Acute Cutaneous Necrosis: A Guide to Early Diagnosis and Treatment.

Acute cutaneous necrosis is characterised by a wide range of aetiologies and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, warranting complex considerations in management. Early recognition is imperative in diagnosis and management of sudden gangrenous changes in the skin. This review discusses major causes of cutaneous necrosis, examines the need for early assessment, and integrates techniques related to diagnosis and management. The literature, available via PubMed, on acute cutaneous necrotic syndromes was reviewed to summarise causes and synthesise appropriate treatment strategies to create a clinician's guide in the early diagnosis and management of acute cutaneous necrosis. Highlighted in this article are key features associated with common causes of acute cutaneous necrosis: warfarin-induced skin necrosis, heparin-induced skin necrosis, calciphylaxis, pyoderma gangrenosum, embolic phenomena, purpura fulminans, brown recluse spider bite, necrotising fasciitis, ecthyma gangrenosum, antiphospholipid syndrome, hypergammaglobulinemia, and cryoglobulinemia. This review serves to increase recognition of these serious pathologies and complications, allowing for prompt diagnosis and swift limb- or life-saving management.

Palmoplantar pustular psoriasis following initiation of a beta-blocker: disease control with low-dose methotrexate.

Palmoplantar pustular psoriasis is a debilitating chronic disease that can have a serious impact on patients' quality of life. There currently is no therapeutics standard for controlling palmoplantar pustular psoriasis, but various treatments, many of which have serious toxic side effects, have been used to treat this disease, including methotrexate. We report a case of palmoplantar pustular psoriasis in a 76-year-old woman that was triggered by initiation of a beta-blocker. The patient's condition was controlled with a low-dose regimen of methotrexate. It is important for dermatologists to recognize that pustular psoriasis can be treated with low-dose methotrexate to avoid potentially toxic effects of higher doses of methotrexate, which is especially true in cases of drug-induced disease, as seen in our patient.

Pravastatin and cardiovascular outcomes stratified by baseline eGFR in the lipid- lowering component of ALLHAT.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The role of statins in preventing cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unclear. This paper compares cardiovascular outcomes with pravastatin vs. usual care, stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). METHODS: Post-hoc analyses of a prospective randomized open-label clinical trial; 10,151 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (lipid-lowering component) were randomized to pravastatin 40 mg/day or usual care. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years. RESULTS: Through Year 6, total cholesterol declined in pravastatin (-20.7%) and usualcare groups (-11.2%). Use of statin therapy in the pravastatin group was 89.8% (Year 2) and 87.0% (Year 6). Usual-care group statin use increased from 8.2% (Year 2) to 23.5% (Year 6). By primary intention-to-treat analyses, no significant differences were seen between groups for coronary heart disease (CHD), total mortality or combined cardiovascular disease; findings were consistent across eGFR strata. In exploratory "as-treated" analyses (patients actually using pravastatin vs. not using), pravastatin therapy was associated with lower mortality (HR = 0.76 (0.68 - 0.85), p<0.001) and lover CHD (HR=0.84 (0.73-0.97), p=0.01), but not combined cardiovascular disease (HR=0.95 (0.88-1.04), p=0.30). Total cholesterol reduction of 10 mg/dl from baseline to Year 2 was associated with 5% lower CHD risk. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with moderate dyslipidemia, pravastatin was not superior to usual care in preventing total mortality or CHD independent of baseline eGFR level. However, exploratory "as-treated" analyses suggest improved mortality and CHD risk in participants using pravastatin, and decreased CHD events associated with achieved reduction in total cholesterol. Potential benefit from statin therapy may depend on degree of reduction achieved in total and LDL-cholesterol and adherence to therapy.

