medicine, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association of Diabetes Educators27 recommended a glycemic target between 80 and 110 mg/dL for hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit and a preprandial glucose goal of less than 110 mg/dL and a random glucose less than 180 mg/dL for patients in noncritical care settings. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization recently proposed tight glucose control for the critically ill as a core quality of care measure for all U.S. hospitals that participate in the Medicare program (www.jcaho.org). Recently, some experts have endorsed a more conservative blood glucose value, up to 140 mg/dL26, 28 or even higher, if the patient is not in a critical care unit. Until clinical recommendations supported by prospective randomized trials become available, it is prudent to approach management of hospitalized patients with caution, but with the understanding that any blood glucose threshold greater than 140 mg/dL in the ICU and greater than 180 mg/dL in noncritical care areas should be avoided.

References
  1. Braithwaite SB.Defining the benefits of euglycemia in the hospitalized patient.J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):512.
  2. Krinsley J.Translating evidence into practice in managing inpatient hyperglycemia.J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):1319.
  3. Michota F.What are the disadvantages of sliding‐scale insulin?J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):2022.
  4. Asudani D,Calles‐Escandon J.Inpatient hyperglycemia: Slide through the scale but cover the bases first.J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):2332.
  5. Umpierrez GE,Isaacs SD,Bazargan N,You X,Thaler LM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemia: an independent marker of in‐hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes.J Clin Endocrinol Metab.2002;87:978982.
  6. Capes SE,Hunt D,Malmberg K,Gerstein HC.Stress hyperglycaemia and increased risk of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes: a systematic overview.Lancet2000;355:773778.
  7. Finney SJ,Zekveld C,Elia A,Evans TW:Glucose control and mortality in critically ill patients.JAMA.2003;290:20412047.
  8. Levetan CS,Magee MF:Hospital management of diabetes.Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am.2000;29:745770.
  9. Wahab NN,Cowden EA,Pearce NJ,Gardner MJ,Merry H,Cox JL.Is blood glucose an independent predictor of mortality in acute myocardial infarction in the thrombolytic era?J Am Coll Cardiol.2002;40:17481754.
  10. Norhammar AM,Ryden L,Malmberg K.Admission plasma glucose. Independent risk factor for long‐term prognosis after myocardial infarction even in nondiabetic patients.Diabetes Care.1999;22:18271831.
  11. Clement S,Braithwaite SS,Magee MF,Ahmann A,Smith EP,Schafer RG,Hirsh IB.Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitals.Diabetes Care.27:553597,2004
  12. Montori VM,Bistrian BR,McMahon MM.Hyperglycemia in acutely ill patients.JAMA.2002;288:21672169.
  13. Stranders I,Diamant M,van Gelder RE,Spruijt HJ,Twisk JW,Heine RJ,Visser FC.Admission blood glucose level as risk indicator of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.2004;164:982988.
  14. Umpierrez GE,A EK.ICU care for patients with diabetes.Current Opinions Endocrinol.2004;11:7581.
  15. Krinsley JS,Jones RL.Cost analysis of intensive glycemic control in critically ill adult patients.Chest.2006;129:644650.
  16. Pomposelli JJ,Baxter JK,Babineau TJ, et al.Early postoperative glucose control predicts nosocomial infection rate in diabetic patients.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr.1998;22:7781.
  17. Malmberg KA,Efendic S,Ryden LE:Feasibility of insulin‐glucose infusion in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report from the multicenter trial: DIGAMI.Diabetes Care.1994;17:10071014.
  18. Umpierrez GE,Kelly JP,Navarrete JE,Casals MM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemic crises in urban blacks.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:669675.
  19. van den Berghe G,Wouters P,Weekers F, et al.Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients.N Engl J Med.2001;345:13591367.
  20. Brown G,Dodek P.Intravenous insulin nomogram improves blood glucose control in the critically ill.Crit Care Med.2001;29:17141719.
  21. Furnary AP,Gao G,Grunkemeier GL, et al.Continuous insulin infusion reduces mortality in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2003;125:10071021.
  22. Furnary AP,Zerr KJ,Grunkemeier GL,Starr A.Continuous intravenous insulin infusion reduces the incidence of deep sternal wound infection in diabetic patients after cardiac surgical procedures.Ann Thorac Surg.1999;67:352360; discussion360352.
  23. Goldberg PA,Siegel MD,Sherwin RS, et al.Implementation of a safe and effective insulin infusion protocol in a medical intensive care unit.Diabetes Care.2004;27:461467.
  24. Queale WS,Seidler AJ,Brancati FL.Glycemic control and sliding scale insulin use in medical inpatients with diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:545552.
  25. Gearhart JG,Duncan JL,Replogle WH,Forbes RC,Walley EJ.Efficacy of sliding‐scale insulin therapy: a comparison with prospective regimens.Fam Pract Res J.1994;14:313322.
  26. Krinsley JS.Association between hyperglycemia and increased hospital mortality in a heterogeneous population of critically ill patients.Mayo Clin Proc.2003;78:14711478.
  27. Garber AJ,Moghissi ES,Bransome ED, et al.American College of Endocrinology position statement on inpatient diabetes and metabolic control.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):49.
  28. Inzucchi SE,Rosenstock J.Counterpoint: inpatient glucose management: a premature call to arms?Diabetes Care.2005;28:976979.
Article PDF
Page Number
33-35
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

In this supplement, Avoiding Complications in the Hospitalized Patient: The Case for Tight Glycemic Control, Dr. Susan S. Braithwaite defines specific populations, disorders, and hospital settings for which there now is strong evidence supporting the belief that short‐term glycemic control will affect outcomes during the course of hospital treatment.1 She provides a comprehensive summary of key studies showing the benefits of tight glycemic control in hospitalized patients. Dr. James S. Krinsley reviews the evidence that supports more intensive glucose control, along with a real‐world success story that demonstrates how to apply the new glycemic targets in a multidisciplinary performance improvement project.2 He discusses important issues surrounding the successful implementation of a tight glycemic control protocol, including barriers to implementation, setting the glycemic target, and tips for choosing the right protocol. Dr. Franklin Michota describes a practical guideline for how to implement a more physiologic and sensible insulin regimen for management of inpatient hyperglycemia.3 He reports on the disadvantages of the sliding scale and recommends the implementation of a standardized subcutaneous insulin order set with the use of scheduled basal and nutritional insulin in the inpatient management of diabetes. Drs. Asudani and Calles‐Escandon focus on the management of noncritically ill patients with hyperglycemia in medical and surgical units.4 They propose a successful insulin regimen to be used in non‐ICU settings that is based on the combined use of basal, alimentary (prandial), and corrective insulin. This supplement provides the hospitalist physician with the necessary tools to implement glycemic control programs in critical care and noncritical care units and can be summarized as follows.

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients is a common, serious, and costly health care problem with profound medical consequences. Thirty‐eight percent of patients admitted to the hospital have hyperglycemia, about one third of whom have no history of diabetes before admission.5 Increasing evidence indicates that the development of hyperglycemia during acute medical or surgical illness is not a physiologic or benign condition but is a marker of poor clinical outcome and mortality.510 Evidence from observational studies indicates that the development of hyperglycemia in critical illness is associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality, a longer hospital stay, a higher rate of admission to the ICU, and a higher likelihood that transitional or nursing home care after hospital discharge will be required.5, 7, 914 Prospective randomized trials with critical care patients have shown that aggressive glycemic control reduces short‐ and long‐term mortality, multiorgan failure, systemic infections, and length of hospital and ICU stays7, 911 and lower the total cost of hospitalization.15 Controlling hyperglycemia is also important for adult patients admitted to general surgical and medical wards. In such patients, the presence of hyperglycemia is associated with prolonged hospital stay, infection, disability after hospital discharge, and death.5, 11, 16

Insulin, given either intravenously as a continuous infusion or subcutaneously, is currently the only available agent for effectively controlling glycemia in the hospital. In the critical care setting, a variety of intravenous infusion protocols have been shown to be effective in achieving glycemic control with a low‐rate of hypoglycemic events and in improving hospital outcomes.1723 However, no prospective and randomized interventional studies have focused on the optimal management of hyperglycemia and its effect on clinical outcome among noncritically ill patients admitted to general medicine services. Fear of hypoglycemia leads physicians to inappropriately hold to their patients' previous outpatient diabetic regimens and to initiate sliding‐scale insulin coverage, a practice associated with limited therapeutic success.20, 24, 25 The most physiologic and effective insulin therapy provides both basal and nutritional insulin.11 The basal insulin requirement is the amount of exogenous insulin necessary to regulate hepatic glucose production and peripheral glucose uptake and to prevent ketogenesis. The nutritional, or prandial, insulin requirement is the amount of insulin necessary to cover meals and the administration of intravenous dextrose, TPN, and enteral feedings. Prandial or mealtime insulin replacement has its main effect on peripheral glucose disposal. In addition to the basal and nutritional insulin requirements, patients often require supplemental or correction doses of insulin to treat unexpected hyperglycemia. The supplemental algorithm should not be confused with the sliding scale, which traditionally has been used alone, with no scheduled dose. Insulins used for basal requirements are NPH (which is intermediate acting) and long‐acting insulin analogues (glargine and detemir). To cover nutritional need, regular insulin or rapid‐acting analogues (lispro, aspart, glulisine) can be used. Although no inpatient controlled trials using the basal‐nutritional insulin regimen have been reported, the use of basal and nutritional insulin regimen may be a better alternative to the use of intermediate insulin (NPH) and regular insulin in hospitalized patients.

Hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients with diabetes is a concern, and it has been a major barrier to aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia in the hospital. Severe hypoglycemia, defined as a glucose level less than 40 mg/dL, occurred at least once in 5.1% of patients in the intensively treated group in Van den Berghe's surgical ICU study, versus 0.8% of patients in the conventionally treated group.19 The incidence of severe hypoglycemia (40 mg/dL) reported by Krinsley et al. prior to institution of the intensified protocol was 0.35% of all values obtained, compared to 0.34% of those obtained during the treatment period, again without any overt adverse consequences.26 Factors that increase the risk of hypoglycemia in the hospital include inadequate glucose monitoring, lack of clear communication or coordination between the dietary team, transportation, and nursing staff, and indecipherable orders. Clear algorithms for insulin orders and clear hypoglycemia protocols are critical to preventing hypoglycemia.

What should the target blood glucose level be in noncritically ill patients with diabetes? A recent position statement of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology with cosponsorship by the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the Endocrine Society, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the Society of Hospital Medicine, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association of Diabetes Educators27 recommended a glycemic target between 80 and 110 mg/dL for hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit and a preprandial glucose goal of less than 110 mg/dL and a random glucose less than 180 mg/dL for patients in noncritical care settings. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization recently proposed tight glucose control for the critically ill as a core quality of care measure for all U.S. hospitals that participate in the Medicare program (www.jcaho.org). Recently, some experts have endorsed a more conservative blood glucose value, up to 140 mg/dL26, 28 or even higher, if the patient is not in a critical care unit. Until clinical recommendations supported by prospective randomized trials become available, it is prudent to approach management of hospitalized patients with caution, but with the understanding that any blood glucose threshold greater than 140 mg/dL in the ICU and greater than 180 mg/dL in noncritical care areas should be avoided.

In this supplement, Avoiding Complications in the Hospitalized Patient: The Case for Tight Glycemic Control, Dr. Susan S. Braithwaite defines specific populations, disorders, and hospital settings for which there now is strong evidence supporting the belief that short‐term glycemic control will affect outcomes during the course of hospital treatment.1 She provides a comprehensive summary of key studies showing the benefits of tight glycemic control in hospitalized patients. Dr. James S. Krinsley reviews the evidence that supports more intensive glucose control, along with a real‐world success story that demonstrates how to apply the new glycemic targets in a multidisciplinary performance improvement project.2 He discusses important issues surrounding the successful implementation of a tight glycemic control protocol, including barriers to implementation, setting the glycemic target, and tips for choosing the right protocol. Dr. Franklin Michota describes a practical guideline for how to implement a more physiologic and sensible insulin regimen for management of inpatient hyperglycemia.3 He reports on the disadvantages of the sliding scale and recommends the implementation of a standardized subcutaneous insulin order set with the use of scheduled basal and nutritional insulin in the inpatient management of diabetes. Drs. Asudani and Calles‐Escandon focus on the management of noncritically ill patients with hyperglycemia in medical and surgical units.4 They propose a successful insulin regimen to be used in non‐ICU settings that is based on the combined use of basal, alimentary (prandial), and corrective insulin. This supplement provides the hospitalist physician with the necessary tools to implement glycemic control programs in critical care and noncritical care units and can be summarized as follows.

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients is a common, serious, and costly health care problem with profound medical consequences. Thirty‐eight percent of patients admitted to the hospital have hyperglycemia, about one third of whom have no history of diabetes before admission.5 Increasing evidence indicates that the development of hyperglycemia during acute medical or surgical illness is not a physiologic or benign condition but is a marker of poor clinical outcome and mortality.510 Evidence from observational studies indicates that the development of hyperglycemia in critical illness is associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality, a longer hospital stay, a higher rate of admission to the ICU, and a higher likelihood that transitional or nursing home care after hospital discharge will be required.5, 7, 914 Prospective randomized trials with critical care patients have shown that aggressive glycemic control reduces short‐ and long‐term mortality, multiorgan failure, systemic infections, and length of hospital and ICU stays7, 911 and lower the total cost of hospitalization.15 Controlling hyperglycemia is also important for adult patients admitted to general surgical and medical wards. In such patients, the presence of hyperglycemia is associated with prolonged hospital stay, infection, disability after hospital discharge, and death.5, 11, 16

Insulin, given either intravenously as a continuous infusion or subcutaneously, is currently the only available agent for effectively controlling glycemia in the hospital. In the critical care setting, a variety of intravenous infusion protocols have been shown to be effective in achieving glycemic control with a low‐rate of hypoglycemic events and in improving hospital outcomes.1723 However, no prospective and randomized interventional studies have focused on the optimal management of hyperglycemia and its effect on clinical outcome among noncritically ill patients admitted to general medicine services. Fear of hypoglycemia leads physicians to inappropriately hold to their patients' previous outpatient diabetic regimens and to initiate sliding‐scale insulin coverage, a practice associated with limited therapeutic success.20, 24, 25 The most physiologic and effective insulin therapy provides both basal and nutritional insulin.11 The basal insulin requirement is the amount of exogenous insulin necessary to regulate hepatic glucose production and peripheral glucose uptake and to prevent ketogenesis. The nutritional, or prandial, insulin requirement is the amount of insulin necessary to cover meals and the administration of intravenous dextrose, TPN, and enteral feedings. Prandial or mealtime insulin replacement has its main effect on peripheral glucose disposal. In addition to the basal and nutritional insulin requirements, patients often require supplemental or correction doses of insulin to treat unexpected hyperglycemia. The supplemental algorithm should not be confused with the sliding scale, which traditionally has been used alone, with no scheduled dose. Insulins used for basal requirements are NPH (which is intermediate acting) and long‐acting insulin analogues (glargine and detemir). To cover nutritional need, regular insulin or rapid‐acting analogues (lispro, aspart, glulisine) can be used. Although no inpatient controlled trials using the basal‐nutritional insulin regimen have been reported, the use of basal and nutritional insulin regimen may be a better alternative to the use of intermediate insulin (NPH) and regular insulin in hospitalized patients.

Hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients with diabetes is a concern, and it has been a major barrier to aggressive treatment of hyperglycemia in the hospital. Severe hypoglycemia, defined as a glucose level less than 40 mg/dL, occurred at least once in 5.1% of patients in the intensively treated group in Van den Berghe's surgical ICU study, versus 0.8% of patients in the conventionally treated group.19 The incidence of severe hypoglycemia (40 mg/dL) reported by Krinsley et al. prior to institution of the intensified protocol was 0.35% of all values obtained, compared to 0.34% of those obtained during the treatment period, again without any overt adverse consequences.26 Factors that increase the risk of hypoglycemia in the hospital include inadequate glucose monitoring, lack of clear communication or coordination between the dietary team, transportation, and nursing staff, and indecipherable orders. Clear algorithms for insulin orders and clear hypoglycemia protocols are critical to preventing hypoglycemia.

What should the target blood glucose level be in noncritically ill patients with diabetes? A recent position statement of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology with cosponsorship by the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the Endocrine Society, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the Society of Hospital Medicine, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association of Diabetes Educators27 recommended a glycemic target between 80 and 110 mg/dL for hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit and a preprandial glucose goal of less than 110 mg/dL and a random glucose less than 180 mg/dL for patients in noncritical care settings. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization recently proposed tight glucose control for the critically ill as a core quality of care measure for all U.S. hospitals that participate in the Medicare program (www.jcaho.org). Recently, some experts have endorsed a more conservative blood glucose value, up to 140 mg/dL26, 28 or even higher, if the patient is not in a critical care unit. Until clinical recommendations supported by prospective randomized trials become available, it is prudent to approach management of hospitalized patients with caution, but with the understanding that any blood glucose threshold greater than 140 mg/dL in the ICU and greater than 180 mg/dL in noncritical care areas should be avoided.

