Spiritual assessment: a new outlook on the pharmacist's role.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Todd R Marcy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: The clinical benefits, adverse effects, pharmacokinetics, and recommendations for the appropriate use of the aldosterone antagonists spironolactone and eplerenone in patients with heart failure are reviewed. SUMMARY: Heart failure is a clinical syndrome characterized by the functional inability of the ventricle to meet the metabolic demands of the body. Renal hypoperfusion occurs as a result of reduced cardiac output, resulting in the activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which compensates for the hypoperfusion. However, this contributes to the pathology of the disease by, among other actions, increasing the release of aldosterone. Aldosterone has been shown to cause coronary inflammation, cardiac hypertrophy, myocardial fibrosis, ventricular arrhythmias, and ischemic and necrotic lesions. There are currently two aldosterone antagonists commercially available in the United States, spironolactone and eplerenone. Spironolactone is a nonselective aldosterone antagonist, and eplerenone is selective to the aldosterone receptor. Although numerous clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of each drug, no studies have directly compared spironolactone and eplerenone. Both have been shown to improve morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced heart failure. Adverse effects of both spironolactone and eplerenone include potentially life-threatening hyperkalemia, which can be induced by renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, advanced heart failure, advanced age, and concurrent drug therapy. CONCLUSION: Spironolactone and eplerenone are life-saving agents in patients with advanced heart failure and may benefit patients with mild heart failure. Potassium and renal function must be routinely assessed to minimize the risk of life-threatening hyperkalemia.
OBJECTIVE: To report a case of excessive sweating probably caused by paroxetine, review the literature on antidepressant-induced sweating, and provide recommendations for the management of antidepressant-induced sweating. CASE SUMMARY: A 59-year-old white female presented to a pharmacist-staffed pharmacotherapy clinic with episodes of excessive sweating. The episodes occurred primarily on her head and back of the neck. Other etiologies were ruled out and paroxetine was discontinued. Paroxetine had been initiated at least 7 months prior to the reporting of symptoms. Sweating symptoms gradually improved until resolution 5 weeks following discontinuation of paroxetine. The Naranjo probability scale indicated a causal relationship is probable. DISCUSSION: Excessive sweating has been associated with antidepressants including tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, and venlafaxine. In some patients, these symptoms require therapeutic intervention such as dose reduction, antidepressant substitution, antidepressant discontinuation, or addition of an agent to control sweating. Agents that have been reported successful in controlling the sweating include benztropine and cyproheptadine. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a patient-specific approach for the management of antidepressant-induced sweating. First, consider dose reduction or a trial off antidepressant medication. In patients in whom this is inappropriate or ineffective, substitution of another antidepressant should be considered. If episodes of excessive sweating persist, consider treatment of sweating symptoms with benztropine or cyproheptadine in the absence of contraindications.
OBJECTIVE: To report a case of hepatotoxicity probably caused by pioglitazone, summarize case reports of hepatotoxicity induced by rosiglitazone or pioglitazone, and make recommendations regarding routine liver enzyme measurement in patients taking these agents. CASE SUMMARY: A 39-year-old black woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and congestive heart failure presented to a pharmacist-staffed diabetes comanagement service. She reported fatigue, dark brown urine, nausea, itching, and loss of appetite. Pioglitazone was promptly discontinued because her symptoms were consistent with those of hepatic dysfunction and pioglitazone was identified as a potential cause. The patient was referred to her physician. Liver enzyme levels were checked 13 days after initial presentation and found to be abnormal: alanine aminotransferase 490 U/L, aspartate aminotransferase 360 U/L, alkaline phosphatase 851 U/L, total bilirubin 3.1 mg/dL, direct bilirubin 2.0 mg/dL, and indirect bilirubin 1.1 mg/dL. Within 2(1/2) months of discontinuing pioglitazone, the patient's symptoms resolved and liver enzyme levels returned to normal. DISCUSSION: Troglitazone, a thiazolidinedione (TZD), was removed from the market because of hepatotoxicity. Reported cases involving the newer TZDs, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, have been few in number and less severe in consequence. Six cases of rosiglitazone-induced hepatotoxicity and 5 of pioglitazone-induced hepatotoxicity have been reported. Most patients improved symptomatically 2-4 weeks following discontinuation of the offending TZD, with normalization of liver enzyme levels in 2 weeks to 6 months following TZD discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Although the timeline and extent of liver enzyme elevation in this case are unclear, the Naranjo probability scale suggests that a causal relationship between pioglitazone and liver disease is probable. Patients with previous TZD-induced hepatotoxicity should not be rechallenged. Cases of hepatotoxicity with second generation TZDs, although clearly linked, have been few in number and less severe in consequence when compared to troglitazone. We agree with current package labeling that requires baseline and then periodic measurement of liver enzymes in patients taking pioglitazone or rosiglitazone.