Cardiovascular risk assessment: addition of CKD and race to the Framingham equation.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The value of the Framingham equation in predicting cardiovascular risk in African Americans and patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unclear. The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether the addition of CKD and race to the Framingham equation improves risk stratification in hypertensive patients. METHODS: Participants in the ALLHAT were studied. Those randomized to doxazosin, older than 74 years, and those with a history of coronary heart disease were excluded. Two risk stratification models were developed using Cox proportional hazards models in a two-thirds developmental sample. The first model included the traditional Framingham risk factors. The second model included the traditional risk factors plus CKD, defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate categories, and stratification by race (black vs non-black). The primary outcome was a composite of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and hospitalized angina. RESULTS: There were a total of 19,811 eligible subjects. In the validation cohort, there was no difference in C-statistics between the Framingham equation and the ALLHAT model including CKD and race. This was consistent across subgroups by race and sex and among those with CKD. One exception was among Non-Black women where the C-statistic was higher for the Framingham equation (0.68 vs 0.65, P = .02). In addition, net reclassification improvement was not significant for any subgroup based on race and sex, ranging from -5.5% to 4.4%. CONCLUSION: The addition of CKD status and stratification by race does not improve risk prediction in high-risk hypertensive patients.

Mortality and morbidity during and after the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial.

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter trial assigned 32,804 participants aged 55 years and older with hypertension and ≥ 1 other coronary heart disease risk factors to receive chlorthalidone (n=15,002), amlodipine (n=8898), or lisinopril (n=8904) for 4 to 8 years, when double-blinded therapy was discontinued. Passive surveillance continued for a total follow-up of 8 to 13 years using national administrative databases to ascertain deaths and hospitalizations. During the post-trial period, fatal outcomes and nonfatal outcomes were available for 98% and 65% of participants, respectively, due to lack of access to administrative databases for the remainder. This paper assesses whether mortality and morbidity differences persisted or new differences developed during the extended follow-up. Primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality and secondary outcomes were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and end-stage renal disease. For the post-trial period, data are not available on medications or blood pressure levels. No significant differences (P<.05) appeared in cardiovascular mortality for amlodipine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.06) or lisinopril (HR, 0.97; CI, 0.90-1.03), each compared with chlorthalidone. The only significant differences in secondary outcomes were for heart failure, which was higher with amlodipine (HR, 1.12; CI, 1.02-1.22), and stroke mortality, which was higher with lisinopril (HR, 1.20; CI, 1.01-1.41), each compared with chlorthalidone. Similar to the previously reported in-trial result, there was a significant treatment-by-race interaction for cardiovascular disease for lisinopril vs chlorthalidone. Black participants had higher risk than non-black participants taking lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. After accounting for multiple comparisons, none of these results were significant. These findings suggest that neither calcium channel blockers nor angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are superior to diuretics for the long-term prevention of major cardiovascular complications of hypertension.

Progression of kidney disease in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin versus usual care: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: Dyslipidemia is common in patients with chronic kidney disease. The role of statin therapy in the progression of kidney disease is unclear. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial, post hoc analyses. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 10,060 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (lipid-lowering component) stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): less than 60, 60 to 89, and 90 or greater mL/min/1.73 m(2). Mean follow-up was 4.8 years. INTERVENTION: Randomized; pravastatin, 40 mg/d, or usual care. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: Total, high-density lipoprotein, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; end-stage renal disease (ESRD), eGFR. RESULTS: Through year 6, total cholesterol levels decreased in the pravastatin (-20.7%) and usual-care groups (-11.2%). No significant differences were seen between groups for rates of ESRD (1.36 v 1.45/100 patient-years; P = 0.9), composite end points of ESRD and 50% or 25% decrease in eGFR, or rate of change in eGFR. Findings were consistent across eGFR strata. In patients with eGFR of 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or greater, the pravastatin arm tended to have a higher eGFR. LIMITATIONS: Proteinuria data unavailable, post hoc analyses, unconfirmed validity of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation in normal eGFR range, statin drop-in rate in usual-care group with small cholesterol differential between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with moderate dyslipidemia and decreased eGFR, pravastatin was not superior to usual care in preventing clinical renal outcomes. This was consistent across the strata of baseline eGFR. However, benefit from statin therapy may depend on the degree of the cholesterol level decrease achieved.