References
  1. Braithwaite SB.Defining the benefits of euglycemia in the hospitalized patient.J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):512.
  2. Krinsley J.Translating evidence into practice in managing inpatient hyperglycemia.J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):1319.
  3. Michota F.What are the disadvantages of sliding‐scale insulin?J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):2022.
  4. Asudani D,Calles‐Escandon J.Inpatient hyperglycemia: Slide through the scale but cover the bases first.J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):2332.
  5. Umpierrez GE,Isaacs SD,Bazargan N,You X,Thaler LM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemia: an independent marker of in‐hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes.J Clin Endocrinol Metab.2002;87:978982.
  6. Capes SE,Hunt D,Malmberg K,Gerstein HC.Stress hyperglycaemia and increased risk of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes: a systematic overview.Lancet2000;355:773778.
  7. Finney SJ,Zekveld C,Elia A,Evans TW:Glucose control and mortality in critically ill patients.JAMA.2003;290:20412047.
  8. Levetan CS,Magee MF:Hospital management of diabetes.Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am.2000;29:745770.
  9. Wahab NN,Cowden EA,Pearce NJ,Gardner MJ,Merry H,Cox JL.Is blood glucose an independent predictor of mortality in acute myocardial infarction in the thrombolytic era?J Am Coll Cardiol.2002;40:17481754.
  10. Norhammar AM,Ryden L,Malmberg K.Admission plasma glucose. Independent risk factor for long‐term prognosis after myocardial infarction even in nondiabetic patients.Diabetes Care.1999;22:18271831.
  11. Clement S,Braithwaite SS,Magee MF,Ahmann A,Smith EP,Schafer RG,Hirsh IB.Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitals.Diabetes Care.27:553597,2004
  12. Montori VM,Bistrian BR,McMahon MM.Hyperglycemia in acutely ill patients.JAMA.2002;288:21672169.
  13. Stranders I,Diamant M,van Gelder RE,Spruijt HJ,Twisk JW,Heine RJ,Visser FC.Admission blood glucose level as risk indicator of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.2004;164:982988.
  14. Umpierrez GE,A EK.ICU care for patients with diabetes.Current Opinions Endocrinol.2004;11:7581.
  15. Krinsley JS,Jones RL.Cost analysis of intensive glycemic control in critically ill adult patients.Chest.2006;129:644650.
  16. Pomposelli JJ,Baxter JK,Babineau TJ, et al.Early postoperative glucose control predicts nosocomial infection rate in diabetic patients.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr.1998;22:7781.
  17. Malmberg KA,Efendic S,Ryden LE:Feasibility of insulin‐glucose infusion in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report from the multicenter trial: DIGAMI.Diabetes Care.1994;17:10071014.
  18. Umpierrez GE,Kelly JP,Navarrete JE,Casals MM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemic crises in urban blacks.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:669675.
  19. van den Berghe G,Wouters P,Weekers F, et al.Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients.N Engl J Med.2001;345:13591367.
  20. Brown G,Dodek P.Intravenous insulin nomogram improves blood glucose control in the critically ill.Crit Care Med.2001;29:17141719.
  21. Furnary AP,Gao G,Grunkemeier GL, et al.Continuous insulin infusion reduces mortality in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2003;125:10071021.
  22. Furnary AP,Zerr KJ,Grunkemeier GL,Starr A.Continuous intravenous insulin infusion reduces the incidence of deep sternal wound infection in diabetic patients after cardiac surgical procedures.Ann Thorac Surg.1999;67:352360; discussion360352.
  23. Goldberg PA,Siegel MD,Sherwin RS, et al.Implementation of a safe and effective insulin infusion protocol in a medical intensive care unit.Diabetes Care.2004;27:461467.
  24. Queale WS,Seidler AJ,Brancati FL.Glycemic control and sliding scale insulin use in medical inpatients with diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:545552.
  25. Gearhart JG,Duncan JL,Replogle WH,Forbes RC,Walley EJ.Efficacy of sliding‐scale insulin therapy: a comparison with prospective regimens.Fam Pract Res J.1994;14:313322.
  26. Krinsley JS.Association between hyperglycemia and increased hospital mortality in a heterogeneous population of critically ill patients.Mayo Clin Proc.2003;78:14711478.
  27. Garber AJ,Moghissi ES,Bransome ED, et al.American College of Endocrinology position statement on inpatient diabetes and metabolic control.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):49.
  28. Inzucchi SE,Rosenstock J.Counterpoint: inpatient glucose management: a premature call to arms?Diabetes Care.2005;28:976979.
References
  1. Braithwaite SB.Defining the benefits of euglycemia in the hospitalized patient.J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):512.
  2. Krinsley J.Translating evidence into practice in managing inpatient hyperglycemia.J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):1319.
  3. Michota F.What are the disadvantages of sliding‐scale insulin?J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):2022.
  4. Asudani D,Calles‐Escandon J.Inpatient hyperglycemia: Slide through the scale but cover the bases first.J Hosp Med.2007;2(suppl 1):2332.
  5. Umpierrez GE,Isaacs SD,Bazargan N,You X,Thaler LM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemia: an independent marker of in‐hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes.J Clin Endocrinol Metab.2002;87:978982.
  6. Capes SE,Hunt D,Malmberg K,Gerstein HC.Stress hyperglycaemia and increased risk of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes: a systematic overview.Lancet2000;355:773778.
  7. Finney SJ,Zekveld C,Elia A,Evans TW:Glucose control and mortality in critically ill patients.JAMA.2003;290:20412047.
  8. Levetan CS,Magee MF:Hospital management of diabetes.Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am.2000;29:745770.
  9. Wahab NN,Cowden EA,Pearce NJ,Gardner MJ,Merry H,Cox JL.Is blood glucose an independent predictor of mortality in acute myocardial infarction in the thrombolytic era?J Am Coll Cardiol.2002;40:17481754.
  10. Norhammar AM,Ryden L,Malmberg K.Admission plasma glucose. Independent risk factor for long‐term prognosis after myocardial infarction even in nondiabetic patients.Diabetes Care.1999;22:18271831.
  11. Clement S,Braithwaite SS,Magee MF,Ahmann A,Smith EP,Schafer RG,Hirsh IB.Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitals.Diabetes Care.27:553597,2004
  12. Montori VM,Bistrian BR,McMahon MM.Hyperglycemia in acutely ill patients.JAMA.2002;288:21672169.
  13. Stranders I,Diamant M,van Gelder RE,Spruijt HJ,Twisk JW,Heine RJ,Visser FC.Admission blood glucose level as risk indicator of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.2004;164:982988.
  14. Umpierrez GE,A EK.ICU care for patients with diabetes.Current Opinions Endocrinol.2004;11:7581.
  15. Krinsley JS,Jones RL.Cost analysis of intensive glycemic control in critically ill adult patients.Chest.2006;129:644650.
  16. Pomposelli JJ,Baxter JK,Babineau TJ, et al.Early postoperative glucose control predicts nosocomial infection rate in diabetic patients.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr.1998;22:7781.
  17. Malmberg KA,Efendic S,Ryden LE:Feasibility of insulin‐glucose infusion in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report from the multicenter trial: DIGAMI.Diabetes Care.1994;17:10071014.
  18. Umpierrez GE,Kelly JP,Navarrete JE,Casals MM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemic crises in urban blacks.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:669675.
  19. van den Berghe G,Wouters P,Weekers F, et al.Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients.N Engl J Med.2001;345:13591367.
  20. Brown G,Dodek P.Intravenous insulin nomogram improves blood glucose control in the critically ill.Crit Care Med.2001;29:17141719.
  21. Furnary AP,Gao G,Grunkemeier GL, et al.Continuous insulin infusion reduces mortality in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2003;125:10071021.
  22. Furnary AP,Zerr KJ,Grunkemeier GL,Starr A.Continuous intravenous insulin infusion reduces the incidence of deep sternal wound infection in diabetic patients after cardiac surgical procedures.Ann Thorac Surg.1999;67:352360; discussion360352.
  23. Goldberg PA,Siegel MD,Sherwin RS, et al.Implementation of a safe and effective insulin infusion protocol in a medical intensive care unit.Diabetes Care.2004;27:461467.
  24. Queale WS,Seidler AJ,Brancati FL.Glycemic control and sliding scale insulin use in medical inpatients with diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:545552.
  25. Gearhart JG,Duncan JL,Replogle WH,Forbes RC,Walley EJ.Efficacy of sliding‐scale insulin therapy: a comparison with prospective regimens.Fam Pract Res J.1994;14:313322.
  26. Krinsley JS.Association between hyperglycemia and increased hospital mortality in a heterogeneous population of critically ill patients.Mayo Clin Proc.2003;78:14711478.
  27. Garber AJ,Moghissi ES,Bransome ED, et al.American College of Endocrinology position statement on inpatient diabetes and metabolic control.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):49.
  28. Inzucchi SE,Rosenstock J.Counterpoint: inpatient glucose management: a premature call to arms?Diabetes Care.2005;28:976979.
Page Number
33-35
Page Number
33-35
Article Type
Display Headline
Inpatient management of diabetes: An increasing challenge to the hospitalist physician
Display Headline
Inpatient management of diabetes: An increasing challenge to the hospitalist physician
Sections
Article Source
Copyright © 2007 Society of Hospital Medicine
Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Associate Professor of Medicine and Associate Director, General Clinical Research Center, Emory University School of Medicine, 49 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive, Atlanta, GA 30303; Fax: (404) 616‐3717
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Article PDF Media

Proceedings of the Heart-Brain Summit

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Proceedings of the Heart-Brain Summit

Supplement Editor:
Marc S. Penn, MD, PhD

Contents

Introduction
Heart-brain medicine: Where we go from here and why
Marc S. Penn, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and Earl E. Bakken, DSc (hon), Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and North Hawaii Community Hospital, Kamuela, Hawaii

Opening remarks
The dream behind the summit
Earl E. Bakken, DSc (hon), Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and North Hawaii Community Hospital, Kamuela, Hawaii

Keynote address
'Voodoo' death revisited: The modern lessons of neurocardiology
Martin A. Samuels, MD, DSc (hon), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

The broken heart syndrome
Ilan S. Wittstein, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

Brain imaging in cardiovascular disease: State of the art
Michael Phillips, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cortical control of the heart
Stephen Oppenheimer, MD, PhD, Sentient Medical Systems, Cockeysville, Maryland

Neurological mechanisms of chest pain and cardiac disease
Robert D. Foreman, PhD, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Hypertension in sleep apnea: The role of the sympathetic pathway
Diana L. Kunze, PhD; David Kline, PhD; and Angelina Ramirez-Navarro, PhD, MetroHealth Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

Inflammation: Implications for understanding the heart-brain connection
Mehdi H. Shishehbor, DO; Carlos Alves, MD; and Vivek Rajagopal, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

The anti-ischemic effects of electrical neurostimulation in the heart
Jessica de Vries, MD, University of Groningen, The Netherlands; Robert D. Foreman, PhD, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Mike J.L.  DeJongste, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

The little brain on the heart
J. Andrew Armour, MD, PhD, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur and Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

Open heart surgery and cognitive decline
Mark F. Newman, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

The heart and the brain within the broader context of wellness
Michael O’Donnell, PhD, MBA, MPH, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

The heart-brain interaction during emotionally provoked myocardial ischemia: Implications of cortical hyperactivation in CAD and gender interactions
Robert Soufer, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, and Matthew M. Burg, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, and Columbia University, New York, New York

Depression and heart disease
François Lespérance, MD, Montréal Heart Institute, and Nancy Frasure-Smith, PhD, McGill University and Montréal Heart Institute, Montréal, Québec, Canada

Sick at heart: The pathophysiology of negative emotions
Laura D. Kubzansky, PhD, MPH, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

Role of the brain in ventricular fibrillation and hypertension: From animal models to early human studies
James E. Skinner, PhD, Vicor Technologies, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida

New paradigms in heart-brain medicine: Nonlinear physiology, state-dependent proteomics
James E. Skinner, PhD, Vicor Technologies, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida

Subarachnoid hemorrhage: A model for heart-brain interactions
J. Javier Provencio, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cardiac denervation in patients with Parkinson disease
David S. Goldstein, MD, PhD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

Aging and the brain renin-angiotensin system: Insights from studies in transgenic rats
Debra I. Diz, PhD; Sherry O. Kasper, PhD; Atsushi Sakima, MD; and Carlos M. Ferrario, MD, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Contextual cardiology: What modern medicine can learn from ancient Hawaiian wisdom
Paul Pearsall, PhD, University of Hawaii at Manoa and Hawaii State Consortium for Integrative Medicine, Honolulu, Hawaii

Cardiocerebral resuscitation: The optimal approach to cardiac arrest
Gordon A. Ewy, MD, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona

Heart transplantation: A magnified model of heart-brain interactions
Mohamad H. Yamani, MD, and Randall C. Starling, MD, MPH, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Patent foramen ovale and migraine
Gian Paolo Anzola, MD, S. Orsola Hospital FBF, Brescia, Italy

Patent foramen ovale and stroke: To close or not to close?
Anthony J. Furlan, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Sudden unexplained death in epilepsy: The role of the heart
Stephan U. Schuele, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Peter Widdess-Walsh, MD, Adriana Bermeo, MD, and Hans O. Lüders, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Hydrocephalus and the heart: Interactions of the first and third circulations
Mark Luciano, MD, PhD, and Stephen Dombrowski, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cognitive impairment in chronic heart failure
Cathy A. Sila, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cardiac events and brain injury: Ethical implications
Paul J. Ford, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Article PDF
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S1-S141
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

Supplement Editor:
Marc S. Penn, MD, PhD

Contents

Introduction
Heart-brain medicine: Where we go from here and why
Marc S. Penn, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and Earl E. Bakken, DSc (hon), Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and North Hawaii Community Hospital, Kamuela, Hawaii

Opening remarks
The dream behind the summit
Earl E. Bakken, DSc (hon), Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and North Hawaii Community Hospital, Kamuela, Hawaii

Keynote address
'Voodoo' death revisited: The modern lessons of neurocardiology
Martin A. Samuels, MD, DSc (hon), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

The broken heart syndrome
Ilan S. Wittstein, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

Brain imaging in cardiovascular disease: State of the art
Michael Phillips, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cortical control of the heart
Stephen Oppenheimer, MD, PhD, Sentient Medical Systems, Cockeysville, Maryland

Neurological mechanisms of chest pain and cardiac disease
Robert D. Foreman, PhD, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Hypertension in sleep apnea: The role of the sympathetic pathway
Diana L. Kunze, PhD; David Kline, PhD; and Angelina Ramirez-Navarro, PhD, MetroHealth Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

Inflammation: Implications for understanding the heart-brain connection
Mehdi H. Shishehbor, DO; Carlos Alves, MD; and Vivek Rajagopal, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

The anti-ischemic effects of electrical neurostimulation in the heart
Jessica de Vries, MD, University of Groningen, The Netherlands; Robert D. Foreman, PhD, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Mike J.L.  DeJongste, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

The little brain on the heart
J. Andrew Armour, MD, PhD, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur and Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

Open heart surgery and cognitive decline
Mark F. Newman, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

The heart and the brain within the broader context of wellness
Michael O’Donnell, PhD, MBA, MPH, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

The heart-brain interaction during emotionally provoked myocardial ischemia: Implications of cortical hyperactivation in CAD and gender interactions
Robert Soufer, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, and Matthew M. Burg, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, and Columbia University, New York, New York

Depression and heart disease
François Lespérance, MD, Montréal Heart Institute, and Nancy Frasure-Smith, PhD, McGill University and Montréal Heart Institute, Montréal, Québec, Canada

Sick at heart: The pathophysiology of negative emotions
Laura D. Kubzansky, PhD, MPH, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

Role of the brain in ventricular fibrillation and hypertension: From animal models to early human studies
James E. Skinner, PhD, Vicor Technologies, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida

New paradigms in heart-brain medicine: Nonlinear physiology, state-dependent proteomics
James E. Skinner, PhD, Vicor Technologies, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida

Subarachnoid hemorrhage: A model for heart-brain interactions
J. Javier Provencio, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cardiac denervation in patients with Parkinson disease
David S. Goldstein, MD, PhD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

Aging and the brain renin-angiotensin system: Insights from studies in transgenic rats
Debra I. Diz, PhD; Sherry O. Kasper, PhD; Atsushi Sakima, MD; and Carlos M. Ferrario, MD, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Contextual cardiology: What modern medicine can learn from ancient Hawaiian wisdom
Paul Pearsall, PhD, University of Hawaii at Manoa and Hawaii State Consortium for Integrative Medicine, Honolulu, Hawaii

Cardiocerebral resuscitation: The optimal approach to cardiac arrest
Gordon A. Ewy, MD, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona

Heart transplantation: A magnified model of heart-brain interactions
Mohamad H. Yamani, MD, and Randall C. Starling, MD, MPH, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Patent foramen ovale and migraine
Gian Paolo Anzola, MD, S. Orsola Hospital FBF, Brescia, Italy

Patent foramen ovale and stroke: To close or not to close?
Anthony J. Furlan, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Sudden unexplained death in epilepsy: The role of the heart
Stephan U. Schuele, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Peter Widdess-Walsh, MD, Adriana Bermeo, MD, and Hans O. Lüders, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Hydrocephalus and the heart: Interactions of the first and third circulations
Mark Luciano, MD, PhD, and Stephen Dombrowski, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cognitive impairment in chronic heart failure
Cathy A. Sila, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cardiac events and brain injury: Ethical implications
Paul J. Ford, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Supplement Editor:
Marc S. Penn, MD, PhD

Contents

Introduction
Heart-brain medicine: Where we go from here and why
Marc S. Penn, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and Earl E. Bakken, DSc (hon), Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and North Hawaii Community Hospital, Kamuela, Hawaii

Opening remarks
The dream behind the summit
Earl E. Bakken, DSc (hon), Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, and North Hawaii Community Hospital, Kamuela, Hawaii

Keynote address
'Voodoo' death revisited: The modern lessons of neurocardiology
Martin A. Samuels, MD, DSc (hon), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

The broken heart syndrome
Ilan S. Wittstein, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

Brain imaging in cardiovascular disease: State of the art
Michael Phillips, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cortical control of the heart
Stephen Oppenheimer, MD, PhD, Sentient Medical Systems, Cockeysville, Maryland

Neurological mechanisms of chest pain and cardiac disease
Robert D. Foreman, PhD, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Hypertension in sleep apnea: The role of the sympathetic pathway
Diana L. Kunze, PhD; David Kline, PhD; and Angelina Ramirez-Navarro, PhD, MetroHealth Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

Inflammation: Implications for understanding the heart-brain connection
Mehdi H. Shishehbor, DO; Carlos Alves, MD; and Vivek Rajagopal, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

The anti-ischemic effects of electrical neurostimulation in the heart
Jessica de Vries, MD, University of Groningen, The Netherlands; Robert D. Foreman, PhD, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Mike J.L.  DeJongste, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

The little brain on the heart
J. Andrew Armour, MD, PhD, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur and Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

Open heart surgery and cognitive decline
Mark F. Newman, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

The heart and the brain within the broader context of wellness
Michael O’Donnell, PhD, MBA, MPH, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

The heart-brain interaction during emotionally provoked myocardial ischemia: Implications of cortical hyperactivation in CAD and gender interactions
Robert Soufer, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, and Matthew M. Burg, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, and Columbia University, New York, New York

Depression and heart disease
François Lespérance, MD, Montréal Heart Institute, and Nancy Frasure-Smith, PhD, McGill University and Montréal Heart Institute, Montréal, Québec, Canada

Sick at heart: The pathophysiology of negative emotions
Laura D. Kubzansky, PhD, MPH, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

Role of the brain in ventricular fibrillation and hypertension: From animal models to early human studies
James E. Skinner, PhD, Vicor Technologies, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida

New paradigms in heart-brain medicine: Nonlinear physiology, state-dependent proteomics
James E. Skinner, PhD, Vicor Technologies, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida

Subarachnoid hemorrhage: A model for heart-brain interactions
J. Javier Provencio, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cardiac denervation in patients with Parkinson disease
David S. Goldstein, MD, PhD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

Aging and the brain renin-angiotensin system: Insights from studies in transgenic rats
Debra I. Diz, PhD; Sherry O. Kasper, PhD; Atsushi Sakima, MD; and Carlos M. Ferrario, MD, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Contextual cardiology: What modern medicine can learn from ancient Hawaiian wisdom
Paul Pearsall, PhD, University of Hawaii at Manoa and Hawaii State Consortium for Integrative Medicine, Honolulu, Hawaii

Cardiocerebral resuscitation: The optimal approach to cardiac arrest
Gordon A. Ewy, MD, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona

Heart transplantation: A magnified model of heart-brain interactions
Mohamad H. Yamani, MD, and Randall C. Starling, MD, MPH, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Patent foramen ovale and migraine
Gian Paolo Anzola, MD, S. Orsola Hospital FBF, Brescia, Italy

Patent foramen ovale and stroke: To close or not to close?
Anthony J. Furlan, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Sudden unexplained death in epilepsy: The role of the heart
Stephan U. Schuele, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Peter Widdess-Walsh, MD, Adriana Bermeo, MD, and Hans O. Lüders, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Hydrocephalus and the heart: Interactions of the first and third circulations
Mark Luciano, MD, PhD, and Stephen Dombrowski, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cognitive impairment in chronic heart failure
Cathy A. Sila, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Cardiac events and brain injury: Ethical implications
Paul J. Ford, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(2)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 74(2)
Page Number
S1-S141
Page Number
S1-S141
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Proceedings of the Heart-Brain Summit
Display Headline
Proceedings of the Heart-Brain Summit
Sections
Citation Override
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2007 February;74(2 suppl 1):S1-S141
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

Modern Methods to Treat Superficial Fungal Disease

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Modern Methods to Treat Superficial Fungal Disease
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from OrthoNeutrogena.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Issue
Cutis - 79(2)
Publications
Page Number
1-29
Legacy Keywords
Boni E. Elewski, James Q. Del Rosso, Zoe Diana Draelos, Joseph L. Jorizzo, Warren S. Joseph, Bret M Ribotsky, Phoebe Rich, fungal disease, topical antifungal agents, sertaconazole nitrate, tinea pedis, onychomycosis, intertrigo, seborrheic dermatitis, anti-inflammatory, anti-itch, myotic, trichophyton, candida albicans, asperigillus, scopulariopsis brevicaulis, fusarium, Malassezia furfur, nystatin, ketoconazole, ciclopirox olamine, electromicroscopy, miconazole nitrate, fluconazole, terconazole,
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Article PDF
Article PDF
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from OrthoNeutrogena.
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from OrthoNeutrogena.
Issue
Cutis - 79(2)
Issue
Cutis - 79(2)
Page Number
1-29
Page Number
1-29
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Modern Methods to Treat Superficial Fungal Disease
Display Headline
Modern Methods to Treat Superficial Fungal Disease
Legacy Keywords
Boni E. Elewski, James Q. Del Rosso, Zoe Diana Draelos, Joseph L. Jorizzo, Warren S. Joseph, Bret M Ribotsky, Phoebe Rich, fungal disease, topical antifungal agents, sertaconazole nitrate, tinea pedis, onychomycosis, intertrigo, seborrheic dermatitis, anti-inflammatory, anti-itch, myotic, trichophyton, candida albicans, asperigillus, scopulariopsis brevicaulis, fusarium, Malassezia furfur, nystatin, ketoconazole, ciclopirox olamine, electromicroscopy, miconazole nitrate, fluconazole, terconazole,
Legacy Keywords
Boni E. Elewski, James Q. Del Rosso, Zoe Diana Draelos, Joseph L. Jorizzo, Warren S. Joseph, Bret M Ribotsky, Phoebe Rich, fungal disease, topical antifungal agents, sertaconazole nitrate, tinea pedis, onychomycosis, intertrigo, seborrheic dermatitis, anti-inflammatory, anti-itch, myotic, trichophyton, candida albicans, asperigillus, scopulariopsis brevicaulis, fusarium, Malassezia furfur, nystatin, ketoconazole, ciclopirox olamine, electromicroscopy, miconazole nitrate, fluconazole, terconazole,
Sections
Citation Override
Cutis. 2007;79(suppl 2):1-29.
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Tight Glycemic Control / Michota and Braithwaite

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Avoiding complications in the hospitalized patient: The case for tight glycemic control

Hyperglycemia is common in the hospital among patients with diabetes and those without. The exact overall prevalence of diabetes in the hospital is unknown; however, in 2000, 12.4% of U.S. hospital discharges listed diabetes as a diagnosis. Among cardiac surgery patients, the prevalence of diabetes is as high as 29%.2 Another study reported a 26% prevalence of diabetes in a community teaching hospital, with an additional 12% of patients having unrecognized diabetes or hospital‐related hyperglycemia.3 Levetan et al. found laboratory‐documented hyperglycemia in 13% of 1034 consecutively hospitalized patients.4 A subsequent chart review found that more than one‐third of patients with hyperglycemia identified by laboratory testing remained unrecognized as having diabetes documented in the discharge summary, although diabetes or hyperglycemia was noted in the progress notes. In a retrospective chart review study, Umpierrez et al. similarly found 38% of 1886 consecutively hospitalized patients who had glucose measurements on admission were hyperglycemic.3 One‐third of these patients were not previously known to have diabetes, and compared to patients with diagnosed diabetes, they were more likely to require admission to the intensive care unit, had longer hospital stays, and were less likely to be discharged straight home.

