Tolerability and effectiveness of every-other-day atorvastatin compared to daily atorvastatin in patients with muscle symptoms: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Despite limited evidence, non-daily dosing of statins is recommended for managing muscle symptoms associated with statin therapy. We assessed the tolerability and effectiveness of every-other-day atorvastatin compared to daily atorvastatin in patients having muscle symptoms associated with atorvastatin therapy. A parallel-group, outcome-assessment-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at Colombo South Teaching Hospital, Sri Lanka. Patients with muscle pain, tenderness or cramps alone or in combination for ≥2 weeks while on daily atorvastatin for ≥1 month, with no alternative cause, were recruited. Patient's regular atorvastatin dose was given every-other-day to those in intervention group (IG) and daily to those in control group (CG). Primary outcomes were assessed at 24 weeks and included composite of myalgia and myositis, LDL-cholesterol level and percentage reduction of LDL-cholesterol from baseline. Number recruited was 49 to IG (women:79.6%; mean-age:60.6 ± 8.7years) and 52 to CG (women:73.1%; mean-age:61.7 ± 9.8years). Mean atorvastatin dose per day was 8.6 mg (SD = 4 mg) and 17.6 mg (SD = 8.4 mg) in IG and CG, respectively. Composite of myalgia and myositis at 24 weeks was 79.6% in IG and 69.2% in CG (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 0.7-4.3; p = 0.234). IG failed to show noninferiority for mean LDL-cholesterol (difference:0.31 mmol/L; upper limit 97.5% CI:0.61 mmol/L; p for noninferiority = 0.989) and for mean percentage reduction of LDL-cholesterol from baseline (difference:3.13%; upper limit 97.5% CI:15.5%; p for noninferiority = 0.718). At 24 weeks, mean creatine kinase and discomfort due to muscle symptoms (assessed with Visual Analogue Scale) were not different between the two groups. Findings of this study do not favor every-other-day atorvastatin as an option for managing patients with muscle symptoms associated with atorvastatin therapy.

Fixed Low-Dose Triple Combination Antihypertensive Medication vs Usual Care for Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Mild to Moderate Hypertension in Sri Lanka: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Poorly controlled hypertension is a leading global public health problem requiring new treatment strategies. Objective: To assess whether a low-dose triple combination antihypertensive medication would achieve better blood pressure (BP) control vs usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label trial of a low-dose triple BP therapy vs usual care for adults with hypertension (systolic BP >140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg; or in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease: >130 mm Hg and/or >80 mm Hg) requiring initiation (untreated patients) or escalation (patients receiving monotherapy) of antihypertensive therapy. Patients were enrolled from 11 urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017; follow-up ended in October 2017. Interventions: A once-daily fixed-dose triple combination pill (20 mg of telmisartan, 2.5 mg of amlodipine, and 12.5 mg of chlorthalidone) therapy (n = 349) or usual care (n = 351). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion achieving target systolic/diastolic BP (<140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included mean systolic/diastolic BP difference during follow-up and withdrawal of BP medications due to an adverse event. Results: Among 700 randomized patients (mean age, 56 years; 58% women; 29% had diabetes; mean baseline systolic/diastolic BP, 154/90 mm Hg), 675 (96%) completed the trial. The triple combination pill increased the proportion achieving target BP vs usual care at 6 months (70% vs 55%, respectively; risk difference, 12.7% [95% CI, 3.2% to 22.0%]; P < .001). Mean systolic/diastolic BP at 6 months was 125/76 mm Hg for the triple combination pill vs 134/81 mm Hg for usual care (adjusted difference in postrandomization BP over the entire follow-up: systolic BP, -9.8 [95% CI, -7.9 to -11.6] mm Hg; diastolic BP, -5.0 [95% CI, -3.9 to -6.1] mm Hg; P < .001 for both comparisons). Overall, 419 adverse events were reported in 255 patients (38.1% for triple combination pill vs 34.8% for usual care) with the most common being musculoskeletal pain (6.0% and 8.0%, respectively) and dizziness, presyncope, or syncope (5.2% and 2.8%). There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patient withdrawal from BP-lowering therapy due to adverse events (6.6% for triple combination pill vs 6.8% for usual care). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with mild to moderate hypertension, treatment with a pill containing low doses of 3 antihypertensive drugs led to an increased proportion of patients achieving their target BP goal vs usual care. Use of such medication as initial therapy or to replace monotherapy may be an effective way to improve BP control. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612001120864; slctr.lk Identifier: SLCTR/2015/020.

Melioidosis presenting as lymphadenitis: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Melioidosis is an infection caused by the facultative intracellular gram-negative bacterium; Burkholderia pseudomallei. It gives rise to protean clinical manifestations and has a varied prognosis. Although it was rare in Sri Lanka increasing numbers of cases are being reported with high morbidity and mortality. Here we report a case of melioidosis presenting with lymphadenitis which was diagnosed early and treated promptly with a good outcome. CASE PRESENTATION: A 53-year-old Sinhalese woman with diabetes presented with fever and left sided painful inguinal lymphadenitis for one month. She had undergone incision and drainage of a thigh abscess three months previously and had been treated with a short course of antibiotics. There was no record that abscess material was tested microbiologically.She had neutrophil leukocytosis and elevated inflammatory markers. Initial pus culture revealed a scanty growth of "Pseudomonas sp." and Escherichia coli which were sensitive to ceftazidime and resistant to gentamicin.Due to the history of diabetes, recurrent abscess formation and the suggestive sensitivity pattern of the bacterial isolates, we actively investigated for melioidosis. The bacterial isolate was subsequently identified as B. pseudomallei by polymerase chain reaction and antibodies to melioidin antigen were found to be raised at a titre of 1:160.The patient was treated with high dose intravenous ceftazidime for four weeks followed by eradication therapy with cotrimoxazole and doxycycline. As the patient was intolerant to cotrimoxazole, the antibiotics were changed to a combination of co-amoxyclav and doxycycline and continued for 12 weeks. The patient was well after 6 months without any relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Melioidosis is an emerging infection in South Asia. It may present with recurrent abscesses. Therefore it is very important to send pus for culture whenever an abscess is drained. However, it should be noted that the reporting laboratory may be unfamiliar with this bacterium and the isolate may be misidentified as Pseudomonas or even E. coli. Melioidosis should be suspected when an isolate with the typical antibiotic sensitivity pattern of ceftazidime sensitivity and gentamicin resistance is cultured, especially in a patient with diabetes. This will expedite diagnosis and prompt treatment leading to an excellent prognosis.