Addisons.org.nz – A Pheonix Rising

Featured

If you live in New Zealand and you are looking for information on Adrenal Insufficiency specific to New Zealand you may have been given the address addisons.org.nz.  This website no longer exists.  The organisation went into recession in 2011/2012 and does not appear to function for anyone except older members of the group.

I offered to take over/assist with the maintenance of the website, but was told NO.  I offered to come on to the committee to keep Addison’s.org.nz going.  I was told NO.

Those running it appeared not to trust anyone outside their group.  This has left a gaping hole in information for New Zealanders.

I am trying to fill the void.  If you have a sound knowledge of Adrenal Insufficiency and want to help, please visit Adrenal Insufficiency NZ .

This site is not run by medical professionals, however, we have done extensive research, and have endeavoured to ensure that all the information on the site is correct, and up to date.  Where you feel the information is not correct, please contact us via the site, with a reference to what you believe the correct information to be.  We can discuss it.

The Dentist and the Dragon

The Dragon

As many of my readers know, we have a good medical system in New Zealand.  It’s good, but it’s not great.

We also have a very different system when it comes to injuries and medical misadventures.  For a start, in New Zealand we don’t call them Medical Misadventure.  Oh, it’s an adventure.  For some, like Derek, it’s the ride of your life.

But it is, like a broken leg, classed as an injury.  For Derek, it’s a “Treatment” injury.  He was injured because of medical treatment.  But that’s history.  Or should that be “His Story”.

When you suffer at the hands of the medical community, and are injured because of it, you get to have an assessment by the Government’s “Independent” “Insurance” Company.

Set up in the 1970’s, it was designed to stop any form of Litigation.  Stop people having to pay crazy amounts of insurance just in case they suffer an injury.  But like anything new, the concept and the reality can be vastly different.

This great independent organization, that was there for the injured, were under some very strict Insurance type rules.  And like any good insurance company, they change the rules as often they change their pants.  So, you have an injury you don’t know if you will be adequately covered.

When you read back through my blog you will see that Derek was covered for his Treatment Injury.  This injury is his Adrenal Insufficiency.  This impacts all parts of his life.

He had to give up driving because, although there is no obvious brain damage, he can no longer multi-task (Yes!  I was lucky enough to marry a man that could multi-task).  He is also one of the most intelligent men I have ever met.  This is not me saying this, his School History (top 50 in the country) says this.  He has been assessed as being unable to focus on more than one thing, his short-term memory is now not what it was, his ability to manage his stress is nothing compared to what it was.

But we manage.  He still has his job.  That’s thanks to an amazing boss.

So, the New Zealand insurance system, known as the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC as we all know it) is our Dragon.

His treatment injury is permanent.  It affects many aspects of his life, and if we need help because of that, we have to go into the dragon’s cave, and convince that dragon to stop breathing flames, and let us past, to get to the help we need.

To this end, he has a “Case Manager”.  This is his direct contact in the dragon’s lair.  But this Dragon is very hard on their workers.  They are always being burned to the point the run, screaming from the lair, never to go back.

But on their way out, as the scream ENOUGH, they are supposed to contact all their “clients” and let them know they have reached boiling point, and they have run.

The Dentist

So why the back story?

Earlier this year Derek when for his normal checkup with the Dentist.  She checked his teeth.  They are ok.  He needs more work the longer he is on steroids, but it could also be the fact he has “reached a certain age”.   It comes to us all eventually.

She did x-rays, and then the bad news.  “You need to have your 2 remaining wisdom teeth out.”

“OK can you do it?”  Ah, the naivety of my darling husband.  Hell NO!  No way she will do it.  She doesn’t mind the fact he is on warfarin to stop him clotting.  He can even keep his INR within his designated range.  She isn’t even worried that he has suffered CAPS.  What she is terrified about is the stress it will cause him, and the very real, and high risk of an Adrenal Crisis.

“You need to see an orthodontist.  They will do it under anesthetic, in hospital, where they can keep an eye on you, and monitor you properly.

Here’s where it gets a bit real.  Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons cost money.  OK, not as much as in the US, but a lot for little old NZ.  And I sure as hell am NOT paying.

I don’t mind paying $1500 to have it done in the local surgery, under local anesthetic.  But an oral surgeon, anesthetist, a hospital bed for the day (or longer).  No way.  We would not have to pay that if he didn’t have AI, so no way am I paying.

Fighting the Dragon

Off to the Dragon’s Leir we go.  Putting on our bravest face.  Derek puts the words on paper, and I then writing them in a firm way.