Until recently, most clinicians viewed tight glucose control in the hospitalized patient as an intervention with little immediate benefit and significant potential for harm. The goal was simply to prevent excessive hyperglycemia and avoid ketoacidosis or significant fluid derangements while minimizing the risk for hypoglycemia. Today, a growing body of evidence suggests a close correlation between tight glucose control and improved clinical outcomes. Among those who have had a myocardial infarction and those in the surgical intensive care unit, it is known that intensive glycemic control reduces mortality.5, 6 Maintaining normoglycemia in patients in the surgical intensive care unit through intravenous insulin infusion also reduces the incidence of comorbidities such as transfusion requirements, renal failure, sepsis, and neuropathy and reduces the duration of ventilator dependence.6 Although trials using glucose‐insulin‐potassium infusions (GIK), when conducted such that lowering of blood glucose occurred, have shown benefit in the settings of myocardial infarction5, 7 and cardiac surgery,8 not all studies of GIK therapy have yielded positive results. The negative results of the CREATE‐ECLA study suggest that GIK therapy per se is not beneficial unless it reduces blood glucose.9 An abundance of additional observational data and comparisons with historical control data suggest that favorable outcomes might be causally dependent on euglycemia. The outcomes studied include hospital or critical care unit mortality and nosocomial infection,1014 specifically outcomes of strokes,1522 trauma,2325 renal transplantation,2628 myocardial infarction,2936 endocarditis,37 acute lymphocytic leukemia,38 community‐acquired pneumonia,39 infectious complications in the hospital,4046 and cardiac surgery,9, 44, 45, 4751 as well as length of stay and costs.11, 25, 5156

It is important for each hospital to consider the methodology used for blood glucose measurement, realizing that measurements in the Leuven Belgium studies were performed on arterial whole blood using a blood gas analyzer. With recognition that the normal range for blood glucose is method dependent, the data presented above form the basis for the recommended glycemic targets for hospitalized patients:

Target range blood glucose (AACE et al., 2004)

  • Preprandial: 110 mg/dL

  • Peak postprandial: 180 mg/dL

  • Critically ill surgical patients: 80‐110 mg/dL Target range blood glucose (ADA, 2006)

  • Critically ill: Blood glucose as close to 110 mg/dL as possible and generally 180 mg/dL. These patients generally will require IV insulin.

  • Noncritically ill: Premeal blood glucose as close to 90‐130 mg/dL as possible (midpoint 110 mg/dL). Postprandial blood glucose 180 mg/dL.

This supplement, Avoiding Complications in the Hospitalized Patient: The Case for Tight Glycemic Control, reviews several aspects of hyperglycemia in the hospital setting. Evidence that supports more intensive glucose control is reviewed, along with a real‐world success story that demonstrates how to apply the new glycemic targets in a multidisciplinary performance improvement project. In addition, the standard insulin sliding scale is examined in terms of efficacy, safety, and potential for meeting the new recommended glycemic targets.

References
  1. Tierney E: Data from the national hospital discharge survey database 2000.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Diabetes translation,Atlanta, GA,2003.
  2. Moghissi E: Hospital management of diabetes: beyond the sliding scale.Clev Clin J Med.2004;71:801808.
  3. Umpierrez GE,Isaacs SD,Bazargan N,You X,Thaler LM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemia: an independent marker of in‐hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes.J Clin Endocrinol Metab.2002;87:978982.
  4. Levetan CS,Passaro M,Jablonski K,Kass M,Ratner RE: Unrecognized diabetes among hospitalized patients.Diabetes Care.1998;21:246249.
  5. Malmberg K, for theDIGAMI study group.Prospective randomised study of intensive insulin treatment on long term survival after acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus.BMJ.1997;314:15121515.
  6. Van den Berghe G,Wouters P,Weekers F, et al.Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients.N Engl J Med.2001;345:13591367.
  7. Malmberg K,Rydén L,Efendic S, et al.Randomized trial of insulin‐glucose infusion followed by subcutaneous insulin treatment in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI study): effects on mortality at 1 year.J Am Coll Cardiol.1995;26:5765.
  8. Lazar HL,Chipkin SR,Fitzgerald CA,Bao Y,Cabral H,Apstein CS.Tight glycemic control in diabetic coronary artery bypass graft patients improves perioperative outcomes and decreases recurrent ischemic events.Circulation.2004;109:14971502.
  9. CREATE‐ECLA Trial Group Investigators.Effect of glucose‐insulin‐potassium infusion on mortality in patients with acute st‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: the CREATE‐ECLA randomized controlled trial.JAMA.2005;293:437446.
  10. Van den Berghe G,Wilmer A,Hermans G, et al.Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU.N Engl J Med.2006;354:449461.
  11. Grey NJ,Perdrizet GA.Reduction of nosocomial infections in the surgical intensive‐care unit by strict glycemic control.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):4652.
  12. Furnary AP,Gao G,Grunkemeier GL, et al.Continuous insulin infusion reduces mortality in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2003;125:10071021.
  13. Stagnaro‐Green A,Barton MK,Linekin PL,Corkery E,deBeer K,Roman SH.Mortalilty in hospitalized patients with hypoglycemia and severe hyperglycemia.Mt Sinai J Med.1995;62:422426.
  14. Umpierrez GE,Isaacs SD,Bazargan N,You X,Thaler LM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemia: an independent marker of in‐hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes.J Clin Endocrinol Metab.2002;87:978982.
  15. Finney SJ,Zekveld C,Elia A,Evans TW.Glucose control and mortality in critically ill patients.JAMA.2003;290:20412047.
  16. Krinsley JS.Effect of an intensive glucose management protocol on the mortality of critically ill adult patients.Mayo Clin Proc.2004:79:9921000.
  17. Pittas AG,Siegel RD,Lau J.Insulin therapy for critically ill hospitalized patients: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials.Arch Intern Med.2004;164:20052011.
  18. Baird TA,Parsons MW,Phanh T, et al.Persistent poststroke hyperglycemia is independently associated with infarct expansion and worse clinical outcome.Stroke.2003;34:22082214.
  19. Capes S,Hunt D,Malmberg K,Pathak P,Gerstein H.Stress hyperglycemia and prognosis of stroke in nodiabetic and diabetic patients: a systematic overview.Stroke.2001;32:24262432.
  20. Bruno A,Levine SR,Frankel MR, et al.Admission glucose level and clinical outcomes in the NINDS rt‐PA Stroke Trial.Neurology.2002;59:669674.
  21. Levetan CS.Effect of hyperglycemia on stroke outcomes.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):3439.
  22. Leigh R,Zaidat OO,Suri MF, et al.Predictors of hyperacute clinical worsening in ischemic stroke patients receiving thrombolytic therapy.Stroke.2004;35:19031907.
  23. Lindsberg PJ,Roine RO.Hyperglycemia in acute stroke.Stroke.2004;35:363364.
  24. Gentile NT,Seftchick MW,Huynh T,Kruus LK,Gaughan J.Decreased mortality by normalizing blood glucose after acute ischemic stroke.Acad Emerg Med.2006;13:174180.
  25. Gentile NT,Seftchick M,Martin R.Blood glucose control after acute stroke: a retrospective study.Acad Emerg Med.2003;10:432.
  26. Laird AM,Miller PR,Kilgo PD,Meredith JW,Chang MC.Relationship of early hyperglycemia to mortality in trauma patients.J Trauma.2004;56:10581062.
  27. Sung J,Bochicchio GV,Joshi M,Bochicchio K,Tracy K,Scalea TM.Admission hyperglycemia is predictive of outcome in critically ill trauma patients.J Trauma.2005;59:8083.
  28. Williams LS,Rotich J,Qi R, et al.Effects of admission hyperglycemia on mortality and costs in acute ischemic stroke.Neurology.2002;59(1):6771.
  29. Thomas M,Mathew T,Russ G,Rao M,Moran J.Early peri‐operative glycaemic control and allograft rejection in patients with diabetes mellitus: a pilot study.Transplantation.2001;72:13211324.
  30. Thomas MC,Moran J,Mathew TH,Russ GR,Mohan Rao M.Early peri‐operative hyperglycaemia and renal allograft rejection in patients without diabetes.BMC Nephrol.2000;1:1.
  31. Melin J,Hellberg L,Larsson E,Zezina L,Fellstrom B.Protective effect of insulin on ischemic renal injury in diabetes mellitus.Kidney Int.2002;61:13831392.
  32. Bolk J,van der Ploeg T,Cornel JH,Arnold AE,Sepers J,Umans VA.Impaired glucose metabolism predicts mortality after a myocardial infarction.Int J Cardiol.2001;79 (2–3):207214.
  33. Capes S,Hunt D,Malmberg K,Gerstein H.Stress hyperglycaemia and increased risk of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes: a systematic overview.Lancet.2000;355:773778.
  34. Foo K,Cooper J,Deaner A, et al.A single serum glucose measurement predicts adverse outcomes across the whole range of acute coronary syndromes.Heart.2003;89:512516.
  35. Schnell O,Schafer O,Kleybrink S,Doering W,Standl E,Otter W.Intensification of therapeutic approaches reduces mortality in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction: the Munich registry.Diabetes Care.2004;27:455460.
  36. Stranders I,Diamant M,van Gelder RE, et al.Admission blood glucose level as risk indicator of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.2004;164:982988.
  37. Malmberg K,Norhammar A,Wedel H,Ryden L.Glycometabolic state at admission: important risk marker of mortality in conventionally treated patients with diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction: long‐term results from the diabetes and insulin‐glucose infusion in acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI) study.Circulation.1999;99:26262632.
  38. Meier JJ,Deifuss S,Klamann A,Launhardt V,Schmiegel WH,Nauck MA.Plasma glucose at hospital admission and previous metabolic control determine myocardial infarct size and survival in patients with and without type 2 diabetes: the Langendreer Myocardial Infarction and Blood Glucose in Diabetic Patients Assessment (LAMBDA).Diabetes Care.2005;28:25512553.
  39. Kosiborod M,Rathore SS,Inzucchi SE, et al.Admission glucose and mortality in elderly patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: implications for patients with and without recognized diabetes.Circulation.2005;111:30783086.
  40. Chu VH,Cabell CH,Benjamin DK, et al.Early predictors of in‐hospital death in infective endocarditis.Circulation.2004;109:17451749.
  41. Weiser M.Relation between the duration of remission and hyperglycemia in induction chemotherapy for acute lymphocytic leukemia.Cancer.2004;100:11791185.
  42. Falguera M,Pifarre R,Martin A,Sheikh A,Moreno A.Etiology and outcome of community‐acquired pneumonia in patients with diabetes mellitus.Chest.2005;128:32333239.
  43. Golden SH,Peart‐Vigilance C,Kao WHL,Brancati F.Perioperative glycemic control and the risk of infectious complications in a cohort of adults with diabetes.Diabetes Care.1999;22:14081414.
  44. Pomposelli JJ,Baxter JK,Babineau TJ, et al.Early postoperative glucose control predicts nosocomial infection rate in diabetic patients.J Parenter Enteral Nutr.1998;22(2):7781.
  45. Latham R,Lancaster AD,Covington JF,Pirolo JS,Thomas CS.The association of diabetes and glucose control with surgical‐site infections among cardiothoracic surgery patients.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.2001;22:607612.
  46. Vriesendorp TM,Morelis QJ,DeVries JH,Legemate DA,Hoekstra JBL.Early post‐operative glucose levels are an independent risk factor for infection after peripheral vascular surgery. A retrospective study.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg.2004;5:520525.
  47. Zerr KJ,Furnary AP,Grunkemeier GL.Glucose control lowers the risk of wound infection in diabetics after open heart operations.Ann Thorac Surg.1997;63:35661.
  48. Furnary AP,Zerr KJ,Grunkemeier GL,Starr A.Continuous intravenous insulin infusion reduces the incidence of deep sternal wound infection in diabetic patients after cardiac surgical procedures.Ann Thorac Surg.1999;67:352362.
  49. Najarian J,Swavely D,Wilson E, et al.Improving outcomes for diabetic patients undergoing vascular surgery.Diabetes Spectr.2005;18(1):5360.
  50. Szabo Z,Hakanson E,Svedjeholm R.Early postoperative outcome and medium‐term survival in 540 diabetic and 2239 nondiabetic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.Ann Thorac Surg.2002;74:712719.
  51. McAlister FA,Man J,Bistritz L,Amad H,Tandon P.Diabetes and coronary artery bypass surgery: an examination of perioperative glycemic control and outcomes.Diabetes Care.2003;26:15181524.
  52. Furnary AP,Wu Y,Bookin SO.Effect of hyperglycemia and continuous intravenous insulin infusions on outcomes of cardiac surgical procedures: the Portland diabetic project.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):2133.
  53. Lazar HL,Chipkin S,Philippides G,Bao Y,Apstein C.Glucose‐insulin‐potassium solutions improve outcomes in diabetics who have coronary artery operations.Ann Thorac Surg.2000;70:145150.
  54. Gandhi GY,Nuttall GA,Abel MD, et al.Intraoperative hyperglycemia and perioperative outcomes in cardiac surgery patients.Mayo Clin Proc.2005;80:862866.
  55. Furnary AP,Chaugle H,Zerr K,Grunkemeier G.Postoperative hyperglycemia prolongs length of stay in diabetic CABG patients.Circulation. II2000;102(II):556 (abstract).
  56. Ahmann A.Reduction of hospital costs and length of stay by good control of blood glucose levels.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):5356.
Article PDF
Page Number
1-4
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

Hyperglycemia is common in the hospital among patients with diabetes and those without. The exact overall prevalence of diabetes in the hospital is unknown; however, in 2000, 12.4% of U.S. hospital discharges listed diabetes as a diagnosis. Among cardiac surgery patients, the prevalence of diabetes is as high as 29%.2 Another study reported a 26% prevalence of diabetes in a community teaching hospital, with an additional 12% of patients having unrecognized diabetes or hospital‐related hyperglycemia.3 Levetan et al. found laboratory‐documented hyperglycemia in 13% of 1034 consecutively hospitalized patients.4 A subsequent chart review found that more than one‐third of patients with hyperglycemia identified by laboratory testing remained unrecognized as having diabetes documented in the discharge summary, although diabetes or hyperglycemia was noted in the progress notes. In a retrospective chart review study, Umpierrez et al. similarly found 38% of 1886 consecutively hospitalized patients who had glucose measurements on admission were hyperglycemic.3 One‐third of these patients were not previously known to have diabetes, and compared to patients with diagnosed diabetes, they were more likely to require admission to the intensive care unit, had longer hospital stays, and were less likely to be discharged straight home.

Until recently, most clinicians viewed tight glucose control in the hospitalized patient as an intervention with little immediate benefit and significant potential for harm. The goal was simply to prevent excessive hyperglycemia and avoid ketoacidosis or significant fluid derangements while minimizing the risk for hypoglycemia. Today, a growing body of evidence suggests a close correlation between tight glucose control and improved clinical outcomes. Among those who have had a myocardial infarction and those in the surgical intensive care unit, it is known that intensive glycemic control reduces mortality.5, 6 Maintaining normoglycemia in patients in the surgical intensive care unit through intravenous insulin infusion also reduces the incidence of comorbidities such as transfusion requirements, renal failure, sepsis, and neuropathy and reduces the duration of ventilator dependence.6 Although trials using glucose‐insulin‐potassium infusions (GIK), when conducted such that lowering of blood glucose occurred, have shown benefit in the settings of myocardial infarction5, 7 and cardiac surgery,8 not all studies of GIK therapy have yielded positive results. The negative results of the CREATE‐ECLA study suggest that GIK therapy per se is not beneficial unless it reduces blood glucose.9 An abundance of additional observational data and comparisons with historical control data suggest that favorable outcomes might be causally dependent on euglycemia. The outcomes studied include hospital or critical care unit mortality and nosocomial infection,1014 specifically outcomes of strokes,1522 trauma,2325 renal transplantation,2628 myocardial infarction,2936 endocarditis,37 acute lymphocytic leukemia,38 community‐acquired pneumonia,39 infectious complications in the hospital,4046 and cardiac surgery,9, 44, 45, 4751 as well as length of stay and costs.11, 25, 5156

It is important for each hospital to consider the methodology used for blood glucose measurement, realizing that measurements in the Leuven Belgium studies were performed on arterial whole blood using a blood gas analyzer. With recognition that the normal range for blood glucose is method dependent, the data presented above form the basis for the recommended glycemic targets for hospitalized patients:

Target range blood glucose (AACE et al., 2004)

  • Preprandial: 110 mg/dL

  • Peak postprandial: 180 mg/dL

  • Critically ill surgical patients: 80‐110 mg/dL Target range blood glucose (ADA, 2006)

  • Critically ill: Blood glucose as close to 110 mg/dL as possible and generally 180 mg/dL. These patients generally will require IV insulin.

  • Noncritically ill: Premeal blood glucose as close to 90‐130 mg/dL as possible (midpoint 110 mg/dL). Postprandial blood glucose 180 mg/dL.

This supplement, Avoiding Complications in the Hospitalized Patient: The Case for Tight Glycemic Control, reviews several aspects of hyperglycemia in the hospital setting. Evidence that supports more intensive glucose control is reviewed, along with a real‐world success story that demonstrates how to apply the new glycemic targets in a multidisciplinary performance improvement project. In addition, the standard insulin sliding scale is examined in terms of efficacy, safety, and potential for meeting the new recommended glycemic targets.

Hyperglycemia is common in the hospital among patients with diabetes and those without. The exact overall prevalence of diabetes in the hospital is unknown; however, in 2000, 12.4% of U.S. hospital discharges listed diabetes as a diagnosis. Among cardiac surgery patients, the prevalence of diabetes is as high as 29%.2 Another study reported a 26% prevalence of diabetes in a community teaching hospital, with an additional 12% of patients having unrecognized diabetes or hospital‐related hyperglycemia.3 Levetan et al. found laboratory‐documented hyperglycemia in 13% of 1034 consecutively hospitalized patients.4 A subsequent chart review found that more than one‐third of patients with hyperglycemia identified by laboratory testing remained unrecognized as having diabetes documented in the discharge summary, although diabetes or hyperglycemia was noted in the progress notes. In a retrospective chart review study, Umpierrez et al. similarly found 38% of 1886 consecutively hospitalized patients who had glucose measurements on admission were hyperglycemic.3 One‐third of these patients were not previously known to have diabetes, and compared to patients with diagnosed diabetes, they were more likely to require admission to the intensive care unit, had longer hospital stays, and were less likely to be discharged straight home.

Until recently, most clinicians viewed tight glucose control in the hospitalized patient as an intervention with little immediate benefit and significant potential for harm. The goal was simply to prevent excessive hyperglycemia and avoid ketoacidosis or significant fluid derangements while minimizing the risk for hypoglycemia. Today, a growing body of evidence suggests a close correlation between tight glucose control and improved clinical outcomes. Among those who have had a myocardial infarction and those in the surgical intensive care unit, it is known that intensive glycemic control reduces mortality.5, 6 Maintaining normoglycemia in patients in the surgical intensive care unit through intravenous insulin infusion also reduces the incidence of comorbidities such as transfusion requirements, renal failure, sepsis, and neuropathy and reduces the duration of ventilator dependence.6 Although trials using glucose‐insulin‐potassium infusions (GIK), when conducted such that lowering of blood glucose occurred, have shown benefit in the settings of myocardial infarction5, 7 and cardiac surgery,8 not all studies of GIK therapy have yielded positive results. The negative results of the CREATE‐ECLA study suggest that GIK therapy per se is not beneficial unless it reduces blood glucose.9 An abundance of additional observational data and comparisons with historical control data suggest that favorable outcomes might be causally dependent on euglycemia. The outcomes studied include hospital or critical care unit mortality and nosocomial infection,1014 specifically outcomes of strokes,1522 trauma,2325 renal transplantation,2628 myocardial infarction,2936 endocarditis,37 acute lymphocytic leukemia,38 community‐acquired pneumonia,39 infectious complications in the hospital,4046 and cardiac surgery,9, 44, 45, 4751 as well as length of stay and costs.11, 25, 5156

It is important for each hospital to consider the methodology used for blood glucose measurement, realizing that measurements in the Leuven Belgium studies were performed on arterial whole blood using a blood gas analyzer. With recognition that the normal range for blood glucose is method dependent, the data presented above form the basis for the recommended glycemic targets for hospitalized patients:

Target range blood glucose (AACE et al., 2004)

  • Preprandial: 110 mg/dL

  • Peak postprandial: 180 mg/dL

  • Critically ill surgical patients: 80‐110 mg/dL Target range blood glucose (ADA, 2006)

  • Critically ill: Blood glucose as close to 110 mg/dL as possible and generally 180 mg/dL. These patients generally will require IV insulin.

  • Noncritically ill: Premeal blood glucose as close to 90‐130 mg/dL as possible (midpoint 110 mg/dL). Postprandial blood glucose 180 mg/dL.

This supplement, Avoiding Complications in the Hospitalized Patient: The Case for Tight Glycemic Control, reviews several aspects of hyperglycemia in the hospital setting. Evidence that supports more intensive glucose control is reviewed, along with a real‐world success story that demonstrates how to apply the new glycemic targets in a multidisciplinary performance improvement project. In addition, the standard insulin sliding scale is examined in terms of efficacy, safety, and potential for meeting the new recommended glycemic targets.

