The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Clinical · Comorbidities · continued

Hypertension improvement and when medication needs revisiting — a second dataset posts 61–90

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.

JP
j.palaciosTL219 Oct 2024#61
a.cardoso, post #20: This follows post #17 rather than contradicting it. Nothing here is medical advice and clinicians posting in this subcategory say so on their own account rather than because a rule requires it. This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not. Go to post

Reading back through the Hypertension improvement threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.

29 likes in reply to #20 21mo
B
BDraganovTL2Member19 Oct 2024#62

Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.

0 likes 21mo
PN
p.novakTL219 Oct 2024#63

Adding the measurement that post #61 says would settle it.

The reason Hypertension improvement keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.

5 likes 21mo
HA
h.almeidaTL2Member19 Oct 2024#64

Post #60 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

A history of pancreatitis appears in the cautions for this class and the decision around it is one that needs a clinician who knows the history.

14 likes 21mo
AV
a.vermeulenTL220 Oct 2024#65
IHollingworth, post #15: The bit of Hypertension improvement that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge. Go to post

The practical value of this subcategory is helping somebody frame the question they take to an appointment, and that is worth being explicit about.

The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.

22 likes in reply to #15 21mo
TK
t.kulkarniTL3Regular20 Oct 2024#66

If someone has run Hypertension improvement properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.

0 likes 21mo
VB
v.bergstromTL220 Oct 2024#67

Eating-disorder history is raised here regularly and is the case where the guidance most consistently says the decision needs specialist input.

Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.

2 likes 21mo
RJ
r.jhannsdttirTL3Regular20 Oct 2024 · edited#68

On post #64 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

A methods point on Hypertension improvement rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.

9 likes 21mo
PK
p.krastevTL220 Oct 2024#69

Taking post #66 at face value and following it one step further.

Small correction to my own earlier position on Hypertension improvement. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.

0 likes 21mo
V
VPoulsenTL3Regular20 Oct 2024#70
i.coelho, post #24: Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked. Go to post

Bariatric surgery history: altered anatomy after surgery affects absorption. That matters for oral medications and for reconstituted solutions. Discussing specific medications and doses with a clinician familiar with bariatric surgery is prudent.

2 likes in reply to #24 21mo
CC
ch.correiaTL221 Oct 2024#71
e.silva, post #60: The arithmetic in post #57 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check. Interactions between comorbidities: diabetes and kidney disease together change the risk calculation for hypoglycemia and for medication clearance. They are not independent variables. Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding. Go to post

Hypertension improvement would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.

20 likes in reply to #60 21mo
DV
dr.villanuevaTL3Physician21 Oct 2024#72

What I would tell a new member reading about Hypertension improvement for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.

9 likes 21mo
RB
r.bruunTL221 Oct 2024#73

Where two conditions pull in opposite directions, that is a clinical judgement rather than a lookup, and it is the kind of question a forum answers worst.

I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.

0 likes 21mo
SC
sourced_claimsTL3Regular21 Oct 2024#74

Picking up post #71: that is the part I would want checked first.

Gastrointestinal conditions interact with a mechanism that slows gastric emptying in ways that are plausible and largely unstudied.

That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.

0 likes 21mo
MR
m.radichTL221 Oct 2024#75
ch.correia, post #71: Hypertension improvement would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator. Go to post

A note on scope: what I am saying about Hypertension improvement applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.

27 likes in reply to #71 21mo
HO
h.oyelowoTL2Regular21 Oct 2024#76

Where the Hypertension improvement reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.

13 likes 21mo
JB
j.bhattacharyaTL222 Oct 2024#77

Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.

2 likes 21mo
SC
s.chowdhuryTL3Regular22 Oct 2024 · edited#78

This follows post #75 rather than contradicting it.

Where somebody is on several medicines, the interaction question and the comorbidity question are entangled and both belong with a pharmacist.

0 likes 21mo
AN
a.nybergTL222 Oct 2024#79

A history of pancreatitis appears in the cautions for this class and the decision around it is one that needs a clinician who knows the history.

Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.

0 likes 21mo
QL
quiet_lurkerTL2Regular22 Oct 2024#80

Post #79 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

Nothing here is medical advice and clinicians posting in this subcategory say so on their own account rather than because a rule requires it.

That holds under the stated conditions and I have stated them.

19 likes 21mo
CT
cannula_traceTL3Regular22 Oct 2024 · edited#81

Hypertension improvement is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.

7 likes 21mo
DB
da.bakkerTL222 Oct 2024#82

I had written a reply contradicting post #78 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Adding a small correction to the Hypertension improvement summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.

18 likes 21mo
B
BirkelandTL3Regular22 Oct 2024#83
g.danquah, post #49: A condition that affects nutrition or absorption changes the calculus around a treatment that reduces intake, and that interaction is mostly unstudied. Go to post

Where the honest answer is "nobody knows", giving it plainly is more useful than a confident synthesis of mechanism and anecdote.

0 likes in reply to #49 21mo
PF
p.fontaineTL223 Oct 2024#84
SB
sharps_binTL2Regular23 Oct 2024#85

Post #83 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Interactions between comorbidities: diabetes and kidney disease together change the risk calculation for hypoglycemia and for medication clearance. They are not independent variables.

If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.

11 likes 21mo
SO
se.okaforTL223 Oct 2024#86

Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.

24 likes 21mo
OF
outline_firstTL3Wiki editor23 Oct 2024#87
e.silva, post #60: The arithmetic in post #57 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check. Interactions between comorbidities: diabetes and kidney disease together change the risk calculation for hypoglycemia and for medication clearance. They are not independent variables. Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding. Go to post

Where a condition is well controlled and where it is not are different questions and the published data rarely distinguishes them.

0 likes in reply to #60 21mo
GA
g.amankwahTL223 Oct 2024#88

The thing about Hypertension improvement that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.

1 like 21mo
EF
e.ferreiraTL3Regular23 Oct 2024#89
priorauth_notes, post #32: Post #31 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition. Post-authorisation safety studies are the place where under-studied populations eventually appear, and they are public. The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep. Go to post

Post #88 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

On Hypertension improvement the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.

1 like in reply to #32 21mo
NC
n.cabreraTL224 Oct 2024 · edited#90

Bariatric surgery history: altered anatomy after surgery affects absorption. That matters for oral medications and for reconstituted solutions. Discussing specific medications and doses with a clinician familiar with bariatric surgery is prudent.

8 likes 21mo