Clinical outcomes by race in hypertensive patients with and without the metabolic syndrome: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive drugs with favorable metabolic effects are advocated for first-line therapy in hypertensive patients with metabolic/cardiometabolic syndrome (MetS). We compared outcomes by race in hypertensive individuals with and without MetS treated with a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate), an alpha-blocker (doxazosin mesylate), or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril). METHODS: A subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind hypertension treatment trial of 42 418 participants. We defined MetS as hypertension plus at least 2 of the following: fasting serum glucose level of at least 100 mg/dL, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of at least 30, fasting triglyceride levels of at least 150 mg/dL, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of less than 40 mg/dL in men or less than 50 mg/dL in women. RESULTS: Significantly higher rates of heart failure were consistent across all treatment comparisons in those with MetS. Relative risks (RRs) were 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.90), 1.49 (1.17-1.90), and 1.88 (1.42-2.47) in black participants and 1.25 (1.06-1.47), 1.20 (1.01-1.41), and 1.82 (1.51-2.19) in nonblack participants for amlodipine, lisinopril, and doxazosin comparisons with chlorthalidone, respectively. Higher rates for combined cardiovascular disease were observed with lisinopril-chlorthalidone (RRs, 1.24 [1.09-1.40] and 1.10 [1.02-1.19], respectively) and doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparisons (RRs, 1.37 [1.19-1.58] and 1.18 [1.08-1.30], respectively) in black and nonblack participants with MetS. Higher rates of stroke were seen in black participants only (RR, 1.37 [1.07-1.76] for the lisinopril-chlorthalidone comparison, and RR, 1.49 [1.09-2.03] for the doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparison). Black patients with MetS also had higher rates of end-stage renal disease (RR, 1.70 [1.13-2.55]) with lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. CONCLUSIONS: The ALLHAT findings fail to support the preference for calcium channel blockers, alpha-blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with thiazide-type diuretics in patients with the MetS, despite their more favorable metabolic profiles. This was particularly true for black participants.

Renal outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or a calcium channel blocker vs a diuretic: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to determine whether, in high-risk hypertensive patients with a reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR), treatment with a calcium channel blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lowers the incidence of renal disease outcomes compared with treatment with a diuretic. METHODS: We conducted post hoc analyses of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Hypertensive participants 55 years or older with at least 1 other coronary heart disease risk factor were randomized to receive chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril for a mean of 4.9 years. Renal outcomes were incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and/or a decrement in GFR of 50% or more from baseline. Baseline GFR, estimated by the simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation, was stratified into normal or increased (> or =90 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), n = 8126), mild reduction (60-89 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), n = 18 109), or moderate-severe reduction (<60 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), n = 5662) in GFR. Each stratum was analyzed for effects of the treatments on outcomes. RESULTS: In 448 participants, ESRD developed. Compared with patients taking chlorthalidone, no significant differences occurred in the incidence of ESRD in patients taking amlodipine in the mild (relative risk [RR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-2.23) or moderate-severe (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-1.24) reduction in GFR groups. Compared with patients taking chlorthalidone, no significant differences occurred in the incidence of ESRD in patients taking lisinopril in the mild (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.87-2.06) or moderate-severe (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.73-1.31) reduction in GFR groups. In patients with mild and moderate-severe reduction in GFR, the incidence of ESRD or 50% or greater decrement in GFR was not significantly different in patients treated with chlorthalidone compared with those treated with amlodipine (odds ratios, 0.96 [P = .74] and 0.85 [P = .23], respectively) and lisinopril (odds ratios, 1.13 [P = .31] and 1.00 [P = .98], respectively). No difference in treatment effects occurred for either end point for patients taking amlodipine or lisinopril compared with those taking chlorthalidone across the 3 GFR subgroups, either for the total group or for participants with diabetes at baseline. At 4 years of follow-up, estimated GFR was 3 to 6 mL /min per 1.73 m(2) higher in patients assigned to receive amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone, depending on baseline GFR stratum. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with reduced GFR, neither amlodipine nor lisinopril was superior to chlorthalidone in reducing the rate of development of ESRD or a 50% or greater decrement in GFR. Participants assigned to receive amlodipine had a higher GFR than those assigned to receive chlorthalidone, but rates of development of ESRD were not different between the groups.