References
  1. Tierney E: Data from the national hospital discharge survey database 2000.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Diabetes translation,Atlanta, GA,2003.
  2. Moghissi E: Hospital management of diabetes: beyond the sliding scale.Clev Clin J Med.2004;71:801808.
  3. Umpierrez GE,Isaacs SD,Bazargan N,You X,Thaler LM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemia: an independent marker of in‐hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes.J Clin Endocrinol Metab.2002;87:978982.
  4. Levetan CS,Passaro M,Jablonski K,Kass M,Ratner RE: Unrecognized diabetes among hospitalized patients.Diabetes Care.1998;21:246249.
  5. Malmberg K, for theDIGAMI study group.Prospective randomised study of intensive insulin treatment on long term survival after acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus.BMJ.1997;314:15121515.
  6. Van den Berghe G,Wouters P,Weekers F, et al.Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients.N Engl J Med.2001;345:13591367.
  7. Malmberg K,Rydén L,Efendic S, et al.Randomized trial of insulin‐glucose infusion followed by subcutaneous insulin treatment in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI study): effects on mortality at 1 year.J Am Coll Cardiol.1995;26:5765.
  8. Lazar HL,Chipkin SR,Fitzgerald CA,Bao Y,Cabral H,Apstein CS.Tight glycemic control in diabetic coronary artery bypass graft patients improves perioperative outcomes and decreases recurrent ischemic events.Circulation.2004;109:14971502.
  9. CREATE‐ECLA Trial Group Investigators.Effect of glucose‐insulin‐potassium infusion on mortality in patients with acute st‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: the CREATE‐ECLA randomized controlled trial.JAMA.2005;293:437446.
  10. Van den Berghe G,Wilmer A,Hermans G, et al.Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU.N Engl J Med.2006;354:449461.
  11. Grey NJ,Perdrizet GA.Reduction of nosocomial infections in the surgical intensive‐care unit by strict glycemic control.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):4652.
  12. Furnary AP,Gao G,Grunkemeier GL, et al.Continuous insulin infusion reduces mortality in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2003;125:10071021.
  13. Stagnaro‐Green A,Barton MK,Linekin PL,Corkery E,deBeer K,Roman SH.Mortalilty in hospitalized patients with hypoglycemia and severe hyperglycemia.Mt Sinai J Med.1995;62:422426.
  14. Umpierrez GE,Isaacs SD,Bazargan N,You X,Thaler LM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemia: an independent marker of in‐hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes.J Clin Endocrinol Metab.2002;87:978982.
  15. Finney SJ,Zekveld C,Elia A,Evans TW.Glucose control and mortality in critically ill patients.JAMA.2003;290:20412047.
  16. Krinsley JS.Effect of an intensive glucose management protocol on the mortality of critically ill adult patients.Mayo Clin Proc.2004:79:9921000.
  17. Pittas AG,Siegel RD,Lau J.Insulin therapy for critically ill hospitalized patients: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials.Arch Intern Med.2004;164:20052011.
  18. Baird TA,Parsons MW,Phanh T, et al.Persistent poststroke hyperglycemia is independently associated with infarct expansion and worse clinical outcome.Stroke.2003;34:22082214.
  19. Capes S,Hunt D,Malmberg K,Pathak P,Gerstein H.Stress hyperglycemia and prognosis of stroke in nodiabetic and diabetic patients: a systematic overview.Stroke.2001;32:24262432.
  20. Bruno A,Levine SR,Frankel MR, et al.Admission glucose level and clinical outcomes in the NINDS rt‐PA Stroke Trial.Neurology.2002;59:669674.
  21. Levetan CS.Effect of hyperglycemia on stroke outcomes.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):3439.
  22. Leigh R,Zaidat OO,Suri MF, et al.Predictors of hyperacute clinical worsening in ischemic stroke patients receiving thrombolytic therapy.Stroke.2004;35:19031907.
  23. Lindsberg PJ,Roine RO.Hyperglycemia in acute stroke.Stroke.2004;35:363364.
  24. Gentile NT,Seftchick MW,Huynh T,Kruus LK,Gaughan J.Decreased mortality by normalizing blood glucose after acute ischemic stroke.Acad Emerg Med.2006;13:174180.
  25. Gentile NT,Seftchick M,Martin R.Blood glucose control after acute stroke: a retrospective study.Acad Emerg Med.2003;10:432.
  26. Laird AM,Miller PR,Kilgo PD,Meredith JW,Chang MC.Relationship of early hyperglycemia to mortality in trauma patients.J Trauma.2004;56:10581062.
  27. Sung J,Bochicchio GV,Joshi M,Bochicchio K,Tracy K,Scalea TM.Admission hyperglycemia is predictive of outcome in critically ill trauma patients.J Trauma.2005;59:8083.
  28. Williams LS,Rotich J,Qi R, et al.Effects of admission hyperglycemia on mortality and costs in acute ischemic stroke.Neurology.2002;59(1):6771.
  29. Thomas M,Mathew T,Russ G,Rao M,Moran J.Early peri‐operative glycaemic control and allograft rejection in patients with diabetes mellitus: a pilot study.Transplantation.2001;72:13211324.
  30. Thomas MC,Moran J,Mathew TH,Russ GR,Mohan Rao M.Early peri‐operative hyperglycaemia and renal allograft rejection in patients without diabetes.BMC Nephrol.2000;1:1.
  31. Melin J,Hellberg L,Larsson E,Zezina L,Fellstrom B.Protective effect of insulin on ischemic renal injury in diabetes mellitus.Kidney Int.2002;61:13831392.
  32. Bolk J,van der Ploeg T,Cornel JH,Arnold AE,Sepers J,Umans VA.Impaired glucose metabolism predicts mortality after a myocardial infarction.Int J Cardiol.2001;79 (2–3):207214.
  33. Capes S,Hunt D,Malmberg K,Gerstein H.Stress hyperglycaemia and increased risk of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes: a systematic overview.Lancet.2000;355:773778.
  34. Foo K,Cooper J,Deaner A, et al.A single serum glucose measurement predicts adverse outcomes across the whole range of acute coronary syndromes.Heart.2003;89:512516.
  35. Schnell O,Schafer O,Kleybrink S,Doering W,Standl E,Otter W.Intensification of therapeutic approaches reduces mortality in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction: the Munich registry.Diabetes Care.2004;27:455460.
  36. Stranders I,Diamant M,van Gelder RE, et al.Admission blood glucose level as risk indicator of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.2004;164:982988.
  37. Malmberg K,Norhammar A,Wedel H,Ryden L.Glycometabolic state at admission: important risk marker of mortality in conventionally treated patients with diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction: long‐term results from the diabetes and insulin‐glucose infusion in acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI) study.Circulation.1999;99:26262632.
  38. Meier JJ,Deifuss S,Klamann A,Launhardt V,Schmiegel WH,Nauck MA.Plasma glucose at hospital admission and previous metabolic control determine myocardial infarct size and survival in patients with and without type 2 diabetes: the Langendreer Myocardial Infarction and Blood Glucose in Diabetic Patients Assessment (LAMBDA).Diabetes Care.2005;28:25512553.
  39. Kosiborod M,Rathore SS,Inzucchi SE, et al.Admission glucose and mortality in elderly patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: implications for patients with and without recognized diabetes.Circulation.2005;111:30783086.
  40. Chu VH,Cabell CH,Benjamin DK, et al.Early predictors of in‐hospital death in infective endocarditis.Circulation.2004;109:17451749.
  41. Weiser M.Relation between the duration of remission and hyperglycemia in induction chemotherapy for acute lymphocytic leukemia.Cancer.2004;100:11791185.
  42. Falguera M,Pifarre R,Martin A,Sheikh A,Moreno A.Etiology and outcome of community‐acquired pneumonia in patients with diabetes mellitus.Chest.2005;128:32333239.
  43. Golden SH,Peart‐Vigilance C,Kao WHL,Brancati F.Perioperative glycemic control and the risk of infectious complications in a cohort of adults with diabetes.Diabetes Care.1999;22:14081414.
  44. Pomposelli JJ,Baxter JK,Babineau TJ, et al.Early postoperative glucose control predicts nosocomial infection rate in diabetic patients.J Parenter Enteral Nutr.1998;22(2):7781.
  45. Latham R,Lancaster AD,Covington JF,Pirolo JS,Thomas CS.The association of diabetes and glucose control with surgical‐site infections among cardiothoracic surgery patients.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.2001;22:607612.
  46. Vriesendorp TM,Morelis QJ,DeVries JH,Legemate DA,Hoekstra JBL.Early post‐operative glucose levels are an independent risk factor for infection after peripheral vascular surgery. A retrospective study.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg.2004;5:520525.
  47. Zerr KJ,Furnary AP,Grunkemeier GL.Glucose control lowers the risk of wound infection in diabetics after open heart operations.Ann Thorac Surg.1997;63:35661.
  48. Furnary AP,Zerr KJ,Grunkemeier GL,Starr A.Continuous intravenous insulin infusion reduces the incidence of deep sternal wound infection in diabetic patients after cardiac surgical procedures.Ann Thorac Surg.1999;67:352362.
  49. Najarian J,Swavely D,Wilson E, et al.Improving outcomes for diabetic patients undergoing vascular surgery.Diabetes Spectr.2005;18(1):5360.
  50. Szabo Z,Hakanson E,Svedjeholm R.Early postoperative outcome and medium‐term survival in 540 diabetic and 2239 nondiabetic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.Ann Thorac Surg.2002;74:712719.
  51. McAlister FA,Man J,Bistritz L,Amad H,Tandon P.Diabetes and coronary artery bypass surgery: an examination of perioperative glycemic control and outcomes.Diabetes Care.2003;26:15181524.
  52. Furnary AP,Wu Y,Bookin SO.Effect of hyperglycemia and continuous intravenous insulin infusions on outcomes of cardiac surgical procedures: the Portland diabetic project.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):2133.
  53. Lazar HL,Chipkin S,Philippides G,Bao Y,Apstein C.Glucose‐insulin‐potassium solutions improve outcomes in diabetics who have coronary artery operations.Ann Thorac Surg.2000;70:145150.
  54. Gandhi GY,Nuttall GA,Abel MD, et al.Intraoperative hyperglycemia and perioperative outcomes in cardiac surgery patients.Mayo Clin Proc.2005;80:862866.
  55. Furnary AP,Chaugle H,Zerr K,Grunkemeier G.Postoperative hyperglycemia prolongs length of stay in diabetic CABG patients.Circulation. II2000;102(II):556 (abstract).
  56. Ahmann A.Reduction of hospital costs and length of stay by good control of blood glucose levels.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):5356.
References
  1. Tierney E: Data from the national hospital discharge survey database 2000.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Diabetes translation,Atlanta, GA,2003.
  2. Moghissi E: Hospital management of diabetes: beyond the sliding scale.Clev Clin J Med.2004;71:801808.
  3. Umpierrez GE,Isaacs SD,Bazargan N,You X,Thaler LM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemia: an independent marker of in‐hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes.J Clin Endocrinol Metab.2002;87:978982.
  4. Levetan CS,Passaro M,Jablonski K,Kass M,Ratner RE: Unrecognized diabetes among hospitalized patients.Diabetes Care.1998;21:246249.
  5. Malmberg K, for theDIGAMI study group.Prospective randomised study of intensive insulin treatment on long term survival after acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus.BMJ.1997;314:15121515.
  6. Van den Berghe G,Wouters P,Weekers F, et al.Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients.N Engl J Med.2001;345:13591367.
  7. Malmberg K,Rydén L,Efendic S, et al.Randomized trial of insulin‐glucose infusion followed by subcutaneous insulin treatment in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI study): effects on mortality at 1 year.J Am Coll Cardiol.1995;26:5765.
  8. Lazar HL,Chipkin SR,Fitzgerald CA,Bao Y,Cabral H,Apstein CS.Tight glycemic control in diabetic coronary artery bypass graft patients improves perioperative outcomes and decreases recurrent ischemic events.Circulation.2004;109:14971502.
  9. CREATE‐ECLA Trial Group Investigators.Effect of glucose‐insulin‐potassium infusion on mortality in patients with acute st‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: the CREATE‐ECLA randomized controlled trial.JAMA.2005;293:437446.
  10. Van den Berghe G,Wilmer A,Hermans G, et al.Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU.N Engl J Med.2006;354:449461.
  11. Grey NJ,Perdrizet GA.Reduction of nosocomial infections in the surgical intensive‐care unit by strict glycemic control.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):4652.
  12. Furnary AP,Gao G,Grunkemeier GL, et al.Continuous insulin infusion reduces mortality in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2003;125:10071021.
  13. Stagnaro‐Green A,Barton MK,Linekin PL,Corkery E,deBeer K,Roman SH.Mortalilty in hospitalized patients with hypoglycemia and severe hyperglycemia.Mt Sinai J Med.1995;62:422426.
  14. Umpierrez GE,Isaacs SD,Bazargan N,You X,Thaler LM,Kitabchi AE.Hyperglycemia: an independent marker of in‐hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes.J Clin Endocrinol Metab.2002;87:978982.
  15. Finney SJ,Zekveld C,Elia A,Evans TW.Glucose control and mortality in critically ill patients.JAMA.2003;290:20412047.
  16. Krinsley JS.Effect of an intensive glucose management protocol on the mortality of critically ill adult patients.Mayo Clin Proc.2004:79:9921000.
  17. Pittas AG,Siegel RD,Lau J.Insulin therapy for critically ill hospitalized patients: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials.Arch Intern Med.2004;164:20052011.
  18. Baird TA,Parsons MW,Phanh T, et al.Persistent poststroke hyperglycemia is independently associated with infarct expansion and worse clinical outcome.Stroke.2003;34:22082214.
  19. Capes S,Hunt D,Malmberg K,Pathak P,Gerstein H.Stress hyperglycemia and prognosis of stroke in nodiabetic and diabetic patients: a systematic overview.Stroke.2001;32:24262432.
  20. Bruno A,Levine SR,Frankel MR, et al.Admission glucose level and clinical outcomes in the NINDS rt‐PA Stroke Trial.Neurology.2002;59:669674.
  21. Levetan CS.Effect of hyperglycemia on stroke outcomes.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):3439.
  22. Leigh R,Zaidat OO,Suri MF, et al.Predictors of hyperacute clinical worsening in ischemic stroke patients receiving thrombolytic therapy.Stroke.2004;35:19031907.
  23. Lindsberg PJ,Roine RO.Hyperglycemia in acute stroke.Stroke.2004;35:363364.
  24. Gentile NT,Seftchick MW,Huynh T,Kruus LK,Gaughan J.Decreased mortality by normalizing blood glucose after acute ischemic stroke.Acad Emerg Med.2006;13:174180.
  25. Gentile NT,Seftchick M,Martin R.Blood glucose control after acute stroke: a retrospective study.Acad Emerg Med.2003;10:432.
  26. Laird AM,Miller PR,Kilgo PD,Meredith JW,Chang MC.Relationship of early hyperglycemia to mortality in trauma patients.J Trauma.2004;56:10581062.
  27. Sung J,Bochicchio GV,Joshi M,Bochicchio K,Tracy K,Scalea TM.Admission hyperglycemia is predictive of outcome in critically ill trauma patients.J Trauma.2005;59:8083.
  28. Williams LS,Rotich J,Qi R, et al.Effects of admission hyperglycemia on mortality and costs in acute ischemic stroke.Neurology.2002;59(1):6771.
  29. Thomas M,Mathew T,Russ G,Rao M,Moran J.Early peri‐operative glycaemic control and allograft rejection in patients with diabetes mellitus: a pilot study.Transplantation.2001;72:13211324.
  30. Thomas MC,Moran J,Mathew TH,Russ GR,Mohan Rao M.Early peri‐operative hyperglycaemia and renal allograft rejection in patients without diabetes.BMC Nephrol.2000;1:1.
  31. Melin J,Hellberg L,Larsson E,Zezina L,Fellstrom B.Protective effect of insulin on ischemic renal injury in diabetes mellitus.Kidney Int.2002;61:13831392.
  32. Bolk J,van der Ploeg T,Cornel JH,Arnold AE,Sepers J,Umans VA.Impaired glucose metabolism predicts mortality after a myocardial infarction.Int J Cardiol.2001;79 (2–3):207214.
  33. Capes S,Hunt D,Malmberg K,Gerstein H.Stress hyperglycaemia and increased risk of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes: a systematic overview.Lancet.2000;355:773778.
  34. Foo K,Cooper J,Deaner A, et al.A single serum glucose measurement predicts adverse outcomes across the whole range of acute coronary syndromes.Heart.2003;89:512516.
  35. Schnell O,Schafer O,Kleybrink S,Doering W,Standl E,Otter W.Intensification of therapeutic approaches reduces mortality in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction: the Munich registry.Diabetes Care.2004;27:455460.
  36. Stranders I,Diamant M,van Gelder RE, et al.Admission blood glucose level as risk indicator of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.Arch Intern Med.2004;164:982988.
  37. Malmberg K,Norhammar A,Wedel H,Ryden L.Glycometabolic state at admission: important risk marker of mortality in conventionally treated patients with diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction: long‐term results from the diabetes and insulin‐glucose infusion in acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI) study.Circulation.1999;99:26262632.
  38. Meier JJ,Deifuss S,Klamann A,Launhardt V,Schmiegel WH,Nauck MA.Plasma glucose at hospital admission and previous metabolic control determine myocardial infarct size and survival in patients with and without type 2 diabetes: the Langendreer Myocardial Infarction and Blood Glucose in Diabetic Patients Assessment (LAMBDA).Diabetes Care.2005;28:25512553.
  39. Kosiborod M,Rathore SS,Inzucchi SE, et al.Admission glucose and mortality in elderly patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: implications for patients with and without recognized diabetes.Circulation.2005;111:30783086.
  40. Chu VH,Cabell CH,Benjamin DK, et al.Early predictors of in‐hospital death in infective endocarditis.Circulation.2004;109:17451749.
  41. Weiser M.Relation between the duration of remission and hyperglycemia in induction chemotherapy for acute lymphocytic leukemia.Cancer.2004;100:11791185.
  42. Falguera M,Pifarre R,Martin A,Sheikh A,Moreno A.Etiology and outcome of community‐acquired pneumonia in patients with diabetes mellitus.Chest.2005;128:32333239.
  43. Golden SH,Peart‐Vigilance C,Kao WHL,Brancati F.Perioperative glycemic control and the risk of infectious complications in a cohort of adults with diabetes.Diabetes Care.1999;22:14081414.
  44. Pomposelli JJ,Baxter JK,Babineau TJ, et al.Early postoperative glucose control predicts nosocomial infection rate in diabetic patients.J Parenter Enteral Nutr.1998;22(2):7781.
  45. Latham R,Lancaster AD,Covington JF,Pirolo JS,Thomas CS.The association of diabetes and glucose control with surgical‐site infections among cardiothoracic surgery patients.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.2001;22:607612.
  46. Vriesendorp TM,Morelis QJ,DeVries JH,Legemate DA,Hoekstra JBL.Early post‐operative glucose levels are an independent risk factor for infection after peripheral vascular surgery. A retrospective study.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg.2004;5:520525.
  47. Zerr KJ,Furnary AP,Grunkemeier GL.Glucose control lowers the risk of wound infection in diabetics after open heart operations.Ann Thorac Surg.1997;63:35661.
  48. Furnary AP,Zerr KJ,Grunkemeier GL,Starr A.Continuous intravenous insulin infusion reduces the incidence of deep sternal wound infection in diabetic patients after cardiac surgical procedures.Ann Thorac Surg.1999;67:352362.
  49. Najarian J,Swavely D,Wilson E, et al.Improving outcomes for diabetic patients undergoing vascular surgery.Diabetes Spectr.2005;18(1):5360.
  50. Szabo Z,Hakanson E,Svedjeholm R.Early postoperative outcome and medium‐term survival in 540 diabetic and 2239 nondiabetic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.Ann Thorac Surg.2002;74:712719.
  51. McAlister FA,Man J,Bistritz L,Amad H,Tandon P.Diabetes and coronary artery bypass surgery: an examination of perioperative glycemic control and outcomes.Diabetes Care.2003;26:15181524.
  52. Furnary AP,Wu Y,Bookin SO.Effect of hyperglycemia and continuous intravenous insulin infusions on outcomes of cardiac surgical procedures: the Portland diabetic project.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):2133.
  53. Lazar HL,Chipkin S,Philippides G,Bao Y,Apstein C.Glucose‐insulin‐potassium solutions improve outcomes in diabetics who have coronary artery operations.Ann Thorac Surg.2000;70:145150.
  54. Gandhi GY,Nuttall GA,Abel MD, et al.Intraoperative hyperglycemia and perioperative outcomes in cardiac surgery patients.Mayo Clin Proc.2005;80:862866.
  55. Furnary AP,Chaugle H,Zerr K,Grunkemeier G.Postoperative hyperglycemia prolongs length of stay in diabetic CABG patients.Circulation. II2000;102(II):556 (abstract).
  56. Ahmann A.Reduction of hospital costs and length of stay by good control of blood glucose levels.Endocr Pract.2004;10(suppl 2):5356.
Page Number
1-4
Page Number
1-4
Article Type
Display Headline
Avoiding complications in the hospitalized patient: The case for tight glycemic control
Display Headline
Avoiding complications in the hospitalized patient: The case for tight glycemic control
Sections
Article Source
Copyright © 2007 Society of Hospital Medicine
Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Head, Section of Hospital Medicine, S70/Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; Fax: (216) 445‐6240
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Article PDF Media

