Nocebo

in the new york times yesterday, there was a good analysis of the "nocebo effect"--people on placebo in various studies who have significant side-effects. can be up to the 40% range.  an example of a patient who attempted suicide by taking an overdose of meds, which, unbeknownst to him, was placebo -- and his blood pressure dropped!! other studies suggest that when provider describes potential side-effects of a new med, there is a greater likelihood of the patient developing that side-effect.  see:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/beware-the-nocebo-effect.html?_r=1

in my practice, i mention common side-effects but more in a dismissive way (like, "although some people may develop some inflammation of the liver when on a statin, it is really unlikely, i have seen it rarely in the many patients i have on statins, and i will monitor you closely just in case"), especially if i think the med in question is really important for the patient. however, i have had several patients who refuse to take the med after reading the attached pharmacy paper detailing the side-effects. so, my sense is that we do need to mention important side-effects to new med, we need to make sure that we put this in perspective and that the patient understands our rationale for prescribing the med and then reassure the pt that we will be accessible and will follow them closely to make sure all is ok (also does reinforce utility of seeing the patient sooner than later after starting a new and important med, to make sure there is no problem).

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more