Intan Nureslyna Samsudin

Effects of Different Types of Statins on Lipid Profile: A Perspective on Asians

Context The present review aimed at reviewing the effects of different statins on lipid profile, particularly in Asians. Evidence Acquisition PubMed searches were conducted using the keywords ‘statin, effect, and lipid profile’ from database inception through March 2016. In this review, 718 articles were retrieved from the primary search. After reviewing the titles, abstracts, and full texts, we found that 59 studies met our inclusion criteria. These also included subsequent reference searches of retrieved articles. Results CURVES study compared the effect on lipid profile between atorvastatin and other statins. This study demonstrated that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TG) were reduced more with atorvastatin compared to simvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, and fluvastatin. However, simvastatin provided a greater elevation of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) compared to atorvastatin. The STELLAR trial was based on dose-to-dose comparisons between atorvastatin and rosuvastatin efficacy in reducing LDL-C. Te present study also revealed that as the doses of rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin increased, HDL-C also increased, with rosuvastatin having the greatest effect. However, HDL-C levels decreased as the dose of atorvastatin increased. The DISCOVERY study involving the Asian population revealed that the percentage of patients achieving the European goals for LDL-C and TC at 12 weeks was higher in rosuvastatin group compared to atorvastatin group. Conclusions The effects of statins on lipid profile are dose dependent. Most studies showed that rosuvastatin has the best effect on lipid profile. Prescribing lower doses of statins in Asians seems necessary.

Trends in post osteoporotic hip fracture care from 2010 to 2014 in a private hospital in Malaysia

Objective Following an osteoporotic fracture, pharmacological treatment is recommended to increase bone mineral density and prevent future fractures. However, the rate of starting treatment after an osteoporotic hip fracture remains low. The objective of this study was to survey the treatment rate following a low-trauma hip fracture at a tertiary private hospital in Malaysia over a period of 5 years. Methods The computerised hospital discharge records were searched using the terms “hip,” “femur,” “femoral,” “trochanteric,” “fracture,” or “total hip replacement” for all patients over the age of 50, admitted between 2010 and 2014. The medical charts were obtained and manually searched for demographic data and treatment information. Hip operations done for non–low-trauma-related fracture and arthritis were excluded. Results Three hundred seventy patients over the age of 50 years were admitted with a hip fracture, of which 258 (69.7%) were low trauma, presumed osteoporotic, hip fractures. The median age was 79.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 12.0). Following a hip fracture, 36.8% (95 of 258) of the patients received treatment, but out of these, 24.2% (23 of 95) were on calcium/vitamin D only. The median duration of treatment was 1 month (IQR, 2.5). In 2010, 56.7% of the patients received treatment, significantly more than subsequent years 2011–2014, where approximately only 30% received treatment. Conclusions Following a low-trauma hip fracture, approximately 72% of patients were not started on active antiosteoporosis therapy. Of those who were, the median duration of treatment was 1 month. This represents a missed opportunity for the prevention of future fractures.

The challenge of improving the diagnostic yield from metanephrine testing in suspected phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma

Background Plasma-free metanephrines (PFM) or urinary fractionated metanephrines (UFM) are the preferred biochemical tests for the diagnosis of phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL). Borderline increased results should be followed up to either exclude or confirm diagnosis. Methods We extracted all PFM and UFM results reported by our laboratory over a six-month period from the laboratory information system. We categorized patients with borderline increased results according to whether follow-up testing had been performed as suggested in the initial laboratory report. Questionnaires were then sent to all requesting doctors and medical notes reviewed where available. Results Two hundred and four patients with borderline increased PFM or UFM were identified. Sixty-five (38.5%) of 169 patients with borderline increased PFM had a repeat test out of which 36 were normal and 29 did not normalize. Of 35 patients with borderline increased UFM, 17 (48.6%) had subsequent PFM measurement, out of which 15 were normal. Questionnaires were returned to 106 (52%) patients. Of these, the most frequent indication for testing was hypertension (n = 50); 15 patients had an incidental adrenal mass and two of these patients were diagnosed with a phaeochromocytoma. Conclusion Only 38% of patients with borderline increased PFM had a repeat PFM measurement. This was not significantly higher when compared with the 28% in a previous audit that we reported in 2010 (P = 0.10). Forty-nine per cent of patients with a borderline increased UFM had a repeat UFM or PFM measurement. There remains a substantial possibility of missed detection of PPGL.