Combining Superficial Glycolic Acid (α-Hydroxy Acid) Peels With Cosmetic Procedures to Achieve Optimal Results for Skin

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Combining Superficial Glycolic Acid (α-Hydroxy Acid) Peels With Cosmetic Procedures to Achieve Optimal Results for Skin
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from The NeoStrata Company, Inc.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Issue
Cutis - 79(1)
Publications
Page Number
1-16
Legacy Keywords
Marta I. Rendon, Cheryl Effron, M. Elizabeth Briden, Barbara A. Green, Brenda L. Edison, Ellen Jacobsen, Colleen Johnson, glycolic acid, alpha-hydroxy acid, cosmetic procedures, nonablative lasers, pulsed light, trichloroacetic acid peels, botulinum type A, BTX-A, injection therapy, microdermabrasion, rosacea, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, acne, dermal pigment, erythema, antiaging
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Article PDF
Article PDF
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from The NeoStrata Company, Inc.
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from The NeoStrata Company, Inc.
Issue
Cutis - 79(1)
Issue
Cutis - 79(1)
Page Number
1-16
Page Number
1-16
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Combining Superficial Glycolic Acid (α-Hydroxy Acid) Peels With Cosmetic Procedures to Achieve Optimal Results for Skin
Display Headline
Combining Superficial Glycolic Acid (α-Hydroxy Acid) Peels With Cosmetic Procedures to Achieve Optimal Results for Skin
Legacy Keywords
Marta I. Rendon, Cheryl Effron, M. Elizabeth Briden, Barbara A. Green, Brenda L. Edison, Ellen Jacobsen, Colleen Johnson, glycolic acid, alpha-hydroxy acid, cosmetic procedures, nonablative lasers, pulsed light, trichloroacetic acid peels, botulinum type A, BTX-A, injection therapy, microdermabrasion, rosacea, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, acne, dermal pigment, erythema, antiaging
Legacy Keywords
Marta I. Rendon, Cheryl Effron, M. Elizabeth Briden, Barbara A. Green, Brenda L. Edison, Ellen Jacobsen, Colleen Johnson, glycolic acid, alpha-hydroxy acid, cosmetic procedures, nonablative lasers, pulsed light, trichloroacetic acid peels, botulinum type A, BTX-A, injection therapy, microdermabrasion, rosacea, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, acne, dermal pigment, erythema, antiaging
Sections
Citation Override
Cutis. 2007;79(suppl 1[i]):1-16.
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Advances in First-Line Topical Therapies: The Role of a 2-Compound Ointment for Psoriasis Vulgaris

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Advances in First-Line Topical Therapies: The Role of a 2-Compound Ointment for Psoriasis Vulgaris
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from Warner Chilcott (US), Inc.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Issue
Cutis - 79(1)
Publications
Page Number
1-45
Legacy Keywords
Mark G. Lebwohl, Linda Corvari, John Y. Koo, Steven R. Feldman, Joel M. Gelfand, Linda Stein Gold, Sherri D. Jones, Knud Kragballe, psoriasis vulgaris, 2-compound ointment, topical therapies, inflammation, corticosteroids, calcipotriene, chronic plaque-type, tazarotene, mometasone furoate, fluocinonide, betamethasone dipropionate, clobetasol, diflorasone diacetate, halobetasol propionate, calcipotriene, vitamin D, tacrolimus, alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, infliximab, erythema, pruritis, burning
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Author and Disclosure Information

 

 

Article PDF
Article PDF
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from Warner Chilcott (US), Inc.
Sponsor
Supported by a restricted educational grant from Warner Chilcott (US), Inc.
Issue
Cutis - 79(1)
Issue
Cutis - 79(1)
Page Number
1-45
Page Number
1-45
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Advances in First-Line Topical Therapies: The Role of a 2-Compound Ointment for Psoriasis Vulgaris
Display Headline
Advances in First-Line Topical Therapies: The Role of a 2-Compound Ointment for Psoriasis Vulgaris
Legacy Keywords
Mark G. Lebwohl, Linda Corvari, John Y. Koo, Steven R. Feldman, Joel M. Gelfand, Linda Stein Gold, Sherri D. Jones, Knud Kragballe, psoriasis vulgaris, 2-compound ointment, topical therapies, inflammation, corticosteroids, calcipotriene, chronic plaque-type, tazarotene, mometasone furoate, fluocinonide, betamethasone dipropionate, clobetasol, diflorasone diacetate, halobetasol propionate, calcipotriene, vitamin D, tacrolimus, alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, infliximab, erythema, pruritis, burning
Legacy Keywords
Mark G. Lebwohl, Linda Corvari, John Y. Koo, Steven R. Feldman, Joel M. Gelfand, Linda Stein Gold, Sherri D. Jones, Knud Kragballe, psoriasis vulgaris, 2-compound ointment, topical therapies, inflammation, corticosteroids, calcipotriene, chronic plaque-type, tazarotene, mometasone furoate, fluocinonide, betamethasone dipropionate, clobetasol, diflorasone diacetate, halobetasol propionate, calcipotriene, vitamin D, tacrolimus, alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, infliximab, erythema, pruritis, burning
Sections
Citation Override
Cutis. 2007;79(suppl 1[ii]):1-45.
PURLs Copyright

Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

Extended Regimen Oral Contraceptives—Practical Management

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Extended Regimen Oral Contraceptives—Practical Management
Disclosures (prior 12 months)

Dr Sulak has received research grants from Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Berlex Laboratories, and Organon Inc; is a consultant to Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Berlex Laboratories, and Wyeth; and is a speaker for Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Berlex Laboratories, Merck, and Wyeth.

Dr Kaunitz has received support for clinical trials (funding to University of Florida Research Foundation) from Berlex, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Warner Chilcott. He serves as a speaker for and/or a consultant to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Berlex, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Organon, and Pfizer. He holds stock in Barr, Noven, Procter and Gamble, Roche, and sanofi-aventis.

Dr London is a speaker for and/or consultant to Berlex, Duramed, Eli Lilly and Co, Merck, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, and Wyeth.

Ms Moore is a speaker for and/or consultant to Berlex, Duramed, Organon, Ortho, and Wyeth.

Dr Nelson has served as a speaker for Barr, Berlex, FEI Women’s Health, Merck, Organon, Ortho McNeil, Pfizer, Ther-Rx, and Wyeth. She has served as an advisor for Ascend Therapeutics, Barr, Berlex, Church and Dwight, Organon, and Wyeth. She also has received research support from Berlex, Organon, Pfizer, and Wyeth.

A roundtable discussion among key thought leaders in the area of hormonal contraception was held on October 20, 2006, in New Orleans, Louisiana. These experts addressed the critical questions regarding the practical management of extended regimen oral contraceptives based on information in the medical literature.

Oral contraceptives (OCs) have been available in the United States for nearly 50 years. It is easy to forget that the introduction of reliable oral contraception—a widely available method that allows women control of their fertility—was revolutionary at that time. The decision to use a 28-day pill regimen was not a response to a physiologic need for 13 cycles per year but was dictated by the social norms and pregnancy testing technology of the day. At a time when pregnancy testing was neither easy to perform nor highly sensitive, the 7-day hormone free interval (HFI) provided a monthly reassurance to the OC user that she was not pregnant. Over the ensuing years numerous improvements in oral contraception have taken place—lowering of estrogen content due to safety concerns, confirmation of the efficacy of low-dose pills, introduction of new progestins, and phasic regimens. These changes came about due to a large number of clinical trials and other scientific assessments of OC regimens. Now with research shifted toward reducing the HFI and maximizing ovarian follicular suppression, oral contraception is undergoing a second revolution. By altering or eliminating the HFI, the goal of reducing withdrawal bleeding and minimizing hormone withdrawal can be accomplished.

Both spontaneous menstrual bleeding associated with ovulatory cycles and iatrogenically induced scheduled bleeding associated with OCs are due to endogenous or exogenous hormone withdrawal. However, the similarity ends abruptly, as menstrual bleeding fulfills a physiologic need to slough the secretory endometrium after ovulation in preparation for a new cycle and possible pregnancy. In contrast, there is no health-related reason to bleed while taking OCs. Monthly menstruation in reproductive-age women is necessary unless the patient is pregnant, using hormonal contraception, breastfeeding, or has undergone hysterectomy. A lack of cyclical menstrual bleeding in women not taking hormonal contraception is indicative of a pathologic state, whether it is the hypoestrogenic state of premature ovarian failure or the unopposed estrogen anovulatory state characteristic of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (TABLE 1). Conversely, the recurrent ovulation and menstruation that is common among today’s post-industrial women is associated with health risks (TABLE 2).

The focus on alteration of the HFI to further improve OC therapy began with the introduction of Mircette® in 1998.1 This was followed by the introduction of Seasonale®, the first extended OC regimen2 and subsequently 2 OC products, Yaz® and Loestrin® 24 Fe, that maintained the 28-day cycle with a shortened HFI.3-5 A recently introduced OC product, Seasonique®, uses an extended 91-day regimen with low-dose ethinyl estradiol (EE) during the HFI, thus eliminating the HFI completely (TABLE 3).6

TABLE 1

Conditions Associated With Oligomenorrhea/Amenorrhea

 

Polycystic ovarian syndromeAnorexia nervosa
Premenarchal statusAthletic amenorrhea
Uterine adhesionsCervical stenosis
PregnancyOvarian failure
PerimenopauseOvarian tumor
Emotional stressBrain tumor
Endocrine disorders (thyroid, pituitary, adrenal) 

 

TABLE 2

Health Risks

 

Recurrent Ovulation/Bleeding
Bleeding/anemiaEndometriosis with associated pain and infertility
Ovarian cancerOvarian cysts
Premenstrual syndromePremenstrual dysphoric disorder
Amenorrhea
OsteoporosisAtrophic vaginitis
Cardiac arrhythmia 
Oligomenorrhea
Endometrial hyperplasiaEndometrial cancer
Infertility 

TABLE 3

OC Products With Extended Regimens or Altered Hormone Free Interval

 

Product ContentBrandRegimenDuration of HFINo. Withdrawal Bleeding Episodes/Year
30 mcg EE/150 mcg LNG and 10 mcg EESeasonique91 days: 84 days active + 7 days low-dose EENo HFI4
20 mcg EE/1 mg NETALoestrin 24 Fe28 days: 24 days active + 4 days placebo4 days13
20 mcg EE/3 mg DRSPYaz28 days: 24 days active + 4 days placebo4 days13
20 mcg EE/150 mcg DSG and 10 mcg EEMircette28 days: 21 days active + 2 days placebo + 5 days low-dose EE2 days13
30 mcg EE/150 mcg LNGSeasonale*91 days: 84 days active + 7 days placebo7 days4
DRSP=drosperinone, DSG=desogestrel, EE=ethinyl estradiol, HFI=hormone-free interval, LNG=levonorgestrel, NETA=norethindrone acetate, OC=oral contraceptive.
*Seasonale is the only extended regimen OC for which there is a generic substitute.
 

 

Are there specific clinical advantages to extended regimen OCs?

DR LONDON: The real advantage to the extended regimens is that they do not have the disadvantages known to exist with the 21/7 regimens.

DR KAUNITZ: There are 4 advantages to extended regimens:

• improvement in contraceptive success
• therapeutic use for hormone withdrawal symptoms
• treatment of gynecologic problems such as dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, and anemia
• accommodation of lifestyle preference

Once women understand that extending combined hormone contraceptives is safe, most will prefer fewer cycles.

DR SULAK: While we need to acknowledge that the decision to introduce the first OCs in a 21/7 regimen was a wise choice nearly 50 years ago, research has shown us that the low doses of EE and the 7-day HFI creates problems—incomplete pituitary-ovarian suppression, endogenous estradiol formation, follicular development, ovarian cyst formation, risk of escape ovulation, and hormone withdrawal symptoms. It doesn’t matter whether a pill, patch, or ring is used—a 7-day HFI is too long with today’s low-dose combined hormonal contraceptives.

Spona was the first to report greater suppression of ovarian activity with a shortened HFI.7 By increasing the number of active pills from 21 to 23 per cycle and decreasing the HFI from 7 to 5 days, there was lower residual ovarian activity and endogenous 17β-estradiol. The study also showed that 17β-estradiol levels began to rise during the HFI but the rise was earlier and greater in women assigned to the 21-day regimen.

DR KAUNITZ: Another fundamental issue focuses on the reason our patients use OCs—effective, convenient, and reversible contraception. Unfortunately, the current 21/7 paradigm may not be optimal. The “typical” failure rate with OCs—which is what applies to our patients—is 8%.8 I don’t think that is acceptable.

The HFI and the first few days of a new pill pack are the time at which women are at greatest risk for contraceptive failure and unintended pregnancy. By extending the overall duration of active pills and decreasing the duration of the HFI, we are setting our patients up for better contraceptive success.

DR SULAK: There is also the issue of symptoms during the HFI. We all recognize that menstrual symptoms—breast tenderness, headache, bloating, and cramping—increase during the HFI.9 Although our data reported significant hormone withdrawal symptoms in women taking OCs, women experience these symptoms with all forms of combined estrogen-progestin hormonal contraceptives regardless of route of administration.

Importantly, the study showed that the symptoms occurred consistently not only in the new start patients, but also in the established users—the women who had been on the pill for more than a year. There is a reason why so many women stop their OCs in less than a year—it’s not because they are feeling wonderful. They may stop because they feel terrible during the HFI.

DR NELSON: The symptoms are real and it is astonishing how many women experience them. Women have become so accustomed to feeling lousy once a month, whether it’s due to menstrual symptoms or hormone withdrawal, that they will not mention it.

Another advantage to extended use of combination estrogen-progestin contraception is the prolonged suppression of ovulation and menstruation, like that produced by the progestin-only regimens, without the negative effects on bone. Given the multitude of problems caused by recurrent ovulation and menstruation, it may be healthier for some women not to have periods every month.

DR KAUNITZ: There are also therapeutic uses for extended regimen OCs that we should not overlook. Decreased dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia are both included in the prescribing information for all OCs. Women suffering from these disorders will likely have additive benefit from extended regimens. In the same vein, the value of extended regimens in managing endometriosis has been known for years.10

DR SULAK: A very recent paper showed that extending the regimen can improve premenstrual symptoms.11 When symptomatology was compared with that recorded during a 21/7 cycle, there was a significant improvement that was especially apparent in the women who had the greatest variability in their cycles.

Another important finding was that the greatest improvement was detected in the sixth month. That is a key counseling point—you need to stick with the regimen to see the benefits.

What practical advantages does an extended regimen offer to the patient?

DR LONDON: Convenience, convenience, convenience.

MS MOORE: The worst pill to miss in any cycle is the one that is still at the pharmacy. Once your patient has already had 7 hormone-free days, her risk of pregnancy increases with each day of delay in starting a new pack of pills.

DR LONDON: With an extended regimen, that risk occurs fewer times per year. Just as the change from 50-mcg pills to low-dose pills was an improvement, the extension of the regimen beyond 28 days is a real improvement in OC therapy.

 

 

DR NELSON: Access to pills is a real issue—it’s more than having to go to the pharmacy every few weeks. A recent paper from the California Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care and Treatment) Program showed that women who were dispensed a year’s supply of OCs at their first visit were more likely to continue therapy, were more likely to receive Papanicolaou tests and Chlamydia tests, and actually had a lower annual women’s health care–related costs than women who were dispensed 3 cycles.12

We recently presented data that support this conclusion—hormonal method continuation rates were higher among women who received 3 pill packs than in those who received only 1. Having the supply of pills available is one more way of promoting contraceptive success.

Are there side effects that are specific to the extended regimen OCs?

DR SULAK: We are in consensus that there are no side effects that are specific to the extended regimen OCs. The only side effect found to be increased with extended regimen is unscheduled bleeding, but some studies have shown less bleeding overall.13 Studies have shown a decrease in many typical side effects seen with 21/7 OCs such as premenstrual syndrome and headaches.14

DR KAUNITZ: I agree. We should, however, address unscheduled bleeding and spotting. It’s something that we see with every OC, but extending the regimen changes the pattern.

A number of years ago, a randomized trial showed that addition of low-dose estrogen to the HFI provided superior cycle control to that of a 20-mcg EE OC and similar to that reported with a 35-mcg pill.15 There are more recent data that suggest that once you have passed the first cycle, addition of low-dose estrogen to the HFI also improves unscheduled bleeding in 91-day regimens.6

MS MOORE: Patients must understand there will be some unscheduled bleeding/spotting as their endometrium transitions from a monthly cycle or withdrawal bleed to more complete ovarian suppression, but it is manageable.

DR LONDON: Some clinicians have concerns about estrogen exposure—specifically the risk of venous thromboembolism and breast cancer. When the published data regarding extended regimens are examined in total, the safety profile is virtually the same as for 21/7. The safety of 91-day regimens have been demonstrated in both 1-year trials as well as longer-term 2-year studies.2,6,16

The Women’s CARE (Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences) study really put concerns about the association of OC use and breast cancer to rest.17 There was no evidence of increased risk of breast cancer in either current or past users of OCs. Given that the study included women who had taken high-dose 50-mcg EE pills, it’s very reasonable to conclude that extended OC use poses no increased risk of breast cancer.

What can be done to ensure that an extended regimen is offered to all OC-appropriate patients regardless of age or pathology?

DR KAUNITZ: We still need to work on overcoming common misconceptions. Despite more than 45 years of use, a fundamental lack of understanding of how OCs work persists among patients and health care professionals outside the field of women’s health.

MS MOORE: Many of my students are incredulous when they realize that there is no physiologic reason for the 7-day HFI and cyclical bleeding for women taking OCs.

DR LONDON: We also need to dispel the myth that women taking OCs are having periods. Remember that no women taking an OC has a period. They have withdrawal bleeding.

DR SULAK: Extended regimens set my patients up for contraceptive success and should be considered for all women who are candidates for OCs. The advantages—avoidance of monthly withdrawal symptoms, less follicular development, and, overall, less bleeding—outweigh the issues of unscheduled bleeding and spotting.

DR NELSON: We should discuss bleeding with our patients and, perhaps, it is time to turn the tables and ask her why she feels the need to bleed every month. For women considering use of OCs, it opens up the conversation to use of regimens other than 21/7. For women who are established users of OCs, asking whether they are having symptoms every month will open up the same conversation.

DR KAUNITZ: We’re not here to suggest that women should no longer menstruate or that women should no longer experience monthly bleeding.

It’s all about choice. Using hormones not only to provide safe, effective contraception but also to allow women the option of choosing when to bleed is a second revolution in contraception.

With regard to symptoms, I ask about grouchiness. “Do you get headaches or feel grouchy or down during your HFI?” If the answer is yes, it moves the conversation in the direction of extended regimens.

 

 

MS MOORE: I agree. The extended regimen has become mainstream over the past couple of years—the only reason I can see for using 21/7 is if the patient demands it or if reimbursement drives the issue.

How important is breakthrough bleeding in OC product selection?

DR KAUNITZ: Breakthrough bleeding occurs with all OC products—it’s importance becomes a matter of how well you have prepared patients for it.

MS MOORE: I like to tell my patients that it is likely they will experience some breakthrough bleeding in the early cycles. Then they are prepared and those who do not have any are pleasantly surprised.

DR SULAK: It’s inevitable and it can be managed—to me, it’s more important to focus on eliminating hormone withdrawal symptoms.

Are all combined hormonal contraceptive products appropriate for use in extended regimens?

DR NELSON: At this time there are insufficient data regarding the safety and pharmacokinetics of extended regimen use of the transdermal patch. Until studies evaluating its use in multiple extended cycles become available, we cannot recommend its use in extended regimens.18

DR KAUNITZ: Traditional 21/7 pill packs can be used in extended regimens but I find this approach often poses challenges for the patient—from remembering not to take placebo pills to reimbursement to trips to the pharmacy every 3 weeks for a new pill pack.

DR LONDON: It seems intuitive that the multiphasic pills would not be optimal for use in extended regimens. Given the paucity of data supporting their use, I would not recommend initiating an extended regimen with a mutiphasic pill. I certainly would allow a patient who is using them successfully to continue.

What are practical options to manage breakthrough bleeding in patients taking extended regimen OCs?

DR SULAK: We find that patients usually don’t begin to have unscheduled bleeding until week 4 or later. In our prospective study, we found that women who had heavier daily flow ratings during the 21/7 lead-in cycle tended to have greater daily flow ratings and earlier occurrence of unscheduled bleeding when taking an extended regimen.13 We also showed that a 3-day pill holiday was helpful in managing breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting that had persisted for 7 consecutive days (TABLE 4).

MS MOORE: Essentially patients have 2 options: endure the bleeding or take a brief pill holiday. I let my patients decide—some are very bothered by even the slightest amount of breakthrough bleeding while others have no issue with it. The worse thing a patient can do is to stop taking pills without a back-up plan for contraception. It is critical that they take at least 3 weeks of active pills between drug holidays.

DR LONDON: It’s also important to remember that you cannot use a 3-day pill holiday to manage breakthrough bleeding/spotting with 21/7 regimens as the increased number of hormone-free days per cycle could lead to a greater chance of escape ovulation.

DR KAUNITZ: Let’s not forget the value of counseling. Just letting women know what to expect and what to do has certainly been proven to be valuable in improving continuation rates among women on other forms of long-term contraception19,20 and would without doubt be beneficial for women receiving extended regimens (SIDEBAR).

