headache recs -- choosing wisely

headache recommendations -- choosing wisely
 
 
Sat 11/23/2013, 12:53 PM

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

Very low LDL levels: benefit without harm

​ A recent meta-analysis of lipid-lowering shows that remarkably low levels of LDL cholesterol provide clinical cardiovascular benefit with no clear  increased harm  (see  lipids very low LDL benefit JAMAcardiol2018  in dropbox, or doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2018.2258). Details: -- 4 trials were looked at:     -- the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration (CTTC), a meta-analysis of several RCTs that compared different LDLs achieved through statins, median follow-up of 4.9 years, 1922 vascular events     -- 3 RCTs evaluated non-statin LDL lowering therapies:         -- IMPROVE-IT study with ezetimibe (n= 18,144), median follow-up 6.0 years, 5104 vascular events         -- FOURIER study with the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab (n=2,034), median follow-up 2.1 years, 184 vascular events         -- RE...
Read more

PCSK9 inhibitors (vs statins) and diabetes

  There is concern about an increased risk of diabetes in patients taking statins. A recent study of patients taking PCSK9 inhibitors, however, found that there was not a clear relationship for them with developing diabetes (see   lipid PCSK9 and diabetes CurrentAtheroRep2022 , or doi.org/10.1007/s11883-022-01074-y).   Details:  -- this study involved an evaluation of the cardiovascular outcomes of the FOURIER (using evolocumab) and ODYSSEY (using alirocumab) trials,  meta-analyses,  Mendelian randomization trials, and post-marketing safety reports -- Main outcome: new-onset diabetes (NOD) rates in patients on PCSK9 inhibitors   Results:  -- FOURIER trial with evolocumab:      -- 25,982 patients on evolocumab found a monotonic relationship between achieved LDL and major cardiovascular outcomes, down to an LDL <20mg/dL ( cad high risk LDL less than 20 fourier studyCirc2023  in dropbox, or DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATI...
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