Please Mr Dragon, can we have the money for the surgery.  We should be covered as it’s due to the treatment injury he needs the high-risk extraction.

I don’t know if it’s the words I use, but we were told “Please, who would you like to assess you.  We have Surgeons on our supplier list.  Use one of them”.

Well, this is going to be a battle then.  And the line has been drawn.  We have to use one of THEIR suppliers.  And anyone who has dealt with ACC know that their “authorized suppliers” are not there to spend ACC money, they are there to reduce that spend.

First blood to us.  The Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon we wanted to specifically use, is on THEIR list.  We get our choice.  But this is just stage one.  The visit to the Orthodontist to get an assessment.

Does Derek need the extractions: Absolutely, and soon, there is already jaw damage being caused by the teeth.  It will soon become painful, and there is a high risk of infection.

Does it need to be done by a specialist:  Absolutely yes.  These could be done in a standard dental surgery, but if something goes wrong, the teeth break or they are difficult extractions, then it would have to stop, and then it would become an emergency extraction.

Does Derek need General Anesthetic.  Yes.  Due to his complicated situation, a General, even though stressful on the body would be safer in case something goes wrong with the extraction.

We wait for the report to come back from the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon.  It didn’t come.  Oh, yes it did, it went to SPAM.

We then draft a very short email to Derek’s Case Manager and forward the report and the quote.

We decide that we will be willing to split the cost.  We pay what it would cost in a normal dental surgery, ACC pay the rest.  Now we wait to see what they decide.

Again, we waited.  The first thing we were expecting was a letter from the Case Manager saying “thanks for your email, I will forward it for decision”.  It never came.  So, a week later we sent it again.  Having fought battles with this Dragon before (and won) we did our usual.

“HI, you haven’t responded to our previous email.  Please tell us what is happening, we are reattaching the documents in case they were stopped at your gateway.”  We sent the email again 6 working days later.  Then we sent one without the attachment.  Still absolutely no response.  So we had one more go.  But this time we sent a copy to their “Complaints” department.  We have learned through the 6 years so far of battling ACC, that we need to do this to make things happen.

We received a very quick response, but NOT from our case manager.   The response included “ Ann has left ACC, this is why you wouldn’t have received a response yet.  We have sent your email to someone else”.  That was it.  Still no idea who.

Apparently, “Ann” ran so fast out the door of the Dragon’s Leir, she didn’t have time to let anyone know she was going.  We were put on to someone else.

We waited until “someone else” then responded to us.

So off to the complaints office we trot.  This time it was a “Formal” complaint, not just a CC.

We want to know who our case manager is, why have we not had a decision on the dental work, why were we not told our case manager had left, oh, and why, after making the first “complain” was his right to have what is called “Driving for Independence” looked at, and why was our GP being asked whether Derek was now able to drive safely, and therefore cancel the driving provided.

Suddenly a swathe of emails from the Dragon’s Leir.

  • SORRY! We have given you TWO case managers so this never happens again.
  • SORRY! Please resend the information and we will get it to our assessment team urgently.
  • SORRY!  I hadn’t read the case file fully, and just saw that your driving was renewed 6 monthly, and that hadn’t happened so was reassessing your need.  I now understand that it is a permanent (lifelong) Driving service we provide.

I guess, if you have to be given a sword to slay a dragon, it’s great when you get the RIGHT sword.

I have mentioned before, and if anyone fighting ACC reads this again, I will repeat.  YOU HAVE RIGHTS!  And for Derek, the key right is that they MUST take his injury into account whenever dealing with him. They had also failed to properly communicate with us, along with other violations.

For someone with a broken leg it’s easy.  They simply say, here, have some crutches and come on in for an assessment.  With a Mental disability due to an accident, it’s not as easy, and the sword they are given is NOT a strong one.  They are disadvantaged as they must fight with all the might of someone fully functional, but who is missing two arms.  And the sword can be taken at any time, just because they can.

But for Derek, they can’t do that.  His covered condition is Adrenal Insufficiency (although the regularly get that wrong, and are currently calling it Adrenal Sufficiency).   But as it is written everywhere that it is the lack of the stress response hormone, it’s a “Gotcha”.  They are not allowed to cause him stress because it will make him sick, and that is not taking his injury into account.

And they have come to the party.  Not quite with the best offer, but it’s a start, they have agreed to pay for the hospital, and the anesthesiologist.  We haven’t finished, but we have time.