DR SULAK: With the low-dose OCs, it is especially important to let the patient know at the time you write the prescription that she has to take her pills at about the same time each day. I have had patients tell me that they experience bleeding if they take their pills even a few hours late.

DR NELSON: There will be patients with breakthrough bleeding/spotting who need to be examined, such as a long-term pill user who reports it for the first time. If you can establish a history of good pill taking with no illnesses or medication interaction which might alter hormone absorption, this woman should be evaluated for infection and anatomic changes like cervical or endometrial polyps.

TABLE 4

Recommendations for Initiating Extended Regimens

 

New starts: Begin your pack according to the directions provided by your clinician. You may be able to begin your pack on the same day or on the first day of menstruation.
Transition patients: Begin the extended pack as soon as the withdrawal bleeding from your prior cycle ends and you have a hormone free interval that lasts no more than 4 days.

 

Guidelines and Recommendations for Unscheduled Bleeding

Counseling Guidelines

• When prescribing, provide counseling regarding the possibility of unscheduled bleeding/spotting.
• When the patient complains of unscheduled bleeding ask about
  • pill-taking habits
    - Did you start the most recent pill pack on time?
    - Are you taking the pills at approximately the same time each day?
    - Have you skipped any pills recently?
    - Have you had any recent illnesses?
    - Are you using other medications?
  • Characteristics of the unscheduled bleeding episode
    - How long did you experience breakthrough bleeding?
    - How severe was the bleeding?
    - At what point in the cycle did it occur?
  • Any lifestyle changes or habits that might
    - Predispose her to sexually transmitted disease (change in partners)
    - Alter the metabolism of active hormone components (use of St. John’s Wort, smoking)

Management Recommendations

• With a 91-day regimen, bleeding may occur before the 7-day ethinyl estradiol period at the end of the pill pack.
• If bleeding/spotting is bothersome during the 84 combination pills, it is possible to take a 3-day hormone-free interval and immediately restart.
• Always take a minimum of 3 weeks of active pills before taking a 3-day break.
• Do not take a break during the first 3 weeks or during the last 3 weeks of the 84 combination active pills.

 

 

Summary

DR SULAK: We are finally seeing the demise of 21/7 contraceptive regimens. Numerous studies of these regimens over the past decade have documented hormone withdrawal symptoms, inadequate pituitary-ovarian suppression, follicular development, and even ovulation. Regimens which shorten or eliminate the 7-day HFI by adding estrogen and providing greater duration of active pills will improve the side effect profile and efficacy.

Oral contraceptives first gave women control over their fertility; now, regimens that extend the cycle and eliminate the HFI give women the option of having fewer hormone withdrawal symptoms. In addition to the convenience of fewer cycles per year, women may experience further benefit from prolonged suppression of ovulation and menstruation.

While breakthrough bleeding and spotting occur with all OCs, the pattern seen with extended regimens differs. It can be managed with patient counseling and brief pill holidays. Additional strategies to manage breakthrough bleeding that should be evaluated in the future include additional estrogen only, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and changing the estrogen dose of the formulation (ie, increasing the dose from 20 mcg EE to 30-35 mcg EE).

Articles of interest

Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Safety and efficacy of an extended-regimen oral contraceptive utilizing continuous low-dose ethinyl estradiol. Contraception. 2006;73:229-234.

Prospective trial of 1006 sexually active adult women of childbearing potential who received a 91-day extended regimen OC (30 mcg EE/150 mcg LNG) with continuous low-dose EE (10 mcg) during the hormone free interval. Cycle control and safety of the regimen were comparable to that reported for other OCs.

Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Long-term safety of an extended-cycle oral contraceptive (Seasonale): a 2-year multicenter open-label extension trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:92-96.

Long-term safety study of a 91-day extended cycle OC regimen. Overall rates of study discontinuation and incidence of adverse events were similar to those of an earlier Phase 3 clinical trial. The regimen was well tolerated and the numbers of reported bleeding and/or spotting days diminished during the study.

Foster DG, Parvataneni R, de Bocanegra HT, Lewis C, Bradsberry M, Darney P. Number of oral contraceptive pill packages dispensed, method continuation, and costs. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1107-1114.

Evaluation of the effect of the number of cycles of OC pill packages dispensed on the method continuation, pill wastage, use of services, and health care costs among 82,319 women enrolled in the California Family PACT system. Dispensing a year’s supply of OCs during first visits was associated with a higher method continuation and lower health care costs than dispensing fewer cycles per visit.

Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:2025-2032.

A population-based, case-control study of 4575 women with breast cancer and 4682 controls to determine the risk of breast cancer among former and current users of OCs. The relative risk of breast cancer was 1.0 (95% CI, 0.8-1.3) for women who were currently using OCs and 0.9 (95% CI, 0.8-1.0) for those who had previously used them. The relative risk did not increase consistently with longer periods of use or with higher doses of estrogen. Use of OCs by women with a family history of breast cancer was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer nor was the initiation of OC use at a young age.

Spona J, Elstein M, Feichtinger W, et al. Shorter pill-free interval in combined oral contraceptives decreases follicular development. Contraception. 1996;54:71-77.

Double-blind, randomized trial to determine the suppressive effect on ovarian activity of OCs administered for 21 or 23 days. Observed differences in 17β-estradiol levels and follicular development between a 21-day and 23-day preparation suggest that shortening the pill-free interval in combined OCs may increase the contraceptive safety margin in women on low-dose formulations.

Sulak PJ, Scow RD, Preece C, Riggs MW, Kuehl TJ. Hormone withdrawal symptoms in oral contraceptive users. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:261-266.

Prospective evaluation to measure the timing, frequency, and severity of hormone-related symptoms in OC users. Pelvic pain, headaches, use of pain medication, bloating or swelling, and breast tenderness occurred significantly more frequently during the 7-day hormone free interval among both current users and new start users of OCs.

Sulak PJ, Kuehl TJ, Coffee A, Willis S. Prospective analysis of occurrence and management of breakthrough bleeding during an extended oral contraceptive regimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:935-941.

Single-center, prospective analysis of self-rated menstrual flow during a 21/7 regimen versus a 168-day extended OC regimen. Subjects with a heavier daily flow rating during the 21/7 day cycle tended to have greater daily flow ratings and earlier breakthrough bleeding during the 168-day extension cycle. The 168-day extended regimen had an acceptable bleeding profile with bleeding during the active pill interval effectively managed with institution of a 3-day hormone free interval.

 

 

Acknowledgment

The assistance of Kathryn Martin, PharmD, in providing background research and editorial support is acknowledged.

Sponsor
This supplement is supported by a grant from Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.
References

1. The Mircette™ Study Group. An open-label, multicenter, noncomparative safety and efficacy study of Mircette™, a low-dose estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:S2-S8.

2. Anderson FD, Hait H. A multicenter, randomized study of an extended cycle oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2003;68:89-96.

3. Bachmann G, Sulak PJ, Sampson-Landers C, Benda N, Marr J. Efficacy and safety of a low-dose 24-day combined oral contraceptive containing 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol and 3 mg drospirenone. Contraception. 2004;70:191-198.

4. Archer DF, Ellman H, for the Loestrin-24 Study Group. Bleeding profile of a new 24-day oral contraceptive regimen of norethindrone acetate 1 mg/ethinyl estradiol 20 mcg compared with a 21-day regimen. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; October 15-19, 2005; Montreal, Canada.

5. Archer DF, Ellman H, for the Loestrin-24 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of a 24-day oral contraceptive regimen of norethindrone acetate 1 mg/ethinyl estradiol 20 mcg. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine; October 15-19, 2005; Montreal, Canada.

6. Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Safety and efficacy of an extended-regimen oral contraceptive utilizing continuous low-dose ethinyl estradiol. Contraception. 2006;73:229-234.

7. Spona J, Elstein M, Feichtinger W, et al. Shorter pill-free interval in combined oral contraceptives decreases follicular development. Contraception. 1996;54:71-77.

8. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2004;70:89-96.

9. Sulak PJ, Scow RD, Preece C, Riggs MW, Kuehl TJ. Hormone withdrawal symptoms in oral contraceptive users. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:261-266.

10. Vercellini P, Frontino G, De Giorgi O, Pietropaolo G, Pasin R, Crosignani PG. Continuous use of an oral contraceptive for endometriosis-associated recurrent dysmenorrhea that does not response to a cyclic pill regimen. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:560-563.

11. Coffee AL, Kuehl TJ, Willis S, Sulak PJ. Oral contraceptives and premenstrual symptoms: comparison of a 21/7 and extended regimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1311-1319.

12. Foster DG, Parvataneni R, de Bocanegra HT, Lewis C, Bradsberry M, Darney P. Number of oral contraceptive pill packages dispensed, method continuation, and costs. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1107-1114.

14 Sulak PH, Willis S, Kuehl T, Coffee A, Clark J. Headaches and oral contraceptives: impact of eliminating the standard 7-day placebo interval. Headache. 2007;47:27-37.

15. Rosenberg MJ, Meyers A, Roy V. Efficacy, cycle control, and side effects of low- and lower-dose oral contraceptives: a randomized trial of 20 μg and 35 μg estrogen preparations. Contraception. 1999;60:321-329.

16. Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Long-term safety of an extended-cycle oral contraceptive (Seasonale): a 2-year multicenter open-label extension trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:92-96.

17. Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:2025-2032.

18. van den Heuvel MW, van Bragt AJ, Alnabawy AK, Kaptein M. Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in three hormonal contraceptive formulations: the vaginal ring, the transdermal patch and an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2005;72:168-174.

13. Sulak PJ, Kuehl TJ, Coffee A, Willis S. Prospective analysis of occurrence and management of breakthrough bleeding during an extended oral contraceptive regimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:935-941.

19. Canto De Cetina TE, Canto P, Ordonez Luna M. Effect of counseling to improve compliance in Mexican women receiving depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate. Contraception. 2001;63:143-146.

20. Lei ZW, Wu SC, Garceau RJ, et al. Effect of pretreatment counseling on discontinuation rates in Chinese women given depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. Contraception. 1996;53:357-361.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Patricia J. Sulak, MD, Program Chair
Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Scott & White Clinic/Memorial Hospital, Texas A & M University System Health Science Center College of Medicine, Temple, Texas
Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD
Professor and Assistant Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida, College of Medicine Jacksonville, Florida
Andrew M. London, MD, MBA
Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland
Anne M. Moore, MSN, ANP, FAANP
Professor of Nursing/WHNP, Vanderbilt University, Chair of the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health, Nashville, Tennessee
Anita L. Nelson, MD
Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Harbor-University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, Torrance, California

Publications
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Patricia J. Sulak, MD, Program Chair
Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Scott & White Clinic/Memorial Hospital, Texas A & M University System Health Science Center College of Medicine, Temple, Texas
Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD
Professor and Assistant Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida, College of Medicine Jacksonville, Florida
Andrew M. London, MD, MBA
Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland
Anne M. Moore, MSN, ANP, FAANP
Professor of Nursing/WHNP, Vanderbilt University, Chair of the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health, Nashville, Tennessee
Anita L. Nelson, MD
Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Harbor-University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, Torrance, California

Author and Disclosure Information

 

Patricia J. Sulak, MD, Program Chair
Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Scott & White Clinic/Memorial Hospital, Texas A & M University System Health Science Center College of Medicine, Temple, Texas
Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD
Professor and Assistant Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida, College of Medicine Jacksonville, Florida
Andrew M. London, MD, MBA
Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland
Anne M. Moore, MSN, ANP, FAANP
Professor of Nursing/WHNP, Vanderbilt University, Chair of the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health, Nashville, Tennessee
Anita L. Nelson, MD
Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Harbor-University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, Torrance, California

Article PDF
Article PDF
Sponsor
This supplement is supported by a grant from Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Sponsor
This supplement is supported by a grant from Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Disclosures (prior 12 months)

Dr Sulak has received research grants from Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Berlex Laboratories, and Organon Inc; is a consultant to Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Berlex Laboratories, and Wyeth; and is a speaker for Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Berlex Laboratories, Merck, and Wyeth.

Dr Kaunitz has received support for clinical trials (funding to University of Florida Research Foundation) from Berlex, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Warner Chilcott. He serves as a speaker for and/or a consultant to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Berlex, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Organon, and Pfizer. He holds stock in Barr, Noven, Procter and Gamble, Roche, and sanofi-aventis.

Dr London is a speaker for and/or consultant to Berlex, Duramed, Eli Lilly and Co, Merck, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, and Wyeth.

Ms Moore is a speaker for and/or consultant to Berlex, Duramed, Organon, Ortho, and Wyeth.

Dr Nelson has served as a speaker for Barr, Berlex, FEI Women’s Health, Merck, Organon, Ortho McNeil, Pfizer, Ther-Rx, and Wyeth. She has served as an advisor for Ascend Therapeutics, Barr, Berlex, Church and Dwight, Organon, and Wyeth. She also has received research support from Berlex, Organon, Pfizer, and Wyeth.

A roundtable discussion among key thought leaders in the area of hormonal contraception was held on October 20, 2006, in New Orleans, Louisiana. These experts addressed the critical questions regarding the practical management of extended regimen oral contraceptives based on information in the medical literature.

Oral contraceptives (OCs) have been available in the United States for nearly 50 years. It is easy to forget that the introduction of reliable oral contraception—a widely available method that allows women control of their fertility—was revolutionary at that time. The decision to use a 28-day pill regimen was not a response to a physiologic need for 13 cycles per year but was dictated by the social norms and pregnancy testing technology of the day. At a time when pregnancy testing was neither easy to perform nor highly sensitive, the 7-day hormone free interval (HFI) provided a monthly reassurance to the OC user that she was not pregnant. Over the ensuing years numerous improvements in oral contraception have taken place—lowering of estrogen content due to safety concerns, confirmation of the efficacy of low-dose pills, introduction of new progestins, and phasic regimens. These changes came about due to a large number of clinical trials and other scientific assessments of OC regimens. Now with research shifted toward reducing the HFI and maximizing ovarian follicular suppression, oral contraception is undergoing a second revolution. By altering or eliminating the HFI, the goal of reducing withdrawal bleeding and minimizing hormone withdrawal can be accomplished.

Both spontaneous menstrual bleeding associated with ovulatory cycles and iatrogenically induced scheduled bleeding associated with OCs are due to endogenous or exogenous hormone withdrawal. However, the similarity ends abruptly, as menstrual bleeding fulfills a physiologic need to slough the secretory endometrium after ovulation in preparation for a new cycle and possible pregnancy. In contrast, there is no health-related reason to bleed while taking OCs. Monthly menstruation in reproductive-age women is necessary unless the patient is pregnant, using hormonal contraception, breastfeeding, or has undergone hysterectomy. A lack of cyclical menstrual bleeding in women not taking hormonal contraception is indicative of a pathologic state, whether it is the hypoestrogenic state of premature ovarian failure or the unopposed estrogen anovulatory state characteristic of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (TABLE 1). Conversely, the recurrent ovulation and menstruation that is common among today’s post-industrial women is associated with health risks (TABLE 2).

The focus on alteration of the HFI to further improve OC therapy began with the introduction of Mircette® in 1998.1 This was followed by the introduction of Seasonale®, the first extended OC regimen2 and subsequently 2 OC products, Yaz® and Loestrin® 24 Fe, that maintained the 28-day cycle with a shortened HFI.3-5 A recently introduced OC product, Seasonique®, uses an extended 91-day regimen with low-dose ethinyl estradiol (EE) during the HFI, thus eliminating the HFI completely (TABLE 3).6

TABLE 1

Conditions Associated With Oligomenorrhea/Amenorrhea

 

Polycystic ovarian syndromeAnorexia nervosa
Premenarchal statusAthletic amenorrhea
Uterine adhesionsCervical stenosis
PregnancyOvarian failure
PerimenopauseOvarian tumor
Emotional stressBrain tumor
Endocrine disorders (thyroid, pituitary, adrenal) 

 

TABLE 2

Health Risks

 

Recurrent Ovulation/Bleeding
Bleeding/anemiaEndometriosis with associated pain and infertility
Ovarian cancerOvarian cysts
Premenstrual syndromePremenstrual dysphoric disorder
Amenorrhea
OsteoporosisAtrophic vaginitis
Cardiac arrhythmia 
Oligomenorrhea
Endometrial hyperplasiaEndometrial cancer
Infertility 

TABLE 3

OC Products With Extended Regimens or Altered Hormone Free Interval

 

Product ContentBrandRegimenDuration of HFINo. Withdrawal Bleeding Episodes/Year
30 mcg EE/150 mcg LNG and 10 mcg EESeasonique91 days: 84 days active + 7 days low-dose EENo HFI4
20 mcg EE/1 mg NETALoestrin 24 Fe28 days: 24 days active + 4 days placebo4 days13
20 mcg EE/3 mg DRSPYaz28 days: 24 days active + 4 days placebo4 days13
20 mcg EE/150 mcg DSG and 10 mcg EEMircette28 days: 21 days active + 2 days placebo + 5 days low-dose EE2 days13
30 mcg EE/150 mcg LNGSeasonale*91 days: 84 days active + 7 days placebo7 days4
DRSP=drosperinone, DSG=desogestrel, EE=ethinyl estradiol, HFI=hormone-free interval, LNG=levonorgestrel, NETA=norethindrone acetate, OC=oral contraceptive.
*Seasonale is the only extended regimen OC for which there is a generic substitute.
 

 

Are there specific clinical advantages to extended regimen OCs?

DR LONDON: The real advantage to the extended regimens is that they do not have the disadvantages known to exist with the 21/7 regimens.

DR KAUNITZ: There are 4 advantages to extended regimens:

• improvement in contraceptive success
• therapeutic use for hormone withdrawal symptoms
• treatment of gynecologic problems such as dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, and anemia
• accommodation of lifestyle preference

Once women understand that extending combined hormone contraceptives is safe, most will prefer fewer cycles.

DR SULAK: While we need to acknowledge that the decision to introduce the first OCs in a 21/7 regimen was a wise choice nearly 50 years ago, research has shown us that the low doses of EE and the 7-day HFI creates problems—incomplete pituitary-ovarian suppression, endogenous estradiol formation, follicular development, ovarian cyst formation, risk of escape ovulation, and hormone withdrawal symptoms. It doesn’t matter whether a pill, patch, or ring is used—a 7-day HFI is too long with today’s low-dose combined hormonal contraceptives.

Spona was the first to report greater suppression of ovarian activity with a shortened HFI.7 By increasing the number of active pills from 21 to 23 per cycle and decreasing the HFI from 7 to 5 days, there was lower residual ovarian activity and endogenous 17β-estradiol. The study also showed that 17β-estradiol levels began to rise during the HFI but the rise was earlier and greater in women assigned to the 21-day regimen.

DR KAUNITZ: Another fundamental issue focuses on the reason our patients use OCs—effective, convenient, and reversible contraception. Unfortunately, the current 21/7 paradigm may not be optimal. The “typical” failure rate with OCs—which is what applies to our patients—is 8%.8 I don’t think that is acceptable.

The HFI and the first few days of a new pill pack are the time at which women are at greatest risk for contraceptive failure and unintended pregnancy. By extending the overall duration of active pills and decreasing the duration of the HFI, we are setting our patients up for better contraceptive success.

DR SULAK: There is also the issue of symptoms during the HFI. We all recognize that menstrual symptoms—breast tenderness, headache, bloating, and cramping—increase during the HFI.9 Although our data reported significant hormone withdrawal symptoms in women taking OCs, women experience these symptoms with all forms of combined estrogen-progestin hormonal contraceptives regardless of route of administration.

Importantly, the study showed that the symptoms occurred consistently not only in the new start patients, but also in the established users—the women who had been on the pill for more than a year. There is a reason why so many women stop their OCs in less than a year—it’s not because they are feeling wonderful. They may stop because they feel terrible during the HFI.

DR NELSON: The symptoms are real and it is astonishing how many women experience them. Women have become so accustomed to feeling lousy once a month, whether it’s due to menstrual symptoms or hormone withdrawal, that they will not mention it.

Another advantage to extended use of combination estrogen-progestin contraception is the prolonged suppression of ovulation and menstruation, like that produced by the progestin-only regimens, without the negative effects on bone. Given the multitude of problems caused by recurrent ovulation and menstruation, it may be healthier for some women not to have periods every month.

DR KAUNITZ: There are also therapeutic uses for extended regimen OCs that we should not overlook. Decreased dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia are both included in the prescribing information for all OCs. Women suffering from these disorders will likely have additive benefit from extended regimens. In the same vein, the value of extended regimens in managing endometriosis has been known for years.10

DR SULAK: A very recent paper showed that extending the regimen can improve premenstrual symptoms.11 When symptomatology was compared with that recorded during a 21/7 cycle, there was a significant improvement that was especially apparent in the women who had the greatest variability in their cycles.

Another important finding was that the greatest improvement was detected in the sixth month. That is a key counseling point—you need to stick with the regimen to see the benefits.

What practical advantages does an extended regimen offer to the patient?

DR LONDON: Convenience, convenience, convenience.

MS MOORE: The worst pill to miss in any cycle is the one that is still at the pharmacy. Once your patient has already had 7 hormone-free days, her risk of pregnancy increases with each day of delay in starting a new pack of pills.

DR LONDON: With an extended regimen, that risk occurs fewer times per year. Just as the change from 50-mcg pills to low-dose pills was an improvement, the extension of the regimen beyond 28 days is a real improvement in OC therapy.

