Prevalence of systemic diseases in Brisbane general and periodontal practice patients

Background: Periodontitis has been associated with a number of systemic diseases such as atherosclerosis, coronary heart diseases, and respiratory diseases. This study aimed to determine whether there is a significant difference in the prevalence of systemic diseases (a) in patients referred for periodontal care compared to the general practice population, (b) in patients attending a public hospital and private practices, (c) in patients attending public and private periodontal practices, and (d) among patients with periodontitis of varying severity. Methods: Charts of 1000 adult patients were selected from four clinics (University of Queensland (UQ) School of Dentistry Admissions Clinic, UQ School of Dentistry Periodontics Clinic, Private Periodontal Practice, and Private General Dental Practice). The prevalence of medical conditions was evaluated using validated self-reported health questionnaires. The periodontal condition was assessed from the most recent relevant radiographs in the files. Results: Periodontal patients had a higher prevalence of systemic diseases compared to the general practice population. Public patients had a greater prevalence of systemic diseases compared to patients in private practice for both general practice and periodontal patients. In patients with advanced periodontitis, bronchitis, hepatitis and rheumatoid arthritis were most prevalent. Patients with periodontitis also took more medications and were more likely to suffer from multiple conditions compared to the general dental population. Conclusions: Patients attending public dental facilities have an increased prevalence of systemic disease compared to those attending private practices. Furthermore periodontal patients have a greater prevalence of disease compared to general practice patients. Patients with moderate or advanced periodontitis show an increase in the prevalence of some systemic diseases previously reported to be risk factors for periodontal disease.

Factors influencing PRN medication use in nursing homes

Objective: To identify determinants of PRN ( as needed) drug use in nursing homes. Decisions about the use of these medications are made expressly by nursing home staff when general medical practitioners (GPs) prescribe medications for PRN use. Method: Cross-sectional drug use data were collected during a 7-day window from 13 Australian nursing homes. Information was collected on the size, staffing-mix, number of visiting GPs, number of medication rounds, and mortality rates in each nursing home. Resident specific measures collected included age, gender, length of stay, recent hospitalisation and care needs. Main outcome measures: The number of PRN orders prescribed per resident and the number of PRN doses given per week averaged over the number of PRN medications given at all in the seven-day period. Results: Approximately 35% of medications were prescribed for PRN use. Higher PRN use was found for residents with the lower care needs, recent hospitalisation and more frequent doses of regularly scheduled medications. With increasing length of stay, PRN medication orders initially increased then declined but the number of doses given declined from admission. While some resident-specific characteristics did influence PRN drug use, the key determinant for PRN medication orders was the specific nursing home in which a resident lived. Resident age and gender were not determinants of PRN drug use. Conclusion: The determinants of PRN drug use suggest that interventions to optimize PRN medications should target the care of individual residents, prescribing and the nursing home processes and policies that govern PRN drug use.

Primary aldosteronism - careful investigation is essential and rewarding

Once considered rare, primary aldosteronism (PAL) is now regarded as the commonest potentially curable and specifically treatable form of hypertension. At Greenslopes Hospital Hypertension Unit (GHHU), the decision in 1991 to screen all (and not just hypokalemic or resistant) hypertensives by aldosterone/renin ratio (ARR) testing led to a 10-fold increase in detection rate of PAL and four-fold increase in removal rate of aldosterone-producing adenomas (APAs). The GHHU/Princess Alexandra Hospital Hypertension Unit PAL series stands at 977 patients and 250 APAs removed with hypertension cured in 50-60% (remainder improved). Reliable detection requires that interfering medications are withdrawn (or their effects considered) before ARR measurement, and reliable methods (such as fludrocortisone suppression testing) to confirm PAL. Adrenal venous sampling is the only dependable way to differentiate APA from bilateral adrenal hyperplasia. Genetic testing has facilitated detection of alucocorticoid-remediable, familial PAL. Identification of mutations causing the more common familial variety described by GHHU in 1991 should further aid in detection of PAL. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

The aldosterone-renin ratio in screening for primary aldosteronism

Recognition that primary aldosteronism (PAL) is a common specifically treatable form of hypertension and that most patients are normokalemic has led to a marked increase in demand for aldosterone/renin ratio (ARR) testing as a means of screening for this disorder. The value of this screening test depends on an appreciation of many factors (such as diet, posture, time of day, presence of hypokalemia, medications, age, and renal function), which can affect the results, on the care with which these factors are either controlled or their effects taken into account, and on access to reliable and reproducible assays for renin and aldosterone. Even then, physiological day-to-day variability reduces the value of a single estimation, and repeated testing is necessary before a decision that PAL is highly likely (warranting further testing) or highly unlikely can be made. Provided that testing of aldosterone suppressibility is always carried out to confirm or exclude the diagnosis, and the subtype is determined by hybrid gene testing and adrenal venous sampling, wide application of the ARR can have a major beneficial clinical impact with improved therapeutic outcomes, including possible cure in those with unilateral disease.

Lithium for schizophrenia revisited: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: Clinicians frequently use lithium to augment antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of lithium in the treatment of schizophrenia. Data sources and study selection: Randomized controlled trials examining lithium (as a sole or an adjunctive compound) in participants with schizophrenia or related disorders were searched in the register of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group. No language restrictions were applied. The Boolean phrase [lithium* or lithicarb or eskalith or lithobid or lithane or cibalith-s or quilonum or hypnorex] was used to locate articles. The search strategy initially identified 90 references. The authors of the included studies were contacted to obtain original patient data. The data were combined in a meta-analysis. The main outcome parameters were the number of patients with a clinically significant response and the number of patients leaving the studies early. Results: The meta-analysis includes 20 studies (N = 611). The evidence shows that lithium as a sole agent is ineffective in the treatment of schizophrenia. Eleven trials examined the augmentation of antipsychotics with lithium. More patients who received lithium augmentation than those who received antipsychotics alone were classified as responders. However, the superiority was not consistent across different response thresholds, and when patients with prominent affective symptoms were excluded from the analysis, the advantage of lithium augmentation was not significant (p = .07). Significantly more patients taking lithium left the trials early, suggesting a lower acceptability of lithium augmentation compared with that of taking antipsychotics alone. Conclusion: Despite some evidence in favor of lithium augmentation, the overall results are inconclusive. A large trial of lithium augmentation of antipsychotic medications will be required in order to detect a benefit of small effect size in patients with schizophrenia who lack affective symptoms.