ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Paroxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) with several indications, one of which is for depression. We present a case of probable paroxetine-induced serotonin syndrome. CASE SUMMARY: A 21-year-old female with a history of generalized anxiety disorder and major depression presented with increased depressive symptoms over several months while taking fluoxetine 20 mg daily. Fluoxetine was discontinued without taper and replaced with paroxetine 10 mg daily, along with hydroxyzine 50 mg twice daily as needed for anxiety. Within a week of starting the paroxetine, the patient reported increased anxiety, insomnia, and constant shaking. The paroxetine continued to be uptitrated over a 3-week period to a dose 30 mg due to unremitting depressive symptoms. One month later, the patient presented with tachycardia, generalized body aches, extreme fatigue, weakness, uncontrollable twitching, tremor, and hyperreflexia. A widespread burning sensation accompanied by random hot flashes without diaphoresis was also noted. Serotonin syndrome was diagnosed using the Hunters criteria. Paroxetine was discontinued, and the patient's physical symptoms resolved within a week. DISCUSSION: To date, only 5 cases of serotonin syndrome have been reported in patients receiving SSRI monotherapy at recommended therapeutic doses.
Subject(s)
Depressive Disorder, Major/drug therapy , Paroxetine/administration & dosage , Paroxetine/adverse effects , Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors/adverse effects , Serotonin Syndrome/chemically induced , Anxiety/drug therapy , Female , Fluoxetine/administration & dosage , Humans , Hydroxyzine/administration & dosage , Serotonin , Young AdultABSTRACT
Two health care reform initiatives-patient-centered medical home (PCMH) and payment reform-in combination have the potential to increase clinical pharmacy involvement in patient care. However, the effects of these reforms on clinical pharmacy are highly uncertain. In particular, which clinical pharmacy services will be provided, how the services will be requested and delivered, and in what practice settings the services will be provided are not known. To gain insight into future clinical pharmacy service delivery in the PCMH, the authors examined current clinical pharmacy service delivery models at 4 sites in Massachusetts and assessed how the service delivery would change in PCMH settings with a payment approach of comprehensive payments to the PCMH. The findings suggest that (1) clinical pharmacy participation in the PCMH will increase at ambulatory care sites if supported by payment reform and (2) changes in addition to payment reform will be necessary to increase participation of community pharmacists. Needed changes are described.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To review the role of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with essential hypertension without other compelling indications. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed clinical trials, review articles, and relevant treatment guidelines were identified from MEDLINE and Current Content database (both 1966-November 15, 2012) using the search terms angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), azilsartan, candesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan, telmisartan, valsartan, hypertension, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular outcomes. Results were limited to human trials published in English. Citations from articles were also reviewed for additional references. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: The focus was on clinical trials evaluating cardiovascular end points of ARBs used in patients with essential hypertension without compelling indications. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data supporting the use of ARBs for reducing cardiovascular events in patients with essential hypertension without compelling indications are inconsistent. To date, only candesartan and losartan have shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular morbidity within this sizable subgroup of patients. In the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE) trial, candesartan showed a 27.8% reduction in nonfatal stroke versus placebo (95% CI 1.3-47.2; p = 0.04). Moreover, losartan demonstrated a decrease in all cardiovascular events compared to atenolol in the Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.98; p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Data supporting the use of ARBs for reducing cardiovascular events in patients with essential hypertension without compelling indications are limited and inconclusive. More studies are needed before ARBs can be routinely recommended as first-line therapy for hypertension management in patients without other compelling indications.