 

 

DR NELSON: Access to pills is a real issue—it’s more than having to go to the pharmacy every few weeks. A recent paper from the California Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care and Treatment) Program showed that women who were dispensed a year’s supply of OCs at their first visit were more likely to continue therapy, were more likely to receive Papanicolaou tests and Chlamydia tests, and actually had a lower annual women’s health care–related costs than women who were dispensed 3 cycles.12

We recently presented data that support this conclusion—hormonal method continuation rates were higher among women who received 3 pill packs than in those who received only 1. Having the supply of pills available is one more way of promoting contraceptive success.

Are there side effects that are specific to the extended regimen OCs?

DR SULAK: We are in consensus that there are no side effects that are specific to the extended regimen OCs. The only side effect found to be increased with extended regimen is unscheduled bleeding, but some studies have shown less bleeding overall.13 Studies have shown a decrease in many typical side effects seen with 21/7 OCs such as premenstrual syndrome and headaches.14

DR KAUNITZ: I agree. We should, however, address unscheduled bleeding and spotting. It’s something that we see with every OC, but extending the regimen changes the pattern.

A number of years ago, a randomized trial showed that addition of low-dose estrogen to the HFI provided superior cycle control to that of a 20-mcg EE OC and similar to that reported with a 35-mcg pill.15 There are more recent data that suggest that once you have passed the first cycle, addition of low-dose estrogen to the HFI also improves unscheduled bleeding in 91-day regimens.6

MS MOORE: Patients must understand there will be some unscheduled bleeding/spotting as their endometrium transitions from a monthly cycle or withdrawal bleed to more complete ovarian suppression, but it is manageable.

DR LONDON: Some clinicians have concerns about estrogen exposure—specifically the risk of venous thromboembolism and breast cancer. When the published data regarding extended regimens are examined in total, the safety profile is virtually the same as for 21/7. The safety of 91-day regimens have been demonstrated in both 1-year trials as well as longer-term 2-year studies.2,6,16

The Women’s CARE (Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences) study really put concerns about the association of OC use and breast cancer to rest.17 There was no evidence of increased risk of breast cancer in either current or past users of OCs. Given that the study included women who had taken high-dose 50-mcg EE pills, it’s very reasonable to conclude that extended OC use poses no increased risk of breast cancer.

What can be done to ensure that an extended regimen is offered to all OC-appropriate patients regardless of age or pathology?

DR KAUNITZ: We still need to work on overcoming common misconceptions. Despite more than 45 years of use, a fundamental lack of understanding of how OCs work persists among patients and health care professionals outside the field of women’s health.

MS MOORE: Many of my students are incredulous when they realize that there is no physiologic reason for the 7-day HFI and cyclical bleeding for women taking OCs.

DR LONDON: We also need to dispel the myth that women taking OCs are having periods. Remember that no women taking an OC has a period. They have withdrawal bleeding.

DR SULAK: Extended regimens set my patients up for contraceptive success and should be considered for all women who are candidates for OCs. The advantages—avoidance of monthly withdrawal symptoms, less follicular development, and, overall, less bleeding—outweigh the issues of unscheduled bleeding and spotting.

DR NELSON: We should discuss bleeding with our patients and, perhaps, it is time to turn the tables and ask her why she feels the need to bleed every month. For women considering use of OCs, it opens up the conversation to use of regimens other than 21/7. For women who are established users of OCs, asking whether they are having symptoms every month will open up the same conversation.

DR KAUNITZ: We’re not here to suggest that women should no longer menstruate or that women should no longer experience monthly bleeding.

It’s all about choice. Using hormones not only to provide safe, effective contraception but also to allow women the option of choosing when to bleed is a second revolution in contraception.

With regard to symptoms, I ask about grouchiness. “Do you get headaches or feel grouchy or down during your HFI?” If the answer is yes, it moves the conversation in the direction of extended regimens.

 

 

MS MOORE: I agree. The extended regimen has become mainstream over the past couple of years—the only reason I can see for using 21/7 is if the patient demands it or if reimbursement drives the issue.

How important is breakthrough bleeding in OC product selection?

DR KAUNITZ: Breakthrough bleeding occurs with all OC products—it’s importance becomes a matter of how well you have prepared patients for it.

MS MOORE: I like to tell my patients that it is likely they will experience some breakthrough bleeding in the early cycles. Then they are prepared and those who do not have any are pleasantly surprised.

DR SULAK: It’s inevitable and it can be managed—to me, it’s more important to focus on eliminating hormone withdrawal symptoms.

Are all combined hormonal contraceptive products appropriate for use in extended regimens?

DR NELSON: At this time there are insufficient data regarding the safety and pharmacokinetics of extended regimen use of the transdermal patch. Until studies evaluating its use in multiple extended cycles become available, we cannot recommend its use in extended regimens.18

DR KAUNITZ: Traditional 21/7 pill packs can be used in extended regimens but I find this approach often poses challenges for the patient—from remembering not to take placebo pills to reimbursement to trips to the pharmacy every 3 weeks for a new pill pack.

DR LONDON: It seems intuitive that the multiphasic pills would not be optimal for use in extended regimens. Given the paucity of data supporting their use, I would not recommend initiating an extended regimen with a mutiphasic pill. I certainly would allow a patient who is using them successfully to continue.

What are practical options to manage breakthrough bleeding in patients taking extended regimen OCs?

DR SULAK: We find that patients usually don’t begin to have unscheduled bleeding until week 4 or later. In our prospective study, we found that women who had heavier daily flow ratings during the 21/7 lead-in cycle tended to have greater daily flow ratings and earlier occurrence of unscheduled bleeding when taking an extended regimen.13 We also showed that a 3-day pill holiday was helpful in managing breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting that had persisted for 7 consecutive days (TABLE 4).

MS MOORE: Essentially patients have 2 options: endure the bleeding or take a brief pill holiday. I let my patients decide—some are very bothered by even the slightest amount of breakthrough bleeding while others have no issue with it. The worse thing a patient can do is to stop taking pills without a back-up plan for contraception. It is critical that they take at least 3 weeks of active pills between drug holidays.

DR LONDON: It’s also important to remember that you cannot use a 3-day pill holiday to manage breakthrough bleeding/spotting with 21/7 regimens as the increased number of hormone-free days per cycle could lead to a greater chance of escape ovulation.

DR KAUNITZ: Let’s not forget the value of counseling. Just letting women know what to expect and what to do has certainly been proven to be valuable in improving continuation rates among women on other forms of long-term contraception19,20 and would without doubt be beneficial for women receiving extended regimens (SIDEBAR).

DR SULAK: With the low-dose OCs, it is especially important to let the patient know at the time you write the prescription that she has to take her pills at about the same time each day. I have had patients tell me that they experience bleeding if they take their pills even a few hours late.

DR NELSON: There will be patients with breakthrough bleeding/spotting who need to be examined, such as a long-term pill user who reports it for the first time. If you can establish a history of good pill taking with no illnesses or medication interaction which might alter hormone absorption, this woman should be evaluated for infection and anatomic changes like cervical or endometrial polyps.

TABLE 4

Recommendations for Initiating Extended Regimens

 

New starts: Begin your pack according to the directions provided by your clinician. You may be able to begin your pack on the same day or on the first day of menstruation.
Transition patients: Begin the extended pack as soon as the withdrawal bleeding from your prior cycle ends and you have a hormone free interval that lasts no more than 4 days.

 

Guidelines and Recommendations for Unscheduled Bleeding

Counseling Guidelines

• When prescribing, provide counseling regarding the possibility of unscheduled bleeding/spotting.
• When the patient complains of unscheduled bleeding ask about
  • pill-taking habits
    - Did you start the most recent pill pack on time?
    - Are you taking the pills at approximately the same time each day?
    - Have you skipped any pills recently?
    - Have you had any recent illnesses?
    - Are you using other medications?
  • Characteristics of the unscheduled bleeding episode
    - How long did you experience breakthrough bleeding?
    - How severe was the bleeding?
    - At what point in the cycle did it occur?
  • Any lifestyle changes or habits that might
    - Predispose her to sexually transmitted disease (change in partners)
    - Alter the metabolism of active hormone components (use of St. John’s Wort, smoking)

Management Recommendations

• With a 91-day regimen, bleeding may occur before the 7-day ethinyl estradiol period at the end of the pill pack.
• If bleeding/spotting is bothersome during the 84 combination pills, it is possible to take a 3-day hormone-free interval and immediately restart.
• Always take a minimum of 3 weeks of active pills before taking a 3-day break.
• Do not take a break during the first 3 weeks or during the last 3 weeks of the 84 combination active pills.

 

 

Summary

DR SULAK: We are finally seeing the demise of 21/7 contraceptive regimens. Numerous studies of these regimens over the past decade have documented hormone withdrawal symptoms, inadequate pituitary-ovarian suppression, follicular development, and even ovulation. Regimens which shorten or eliminate the 7-day HFI by adding estrogen and providing greater duration of active pills will improve the side effect profile and efficacy.

Oral contraceptives first gave women control over their fertility; now, regimens that extend the cycle and eliminate the HFI give women the option of having fewer hormone withdrawal symptoms. In addition to the convenience of fewer cycles per year, women may experience further benefit from prolonged suppression of ovulation and menstruation.

While breakthrough bleeding and spotting occur with all OCs, the pattern seen with extended regimens differs. It can be managed with patient counseling and brief pill holidays. Additional strategies to manage breakthrough bleeding that should be evaluated in the future include additional estrogen only, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and changing the estrogen dose of the formulation (ie, increasing the dose from 20 mcg EE to 30-35 mcg EE).

Articles of interest

Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Safety and efficacy of an extended-regimen oral contraceptive utilizing continuous low-dose ethinyl estradiol. Contraception. 2006;73:229-234.

Prospective trial of 1006 sexually active adult women of childbearing potential who received a 91-day extended regimen OC (30 mcg EE/150 mcg LNG) with continuous low-dose EE (10 mcg) during the hormone free interval. Cycle control and safety of the regimen were comparable to that reported for other OCs.

Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Long-term safety of an extended-cycle oral contraceptive (Seasonale): a 2-year multicenter open-label extension trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:92-96.

Long-term safety study of a 91-day extended cycle OC regimen. Overall rates of study discontinuation and incidence of adverse events were similar to those of an earlier Phase 3 clinical trial. The regimen was well tolerated and the numbers of reported bleeding and/or spotting days diminished during the study.

Foster DG, Parvataneni R, de Bocanegra HT, Lewis C, Bradsberry M, Darney P. Number of oral contraceptive pill packages dispensed, method continuation, and costs. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1107-1114.

Evaluation of the effect of the number of cycles of OC pill packages dispensed on the method continuation, pill wastage, use of services, and health care costs among 82,319 women enrolled in the California Family PACT system. Dispensing a year’s supply of OCs during first visits was associated with a higher method continuation and lower health care costs than dispensing fewer cycles per visit.

Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:2025-2032.

A population-based, case-control study of 4575 women with breast cancer and 4682 controls to determine the risk of breast cancer among former and current users of OCs. The relative risk of breast cancer was 1.0 (95% CI, 0.8-1.3) for women who were currently using OCs and 0.9 (95% CI, 0.8-1.0) for those who had previously used them. The relative risk did not increase consistently with longer periods of use or with higher doses of estrogen. Use of OCs by women with a family history of breast cancer was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer nor was the initiation of OC use at a young age.

Spona J, Elstein M, Feichtinger W, et al. Shorter pill-free interval in combined oral contraceptives decreases follicular development. Contraception. 1996;54:71-77.

Double-blind, randomized trial to determine the suppressive effect on ovarian activity of OCs administered for 21 or 23 days. Observed differences in 17β-estradiol levels and follicular development between a 21-day and 23-day preparation suggest that shortening the pill-free interval in combined OCs may increase the contraceptive safety margin in women on low-dose formulations.

Sulak PJ, Scow RD, Preece C, Riggs MW, Kuehl TJ. Hormone withdrawal symptoms in oral contraceptive users. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:261-266.

Prospective evaluation to measure the timing, frequency, and severity of hormone-related symptoms in OC users. Pelvic pain, headaches, use of pain medication, bloating or swelling, and breast tenderness occurred significantly more frequently during the 7-day hormone free interval among both current users and new start users of OCs.

Sulak PJ, Kuehl TJ, Coffee A, Willis S. Prospective analysis of occurrence and management of breakthrough bleeding during an extended oral contraceptive regimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:935-941.

Single-center, prospective analysis of self-rated menstrual flow during a 21/7 regimen versus a 168-day extended OC regimen. Subjects with a heavier daily flow rating during the 21/7 day cycle tended to have greater daily flow ratings and earlier breakthrough bleeding during the 168-day extension cycle. The 168-day extended regimen had an acceptable bleeding profile with bleeding during the active pill interval effectively managed with institution of a 3-day hormone free interval.

 

 

Acknowledgment

The assistance of Kathryn Martin, PharmD, in providing background research and editorial support is acknowledged.

Disclosures (prior 12 months)

Dr Sulak has received research grants from Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Berlex Laboratories, and Organon Inc; is a consultant to Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Berlex Laboratories, and Wyeth; and is a speaker for Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Berlex Laboratories, Merck, and Wyeth.

Dr Kaunitz has received support for clinical trials (funding to University of Florida Research Foundation) from Berlex, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, and Warner Chilcott. He serves as a speaker for and/or a consultant to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Berlex, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Organon, and Pfizer. He holds stock in Barr, Noven, Procter and Gamble, Roche, and sanofi-aventis.

Dr London is a speaker for and/or consultant to Berlex, Duramed, Eli Lilly and Co, Merck, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, and Wyeth.

Ms Moore is a speaker for and/or consultant to Berlex, Duramed, Organon, Ortho, and Wyeth.

Dr Nelson has served as a speaker for Barr, Berlex, FEI Women’s Health, Merck, Organon, Ortho McNeil, Pfizer, Ther-Rx, and Wyeth. She has served as an advisor for Ascend Therapeutics, Barr, Berlex, Church and Dwight, Organon, and Wyeth. She also has received research support from Berlex, Organon, Pfizer, and Wyeth.

A roundtable discussion among key thought leaders in the area of hormonal contraception was held on October 20, 2006, in New Orleans, Louisiana. These experts addressed the critical questions regarding the practical management of extended regimen oral contraceptives based on information in the medical literature.

Oral contraceptives (OCs) have been available in the United States for nearly 50 years. It is easy to forget that the introduction of reliable oral contraception—a widely available method that allows women control of their fertility—was revolutionary at that time. The decision to use a 28-day pill regimen was not a response to a physiologic need for 13 cycles per year but was dictated by the social norms and pregnancy testing technology of the day. At a time when pregnancy testing was neither easy to perform nor highly sensitive, the 7-day hormone free interval (HFI) provided a monthly reassurance to the OC user that she was not pregnant. Over the ensuing years numerous improvements in oral contraception have taken place—lowering of estrogen content due to safety concerns, confirmation of the efficacy of low-dose pills, introduction of new progestins, and phasic regimens. These changes came about due to a large number of clinical trials and other scientific assessments of OC regimens. Now with research shifted toward reducing the HFI and maximizing ovarian follicular suppression, oral contraception is undergoing a second revolution. By altering or eliminating the HFI, the goal of reducing withdrawal bleeding and minimizing hormone withdrawal can be accomplished.

Both spontaneous menstrual bleeding associated with ovulatory cycles and iatrogenically induced scheduled bleeding associated with OCs are due to endogenous or exogenous hormone withdrawal. However, the similarity ends abruptly, as menstrual bleeding fulfills a physiologic need to slough the secretory endometrium after ovulation in preparation for a new cycle and possible pregnancy. In contrast, there is no health-related reason to bleed while taking OCs. Monthly menstruation in reproductive-age women is necessary unless the patient is pregnant, using hormonal contraception, breastfeeding, or has undergone hysterectomy. A lack of cyclical menstrual bleeding in women not taking hormonal contraception is indicative of a pathologic state, whether it is the hypoestrogenic state of premature ovarian failure or the unopposed estrogen anovulatory state characteristic of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (TABLE 1). Conversely, the recurrent ovulation and menstruation that is common among today’s post-industrial women is associated with health risks (TABLE 2).

The focus on alteration of the HFI to further improve OC therapy began with the introduction of Mircette® in 1998.1 This was followed by the introduction of Seasonale®, the first extended OC regimen2 and subsequently 2 OC products, Yaz® and Loestrin® 24 Fe, that maintained the 28-day cycle with a shortened HFI.3-5 A recently introduced OC product, Seasonique®, uses an extended 91-day regimen with low-dose ethinyl estradiol (EE) during the HFI, thus eliminating the HFI completely (TABLE 3).6

TABLE 1

Conditions Associated With Oligomenorrhea/Amenorrhea

 

Polycystic ovarian syndromeAnorexia nervosa
Premenarchal statusAthletic amenorrhea
Uterine adhesionsCervical stenosis
PregnancyOvarian failure
PerimenopauseOvarian tumor
Emotional stressBrain tumor
Endocrine disorders (thyroid, pituitary, adrenal) 

 

TABLE 2

Health Risks

 

Recurrent Ovulation/Bleeding
Bleeding/anemiaEndometriosis with associated pain and infertility
Ovarian cancerOvarian cysts
Premenstrual syndromePremenstrual dysphoric disorder
Amenorrhea
OsteoporosisAtrophic vaginitis
Cardiac arrhythmia 
Oligomenorrhea
Endometrial hyperplasiaEndometrial cancer
Infertility 

TABLE 3

OC Products With Extended Regimens or Altered Hormone Free Interval

 

Product ContentBrandRegimenDuration of HFINo. Withdrawal Bleeding Episodes/Year
30 mcg EE/150 mcg LNG and 10 mcg EESeasonique91 days: 84 days active + 7 days low-dose EENo HFI4
20 mcg EE/1 mg NETALoestrin 24 Fe28 days: 24 days active + 4 days placebo4 days13
20 mcg EE/3 mg DRSPYaz28 days: 24 days active + 4 days placebo4 days13
20 mcg EE/150 mcg DSG and 10 mcg EEMircette28 days: 21 days active + 2 days placebo + 5 days low-dose EE2 days13
30 mcg EE/150 mcg LNGSeasonale*91 days: 84 days active + 7 days placebo7 days4
DRSP=drosperinone, DSG=desogestrel, EE=ethinyl estradiol, HFI=hormone-free interval, LNG=levonorgestrel, NETA=norethindrone acetate, OC=oral contraceptive.
*Seasonale is the only extended regimen OC for which there is a generic substitute.
 

 

Are there specific clinical advantages to extended regimen OCs?

DR LONDON: The real advantage to the extended regimens is that they do not have the disadvantages known to exist with the 21/7 regimens.

DR KAUNITZ: There are 4 advantages to extended regimens:

• improvement in contraceptive success
• therapeutic use for hormone withdrawal symptoms
• treatment of gynecologic problems such as dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, and anemia
• accommodation of lifestyle preference

Once women understand that extending combined hormone contraceptives is safe, most will prefer fewer cycles.

DR SULAK: While we need to acknowledge that the decision to introduce the first OCs in a 21/7 regimen was a wise choice nearly 50 years ago, research has shown us that the low doses of EE and the 7-day HFI creates problems—incomplete pituitary-ovarian suppression, endogenous estradiol formation, follicular development, ovarian cyst formation, risk of escape ovulation, and hormone withdrawal symptoms. It doesn’t matter whether a pill, patch, or ring is used—a 7-day HFI is too long with today’s low-dose combined hormonal contraceptives.

Spona was the first to report greater suppression of ovarian activity with a shortened HFI.7 By increasing the number of active pills from 21 to 23 per cycle and decreasing the HFI from 7 to 5 days, there was lower residual ovarian activity and endogenous 17β-estradiol. The study also showed that 17β-estradiol levels began to rise during the HFI but the rise was earlier and greater in women assigned to the 21-day regimen.

DR KAUNITZ: Another fundamental issue focuses on the reason our patients use OCs—effective, convenient, and reversible contraception. Unfortunately, the current 21/7 paradigm may not be optimal. The “typical” failure rate with OCs—which is what applies to our patients—is 8%.8 I don’t think that is acceptable.

The HFI and the first few days of a new pill pack are the time at which women are at greatest risk for contraceptive failure and unintended pregnancy. By extending the overall duration of active pills and decreasing the duration of the HFI, we are setting our patients up for better contraceptive success.

DR SULAK: There is also the issue of symptoms during the HFI. We all recognize that menstrual symptoms—breast tenderness, headache, bloating, and cramping—increase during the HFI.9 Although our data reported significant hormone withdrawal symptoms in women taking OCs, women experience these symptoms with all forms of combined estrogen-progestin hormonal contraceptives regardless of route of administration.

Importantly, the study showed that the symptoms occurred consistently not only in the new start patients, but also in the established users—the women who had been on the pill for more than a year. There is a reason why so many women stop their OCs in less than a year—it’s not because they are feeling wonderful. They may stop because they feel terrible during the HFI.

DR NELSON: The symptoms are real and it is astonishing how many women experience them. Women have become so accustomed to feeling lousy once a month, whether it’s due to menstrual symptoms or hormone withdrawal, that they will not mention it.

Another advantage to extended use of combination estrogen-progestin contraception is the prolonged suppression of ovulation and menstruation, like that produced by the progestin-only regimens, without the negative effects on bone. Given the multitude of problems caused by recurrent ovulation and menstruation, it may be healthier for some women not to have periods every month.

