ABSTRACT
This report describes the presentation of neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) in the primary care setting in an older adult with major depression with psychosis. This patient had been stable on a regimen of amoxapine, lithium carbonate, lorazepam, and benztropine. The patient had rigidity, altered sensorium, diaphoresis, autonomic instability, elevated WBC count and urine myoglobin, and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) reaching 1331 U/I. He was successfully treated with bromocriptine.
Subject(s)
Amoxapine/adverse effects , Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation/adverse effects , Antimanic Agents/adverse effects , Lithium Chloride/adverse effects , Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome/etiology , Amoxapine/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation/therapeutic use , Antimanic Agents/therapeutic use , Depressive Disorder/drug therapy , Humans , Lithium Chloride/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Psychotic Disorders/drug therapyABSTRACT
Equations by Durnin and Womersley [(D-W), Br. J. Nutr. 32:77, 1974], Jackson and Pollock [(J-P), Br. J. Nutr. 40:497, 1978], and Lohman [(L), Human Biol., 53:181, 1981] for estimating body density (BD) purportedly overcome the problem of specificity by accounting for age and/or the curvilinear relationship between skinfolds (SF) and BD. Their equations were validated on 265 male athletes against percent fat measured by underwater weighing [(UWW); mean +/- SD = 9.2 +/- 4.4%]. Equations by Sloan [(S), J. Appl. Physiol. 23:311, 1967], Katch and McArdle [(K-M), Human. Biol. 45:445, 1973], and Forsyth and Sinning [(F-S), Med. Sci. Sports 5:174, 1973] were included as "linear regression models" to compare to the curvilinear models of J-P, D-W, and L. Differences between UWW and estimated mean values ranged from -1.1 to +5.9%; correlations ranged from 0.58 to 0.85; SEE ranged from +/- 2.41 to +/- 3.61% and total error (E) ranged from 2.38 to 6.97%. The seven D-W equations overestimated mean percent fat by from 3.9 to 5.9%. The K-M, S, and L equations overestimated by 1.3, 0.5, and 1.7%, respectively. The F-S equations overestimated by 2.4 to 3.8%. Of the 21 equations evaluated, only 3 by J-P gave estimates not significantly different from UWW percent fat. Regression analyses of the relationship between UWW (y) and estimated (x) percent fat values from those equations were: y = 1.037x - 0.08 +/- 2.38, E = 2.38, r = 0.84; 0.869x + 1.36 +/- 2.45, E = 2.51, r = 0.83; 1.107x - 1.14 +/- 2.51, E = 2.53, r = 0.82.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
