Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The management of aspirin therapy before an invasive procedure poses a frequent clinical dilemma due to uncertainty regarding b[AS1] leeding versus thromboembolic risks associated with continuation or withdrawal of the drug. There is no evidence-based data to refer to.

Objectives: To assess the opinions of internal medicine physicians regarding aspirin therapy prior to an invasive procedure.

Methods: A questionnaire presenting nine hypothetical cases with different combinations of bleeding and thromboembolic risk was given to physicians in an Internal Medicine Division during a personal interview. For each case the participants had to choose between withdrawal of aspirin prior to an invasive procedure, continuation of aspirin, or substitution of low molecular weight heparin for aspirin. Results: Sixty-one physicians participated in the survey. For a patient with low thromboembolic risk, 77% (95% confidence interval 65.3–86.3%), 95% (87.2–98.7%) and 97% (89.6–99.5%) of physicians elected to discontinue aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high bleeding risk procedure, respectively. For intermediate risk patients, 23% (95% CI[1] 13.7–34.7%), 59% (46.4–70.8%) and 74% (61.7–83.6%) would discontinue aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high risk procedure, and 5% (95% CI 1.3–12.8%), 23% (13.7–34.7%) and 18% (9.9–29.2%) would substitute LMWH[2] for aspirin. For a patient with high thromboembolic risk, 1.6% (95% CI 0.08–7.8%), 11.5% (5.2–21.4%) and 18% (9.9–29.2%) recommended discontinuing aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high risk procedure, respectively. In these situations, 18% (95% CI 9.9–29.2%), 53% (40.0–64.7%) and 57% (44.8–69.3%), respectively, would substitute LMWH for aspirin.

Conclusions: The results of the current investigation may help practicing physicians to decide whether to discontinue aspirin therapy prior to invasive procedures. The possible use of LMWH to replace aspirin as suggested here should be further evaluated in a controlled clinical study.

 

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease are at high risk of mycobacterial infection.

Objectives: To analyze the difficulties in reaching an accurate diagnosis of tuberculosis in dialysis patients.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective follow-up of patients who attended our peritoneal and hemodialysis units during the 10 year period 1995–2005.

Results: Our dialysis unit diagnosed 10 cases of tuberculosis caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis and 9 cases of Mycobacterium other than tuberculosis. In the former group, five patients had mycobacterium in the sputum, which was diagnosed by intraabdominal mass biopsy in one, culture of the gastric juices in one, and pleural fluid culture or pleural biopsy in three. One of these patients was suffering from pleural TB[1] as well as Potts disease. Of the patients with Mycobacterium other than tuberculosis, five were diagnosed by sputum cultures, three by urine cultures and one in peritoneal fluid. Differences in treatment and outcome were also reviewed.

Conclusions: The diagnosis of TB in dialysis patients should be approached with a high index of suspicion. It is clear that extensive diagnostic procedures are required to ensure an accurate diagnosis of the disease. Tuberculosis incurs a significant added burden due to the need for isolation of infected patients within the dialysis unit. Treatment of patients with Mycobacterium other than tuberculosis should be addressed individually.

Background: The cognitive impairment (frontal, parietal) in many patients with multiple sclerosis does not correlate with the degree of neurological disability and disease duration. Frontal/prefrontal cognitive impairment requires neuropsychological diagnostic tools.

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effect of IFNβ-1b[1] (Betaferon®) treatment on cognitive function and event-related potential as compared to the clinical course (EDSS[2]) in MS patients during 1 year of follow-up.

Methods: This prospective open-label design study included 16 consecutive patients with relapsing forms of MS attending the MS outpatient clinic. Mean EDSS score was calculated prior to starting treatment. Parietal lobe event-related potential P300 was elicited using an auditory physical stimulus to an alert subject. Mean P300 amplitude and latency were calculated for the group before treatment. The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, which measures frontal lobe functions, was performed before the treatment. After 1 year of treatment a second P300 and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test were performed and the mean change between visit 1 and baseline was calculated for each parameter. Correlation between the change in P300 and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test score at baseline was measured using the paired t-test.

Results: There was a significant reduction in P300 amplitude and latency after 1 year of treatment with IFNβ-1b: from 20.3 ± 8.3 μv to 13.1 ± 10.6 μv (P = 0.026) for amplitude, and from 312.9 ± 15.6 msec to 302.0 ± 17.0 msec (P = 0.002) for latency. The Perseverative Response (raw score) and the Perseverative Response U.S. Census age-matched standard score showed a significant improvement – from 20.7 ± 30.7 to 13.1 ± 10.6 (P = 0.001) and 96.7 ± 15.7 to 100.1 ± 11.1 (P = 0.0025) respectively – after 1 year of treatment. A mild but not significant improvement was observed on the EDSS after 1 year of treatment: 2.9 ± 0.5 to 2.8 ± 1.1.

Conclusions: A cognitive decline in MS patients may have a negative impact on the quality of life, affecting all active daily living domains. IFNβ-1b, a disease-modifying therapy, has demonstrated a positive therapeutic effect on cognitive dysfunction, unrelated to its effect on the EDSS score and course of the disease.

Background: Mucositis and dermatitis are frequently encountered in patients treated with radiochemotherapy. Dead Sea products that contain minerals and different substances have proved effective in treating various skin diseases.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of Dead Sea products in reducing acute radiochemotherapy‑induced side effects in patients with head and neck cancer.

Methods: In this phase 2 study we compared the outcomes in 24 treated patients and 30 conventionally treated patients matched for age, tumor site, and type of treatment. The Dead Sea products comprised a mouthwash solution (Lenom®) and a skin cream (Solaris®) used three times daily for 1 week before, during, and up to 2 weeks after completion of radiotherapy. Mucositis and dermatitis were evaluated using common toxicity criteria.

Results: Thirteen treated patients (54%) had grade 1-2 and none had 3-4 mucositis, while 17 controls (57%) had grade 1-2 and 4 (13%) had grade 3-4 mucositis. Thirteen treated patients (54%) had grade 1-2 dermatitis; there was no instance of grade 3-4 dermatitis, while 11 patients in the control group (37%) had grade 1-2 and 5 (17%) had grade 3-4 dermatitis. More patients in the control arm needed a break than the patients in the treatment arm (P = 0.034[T1]).

Conclusions: The two Dead Sea products tested decreased skin and mucosal toxicity in head and neck cancer patients receiving radiochemotherapy.
 

Background: Patients with severe persistent asthma despite GINA 2002 step 4 treatment are at risk for asthma-related morbidity and mortality. This study constitutes the Israeli arm of the international INNOVATE study.

Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of Xolair® as an add-on treatment in patients with severe persistent asthma.

Methods: Asthma patients (age 12–75 years) not controlled with high dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-active beta-2 agonists were randomized to receive either Xolair® or placebo for 28 weeks in a double-blind study in two Israeli centers.

Results: Thirty-three patients, 20 females and 13 males, mean age 54 ± 11.7 years, were included in the Israeli arm of the INNOVATE study. There were neither major adverse events nor withdrawals from the study. Xolair® (omalizumab) significantly reduced the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (55% reduction) and all asthma-related emergency visits (53% reduction).
Conclusions: In patients with severe persistent difficult-to-treat asthma, despite regular treatment with LABA[1] and inhaled corticosteroids (GINA 2002 step 4), Xolair® is a safe and effective treatment