DR KAUNITZ: There are also therapeutic uses for extended regimen OCs that we should not overlook. Decreased dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia are both included in the prescribing information for all OCs. Women suffering from these disorders will likely have additive benefit from extended regimens. In the same vein, the value of extended regimens in managing endometriosis has been known for years.10

DR SULAK: A very recent paper showed that extending the regimen can improve premenstrual symptoms.11 When symptomatology was compared with that recorded during a 21/7 cycle, there was a significant improvement that was especially apparent in the women who had the greatest variability in their cycles.

Another important finding was that the greatest improvement was detected in the sixth month. That is a key counseling point—you need to stick with the regimen to see the benefits.

What practical advantages does an extended regimen offer to the patient?

DR LONDON: Convenience, convenience, convenience.

MS MOORE: The worst pill to miss in any cycle is the one that is still at the pharmacy. Once your patient has already had 7 hormone-free days, her risk of pregnancy increases with each day of delay in starting a new pack of pills.

DR LONDON: With an extended regimen, that risk occurs fewer times per year. Just as the change from 50-mcg pills to low-dose pills was an improvement, the extension of the regimen beyond 28 days is a real improvement in OC therapy.

 

 

DR NELSON: Access to pills is a real issue—it’s more than having to go to the pharmacy every few weeks. A recent paper from the California Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care and Treatment) Program showed that women who were dispensed a year’s supply of OCs at their first visit were more likely to continue therapy, were more likely to receive Papanicolaou tests and Chlamydia tests, and actually had a lower annual women’s health care–related costs than women who were dispensed 3 cycles.12

We recently presented data that support this conclusion—hormonal method continuation rates were higher among women who received 3 pill packs than in those who received only 1. Having the supply of pills available is one more way of promoting contraceptive success.

Are there side effects that are specific to the extended regimen OCs?

DR SULAK: We are in consensus that there are no side effects that are specific to the extended regimen OCs. The only side effect found to be increased with extended regimen is unscheduled bleeding, but some studies have shown less bleeding overall.13 Studies have shown a decrease in many typical side effects seen with 21/7 OCs such as premenstrual syndrome and headaches.14

DR KAUNITZ: I agree. We should, however, address unscheduled bleeding and spotting. It’s something that we see with every OC, but extending the regimen changes the pattern.

A number of years ago, a randomized trial showed that addition of low-dose estrogen to the HFI provided superior cycle control to that of a 20-mcg EE OC and similar to that reported with a 35-mcg pill.15 There are more recent data that suggest that once you have passed the first cycle, addition of low-dose estrogen to the HFI also improves unscheduled bleeding in 91-day regimens.6

MS MOORE: Patients must understand there will be some unscheduled bleeding/spotting as their endometrium transitions from a monthly cycle or withdrawal bleed to more complete ovarian suppression, but it is manageable.

DR LONDON: Some clinicians have concerns about estrogen exposure—specifically the risk of venous thromboembolism and breast cancer. When the published data regarding extended regimens are examined in total, the safety profile is virtually the same as for 21/7. The safety of 91-day regimens have been demonstrated in both 1-year trials as well as longer-term 2-year studies.2,6,16

The Women’s CARE (Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences) study really put concerns about the association of OC use and breast cancer to rest.17 There was no evidence of increased risk of breast cancer in either current or past users of OCs. Given that the study included women who had taken high-dose 50-mcg EE pills, it’s very reasonable to conclude that extended OC use poses no increased risk of breast cancer.

What can be done to ensure that an extended regimen is offered to all OC-appropriate patients regardless of age or pathology?

DR KAUNITZ: We still need to work on overcoming common misconceptions. Despite more than 45 years of use, a fundamental lack of understanding of how OCs work persists among patients and health care professionals outside the field of women’s health.

MS MOORE: Many of my students are incredulous when they realize that there is no physiologic reason for the 7-day HFI and cyclical bleeding for women taking OCs.

DR LONDON: We also need to dispel the myth that women taking OCs are having periods. Remember that no women taking an OC has a period. They have withdrawal bleeding.

DR SULAK: Extended regimens set my patients up for contraceptive success and should be considered for all women who are candidates for OCs. The advantages—avoidance of monthly withdrawal symptoms, less follicular development, and, overall, less bleeding—outweigh the issues of unscheduled bleeding and spotting.

DR NELSON: We should discuss bleeding with our patients and, perhaps, it is time to turn the tables and ask her why she feels the need to bleed every month. For women considering use of OCs, it opens up the conversation to use of regimens other than 21/7. For women who are established users of OCs, asking whether they are having symptoms every month will open up the same conversation.

DR KAUNITZ: We’re not here to suggest that women should no longer menstruate or that women should no longer experience monthly bleeding.

It’s all about choice. Using hormones not only to provide safe, effective contraception but also to allow women the option of choosing when to bleed is a second revolution in contraception.

With regard to symptoms, I ask about grouchiness. “Do you get headaches or feel grouchy or down during your HFI?” If the answer is yes, it moves the conversation in the direction of extended regimens.

 

 

MS MOORE: I agree. The extended regimen has become mainstream over the past couple of years—the only reason I can see for using 21/7 is if the patient demands it or if reimbursement drives the issue.

How important is breakthrough bleeding in OC product selection?

DR KAUNITZ: Breakthrough bleeding occurs with all OC products—it’s importance becomes a matter of how well you have prepared patients for it.

MS MOORE: I like to tell my patients that it is likely they will experience some breakthrough bleeding in the early cycles. Then they are prepared and those who do not have any are pleasantly surprised.

DR SULAK: It’s inevitable and it can be managed—to me, it’s more important to focus on eliminating hormone withdrawal symptoms.

Are all combined hormonal contraceptive products appropriate for use in extended regimens?

DR NELSON: At this time there are insufficient data regarding the safety and pharmacokinetics of extended regimen use of the transdermal patch. Until studies evaluating its use in multiple extended cycles become available, we cannot recommend its use in extended regimens.18

DR KAUNITZ: Traditional 21/7 pill packs can be used in extended regimens but I find this approach often poses challenges for the patient—from remembering not to take placebo pills to reimbursement to trips to the pharmacy every 3 weeks for a new pill pack.

DR LONDON: It seems intuitive that the multiphasic pills would not be optimal for use in extended regimens. Given the paucity of data supporting their use, I would not recommend initiating an extended regimen with a mutiphasic pill. I certainly would allow a patient who is using them successfully to continue.

What are practical options to manage breakthrough bleeding in patients taking extended regimen OCs?

DR SULAK: We find that patients usually don’t begin to have unscheduled bleeding until week 4 or later. In our prospective study, we found that women who had heavier daily flow ratings during the 21/7 lead-in cycle tended to have greater daily flow ratings and earlier occurrence of unscheduled bleeding when taking an extended regimen.13 We also showed that a 3-day pill holiday was helpful in managing breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting that had persisted for 7 consecutive days (TABLE 4).

MS MOORE: Essentially patients have 2 options: endure the bleeding or take a brief pill holiday. I let my patients decide—some are very bothered by even the slightest amount of breakthrough bleeding while others have no issue with it. The worse thing a patient can do is to stop taking pills without a back-up plan for contraception. It is critical that they take at least 3 weeks of active pills between drug holidays.

DR LONDON: It’s also important to remember that you cannot use a 3-day pill holiday to manage breakthrough bleeding/spotting with 21/7 regimens as the increased number of hormone-free days per cycle could lead to a greater chance of escape ovulation.

DR KAUNITZ: Let’s not forget the value of counseling. Just letting women know what to expect and what to do has certainly been proven to be valuable in improving continuation rates among women on other forms of long-term contraception19,20 and would without doubt be beneficial for women receiving extended regimens (SIDEBAR).

DR SULAK: With the low-dose OCs, it is especially important to let the patient know at the time you write the prescription that she has to take her pills at about the same time each day. I have had patients tell me that they experience bleeding if they take their pills even a few hours late.

DR NELSON: There will be patients with breakthrough bleeding/spotting who need to be examined, such as a long-term pill user who reports it for the first time. If you can establish a history of good pill taking with no illnesses or medication interaction which might alter hormone absorption, this woman should be evaluated for infection and anatomic changes like cervical or endometrial polyps.

TABLE 4

Recommendations for Initiating Extended Regimens

 

New starts: Begin your pack according to the directions provided by your clinician. You may be able to begin your pack on the same day or on the first day of menstruation.
Transition patients: Begin the extended pack as soon as the withdrawal bleeding from your prior cycle ends and you have a hormone free interval that lasts no more than 4 days.

 

Guidelines and Recommendations for Unscheduled Bleeding

Counseling Guidelines

• When prescribing, provide counseling regarding the possibility of unscheduled bleeding/spotting.
• When the patient complains of unscheduled bleeding ask about
  • pill-taking habits
    - Did you start the most recent pill pack on time?
    - Are you taking the pills at approximately the same time each day?
    - Have you skipped any pills recently?
    - Have you had any recent illnesses?
    - Are you using other medications?
  • Characteristics of the unscheduled bleeding episode
    - How long did you experience breakthrough bleeding?
    - How severe was the bleeding?
    - At what point in the cycle did it occur?
  • Any lifestyle changes or habits that might
    - Predispose her to sexually transmitted disease (change in partners)
    - Alter the metabolism of active hormone components (use of St. John’s Wort, smoking)

Management Recommendations

• With a 91-day regimen, bleeding may occur before the 7-day ethinyl estradiol period at the end of the pill pack.
• If bleeding/spotting is bothersome during the 84 combination pills, it is possible to take a 3-day hormone-free interval and immediately restart.
• Always take a minimum of 3 weeks of active pills before taking a 3-day break.
• Do not take a break during the first 3 weeks or during the last 3 weeks of the 84 combination active pills.

 

 

Summary

DR SULAK: We are finally seeing the demise of 21/7 contraceptive regimens. Numerous studies of these regimens over the past decade have documented hormone withdrawal symptoms, inadequate pituitary-ovarian suppression, follicular development, and even ovulation. Regimens which shorten or eliminate the 7-day HFI by adding estrogen and providing greater duration of active pills will improve the side effect profile and efficacy.

Oral contraceptives first gave women control over their fertility; now, regimens that extend the cycle and eliminate the HFI give women the option of having fewer hormone withdrawal symptoms. In addition to the convenience of fewer cycles per year, women may experience further benefit from prolonged suppression of ovulation and menstruation.

While breakthrough bleeding and spotting occur with all OCs, the pattern seen with extended regimens differs. It can be managed with patient counseling and brief pill holidays. Additional strategies to manage breakthrough bleeding that should be evaluated in the future include additional estrogen only, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and changing the estrogen dose of the formulation (ie, increasing the dose from 20 mcg EE to 30-35 mcg EE).

Articles of interest

Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Safety and efficacy of an extended-regimen oral contraceptive utilizing continuous low-dose ethinyl estradiol. Contraception. 2006;73:229-234.

Prospective trial of 1006 sexually active adult women of childbearing potential who received a 91-day extended regimen OC (30 mcg EE/150 mcg LNG) with continuous low-dose EE (10 mcg) during the hormone free interval. Cycle control and safety of the regimen were comparable to that reported for other OCs.

Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Long-term safety of an extended-cycle oral contraceptive (Seasonale): a 2-year multicenter open-label extension trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:92-96.

Long-term safety study of a 91-day extended cycle OC regimen. Overall rates of study discontinuation and incidence of adverse events were similar to those of an earlier Phase 3 clinical trial. The regimen was well tolerated and the numbers of reported bleeding and/or spotting days diminished during the study.

Foster DG, Parvataneni R, de Bocanegra HT, Lewis C, Bradsberry M, Darney P. Number of oral contraceptive pill packages dispensed, method continuation, and costs. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1107-1114.

Evaluation of the effect of the number of cycles of OC pill packages dispensed on the method continuation, pill wastage, use of services, and health care costs among 82,319 women enrolled in the California Family PACT system. Dispensing a year’s supply of OCs during first visits was associated with a higher method continuation and lower health care costs than dispensing fewer cycles per visit.

Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:2025-2032.

A population-based, case-control study of 4575 women with breast cancer and 4682 controls to determine the risk of breast cancer among former and current users of OCs. The relative risk of breast cancer was 1.0 (95% CI, 0.8-1.3) for women who were currently using OCs and 0.9 (95% CI, 0.8-1.0) for those who had previously used them. The relative risk did not increase consistently with longer periods of use or with higher doses of estrogen. Use of OCs by women with a family history of breast cancer was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer nor was the initiation of OC use at a young age.

Spona J, Elstein M, Feichtinger W, et al. Shorter pill-free interval in combined oral contraceptives decreases follicular development. Contraception. 1996;54:71-77.

Double-blind, randomized trial to determine the suppressive effect on ovarian activity of OCs administered for 21 or 23 days. Observed differences in 17β-estradiol levels and follicular development between a 21-day and 23-day preparation suggest that shortening the pill-free interval in combined OCs may increase the contraceptive safety margin in women on low-dose formulations.

Sulak PJ, Scow RD, Preece C, Riggs MW, Kuehl TJ. Hormone withdrawal symptoms in oral contraceptive users. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:261-266.

Prospective evaluation to measure the timing, frequency, and severity of hormone-related symptoms in OC users. Pelvic pain, headaches, use of pain medication, bloating or swelling, and breast tenderness occurred significantly more frequently during the 7-day hormone free interval among both current users and new start users of OCs.

Sulak PJ, Kuehl TJ, Coffee A, Willis S. Prospective analysis of occurrence and management of breakthrough bleeding during an extended oral contraceptive regimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:935-941.

Single-center, prospective analysis of self-rated menstrual flow during a 21/7 regimen versus a 168-day extended OC regimen. Subjects with a heavier daily flow rating during the 21/7 day cycle tended to have greater daily flow ratings and earlier breakthrough bleeding during the 168-day extension cycle. The 168-day extended regimen had an acceptable bleeding profile with bleeding during the active pill interval effectively managed with institution of a 3-day hormone free interval.

 

 

Acknowledgment

The assistance of Kathryn Martin, PharmD, in providing background research and editorial support is acknowledged.

References

1. The Mircette™ Study Group. An open-label, multicenter, noncomparative safety and efficacy study of Mircette™, a low-dose estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:S2-S8.

2. Anderson FD, Hait H. A multicenter, randomized study of an extended cycle oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2003;68:89-96.

3. Bachmann G, Sulak PJ, Sampson-Landers C, Benda N, Marr J. Efficacy and safety of a low-dose 24-day combined oral contraceptive containing 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol and 3 mg drospirenone. Contraception. 2004;70:191-198.

4. Archer DF, Ellman H, for the Loestrin-24 Study Group. Bleeding profile of a new 24-day oral contraceptive regimen of norethindrone acetate 1 mg/ethinyl estradiol 20 mcg compared with a 21-day regimen. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; October 15-19, 2005; Montreal, Canada.

5. Archer DF, Ellman H, for the Loestrin-24 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of a 24-day oral contraceptive regimen of norethindrone acetate 1 mg/ethinyl estradiol 20 mcg. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine; October 15-19, 2005; Montreal, Canada.

6. Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Safety and efficacy of an extended-regimen oral contraceptive utilizing continuous low-dose ethinyl estradiol. Contraception. 2006;73:229-234.

7. Spona J, Elstein M, Feichtinger W, et al. Shorter pill-free interval in combined oral contraceptives decreases follicular development. Contraception. 1996;54:71-77.

8. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2004;70:89-96.

9. Sulak PJ, Scow RD, Preece C, Riggs MW, Kuehl TJ. Hormone withdrawal symptoms in oral contraceptive users. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:261-266.

10. Vercellini P, Frontino G, De Giorgi O, Pietropaolo G, Pasin R, Crosignani PG. Continuous use of an oral contraceptive for endometriosis-associated recurrent dysmenorrhea that does not response to a cyclic pill regimen. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:560-563.

11. Coffee AL, Kuehl TJ, Willis S, Sulak PJ. Oral contraceptives and premenstrual symptoms: comparison of a 21/7 and extended regimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1311-1319.

12. Foster DG, Parvataneni R, de Bocanegra HT, Lewis C, Bradsberry M, Darney P. Number of oral contraceptive pill packages dispensed, method continuation, and costs. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1107-1114.

14 Sulak PH, Willis S, Kuehl T, Coffee A, Clark J. Headaches and oral contraceptives: impact of eliminating the standard 7-day placebo interval. Headache. 2007;47:27-37.

15. Rosenberg MJ, Meyers A, Roy V. Efficacy, cycle control, and side effects of low- and lower-dose oral contraceptives: a randomized trial of 20 μg and 35 μg estrogen preparations. Contraception. 1999;60:321-329.

16. Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Long-term safety of an extended-cycle oral contraceptive (Seasonale): a 2-year multicenter open-label extension trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:92-96.

17. Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:2025-2032.

18. van den Heuvel MW, van Bragt AJ, Alnabawy AK, Kaptein M. Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in three hormonal contraceptive formulations: the vaginal ring, the transdermal patch and an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2005;72:168-174.

13. Sulak PJ, Kuehl TJ, Coffee A, Willis S. Prospective analysis of occurrence and management of breakthrough bleeding during an extended oral contraceptive regimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:935-941.

19. Canto De Cetina TE, Canto P, Ordonez Luna M. Effect of counseling to improve compliance in Mexican women receiving depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate. Contraception. 2001;63:143-146.

20. Lei ZW, Wu SC, Garceau RJ, et al. Effect of pretreatment counseling on discontinuation rates in Chinese women given depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. Contraception. 1996;53:357-361.

References

1. The Mircette™ Study Group. An open-label, multicenter, noncomparative safety and efficacy study of Mircette™, a low-dose estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:S2-S8.

2. Anderson FD, Hait H. A multicenter, randomized study of an extended cycle oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2003;68:89-96.

3. Bachmann G, Sulak PJ, Sampson-Landers C, Benda N, Marr J. Efficacy and safety of a low-dose 24-day combined oral contraceptive containing 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol and 3 mg drospirenone. Contraception. 2004;70:191-198.

4. Archer DF, Ellman H, for the Loestrin-24 Study Group. Bleeding profile of a new 24-day oral contraceptive regimen of norethindrone acetate 1 mg/ethinyl estradiol 20 mcg compared with a 21-day regimen. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; October 15-19, 2005; Montreal, Canada.

5. Archer DF, Ellman H, for the Loestrin-24 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of a 24-day oral contraceptive regimen of norethindrone acetate 1 mg/ethinyl estradiol 20 mcg. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine; October 15-19, 2005; Montreal, Canada.

6. Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Safety and efficacy of an extended-regimen oral contraceptive utilizing continuous low-dose ethinyl estradiol. Contraception. 2006;73:229-234.

7. Spona J, Elstein M, Feichtinger W, et al. Shorter pill-free interval in combined oral contraceptives decreases follicular development. Contraception. 1996;54:71-77.

8. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2004;70:89-96.

9. Sulak PJ, Scow RD, Preece C, Riggs MW, Kuehl TJ. Hormone withdrawal symptoms in oral contraceptive users. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:261-266.

10. Vercellini P, Frontino G, De Giorgi O, Pietropaolo G, Pasin R, Crosignani PG. Continuous use of an oral contraceptive for endometriosis-associated recurrent dysmenorrhea that does not response to a cyclic pill regimen. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:560-563.

11. Coffee AL, Kuehl TJ, Willis S, Sulak PJ. Oral contraceptives and premenstrual symptoms: comparison of a 21/7 and extended regimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1311-1319.

12. Foster DG, Parvataneni R, de Bocanegra HT, Lewis C, Bradsberry M, Darney P. Number of oral contraceptive pill packages dispensed, method continuation, and costs. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1107-1114.

14 Sulak PH, Willis S, Kuehl T, Coffee A, Clark J. Headaches and oral contraceptives: impact of eliminating the standard 7-day placebo interval. Headache. 2007;47:27-37.

15. Rosenberg MJ, Meyers A, Roy V. Efficacy, cycle control, and side effects of low- and lower-dose oral contraceptives: a randomized trial of 20 μg and 35 μg estrogen preparations. Contraception. 1999;60:321-329.

16. Anderson FD, Gibbons W, Portman D. Long-term safety of an extended-cycle oral contraceptive (Seasonale): a 2-year multicenter open-label extension trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:92-96.

17. Marchbanks PA, McDonald JA, Wilson HG, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:2025-2032.

18. van den Heuvel MW, van Bragt AJ, Alnabawy AK, Kaptein M. Comparison of ethinylestradiol pharmacokinetics in three hormonal contraceptive formulations: the vaginal ring, the transdermal patch and an oral contraceptive. Contraception. 2005;72:168-174.

13. Sulak PJ, Kuehl TJ, Coffee A, Willis S. Prospective analysis of occurrence and management of breakthrough bleeding during an extended oral contraceptive regimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:935-941.

19. Canto De Cetina TE, Canto P, Ordonez Luna M. Effect of counseling to improve compliance in Mexican women receiving depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate. Contraception. 2001;63:143-146.

20. Lei ZW, Wu SC, Garceau RJ, et al. Effect of pretreatment counseling on discontinuation rates in Chinese women given depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. Contraception. 1996;53:357-361.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Extended Regimen Oral Contraceptives—Practical Management
Display Headline
Extended Regimen Oral Contraceptives—Practical Management
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media