So now the preparation begins for the 24 January 2020 (baring anything going wrong in the meantime). Derek is scheduled for the first appointment of the day, in a private hospital, for his tooth extraction, and a day’s monitoring to ensure he doesn’t get sick.

 

 

Still a Single Road at Times

Aside

In 2013, my second post was very short.  It was entitled “As single road at times”.

My posts back then were very short.  They were a lot about how I was feeling, how we were learning to live with this condition strange new called Primary Adrenal Insufficiency (Addison’s Disease).

It was May 2013 that I began to Blog.  In the last 6 years a lot of things have changed.  But a lot have stayed the same, we have just learned to accept them and adjust to them.

Going to live performances, etc alone has become a new normal.  I buy 2 tickets, and find someone to join me if Derek isn’t up to it.  This could be a big show, or one that our children are performing in.  Adjusting things so that we can go together has also become a “thing”.  Whether that is by buying a matinée performance ticket instead of a night time one, or making sure he has a full day of rest, including a sleep, we will do what we need to, to keep going.

In May last year Derek had a set back.  It was serious but it wasn’t obvious.  A few blood tests went haywire for no obvious reason, he became a lot more tired than normal, and other subtle differences occurred.  Despite this we carried on with life.  We continued planning our big adventure overseas.

We did the trip.  It was extremely tiring on Derek.  We did a lot of walking with him using a walking stick constantly.  We would walk, stop for coffee, walk, stop for a cold drink, walk, stop for a few photos, walk, stop for an ice cream (they make great ice cream in Europe).  You get the picture.

Derek has been more tired than usual since getting home.  It’s now 6 months since the trip and he is still a lot more tired than he was before May last year.  So we have made more adjustments.

We have learned from that trip that you have to choose the fight.  So now, if we are going out and we know it will be stressful, or very tiring on Derek, we use a wheelchair for him.    After borrowing one for an evening we knew would be too hard on him without, he finally agreed that he really did need it.  But not all the time, just for the harder events.  It means that sometimes he can go out, and we can enjoy ourselves together.   I still go out on my own because he is not up to it.  Or we cancel our plans because I don’t want to go alone.

What we thought was just residual tired from the trip appears to not be that at all.  After having more “crazy blood tests” we began to wonder.  We have now looked at his bloods for the last 12 months, what ever is wrong, has been wrong since his various blood levels went haywire in April/May last year.  But that’s ok, there is nothing we can do except keep an eye on his levels so that is what we do.

The reason we know things have not be right since May is that we keep track of all his blood tests.  We don’t need to go the Doctor to ask, we can see.  We know the symptoms, we know the signs and we can see his “normal” is changing and not for the better.

Having said that, in the words of a good friend who writes an amazing blog, he is clearly alive and will remain so.

Dehydration in Adrenal Crisis

When your sodium is normal, but you are dehydrated.

 


Dehydration does cause the serum creatinine to rise and the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) will, accordingly, fall. The degree of change is generally proportional to the degree of dehydration. Severe dehydration can actually cause acute kidney injury and may lead to a need for dialysis therapy.
National Kidney Foundation.


Water, water, every where,

And all the boards did shrink;

Water, water, every where,

Nor any drop to drink.

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (text of 1834) Samuel-Taylor-Coleridge


Within the support groups there is always talk about dehydration being a sign of crisis, or impending crisis (or pre-crisis if that’s what you prefer to call it).  To decide if you are in crisis, your electrolytes are checked.  The standard sign is low sodium of <135 and/or high potassium of >5.2.  The problem is when you don’t fit this criteria.

I hear many times, people believe they are in crisis, they feel horrible, they feel sick, they feel dehydrated, but when they present at ED they have their bloods taken, and are told they are “normal”, they aren’t dehydrated and therefore they can’t be in crisis.

What is being tested is sodium and potassium.  I don’t often hear talk about creatinine.

Yet creatinine is the better teller of dehydration.  Derek has had 3 crisis since diagnosis.  The first two I didn’t get the blood test results for.

The 3rd one, because it was 18 months after diagnosis, I knew Derek’s normal blood levels.  I was recording them on OneNote so I had them with me wherever I was, whenever bloods were taken.  So I asked the Dr what Derek’s blood results were.

She insisted they were “all fine”.  I kept pushing requesting very firmly that she told me the levels.  She kept saying she couldn’t remember them, but they were fine.  After pushing more and explaining that I knew what his normal was, so I would like to compare them, she finally told me that one was creatinine.  She remembered this number because it was high, which meant his kidney function was low.

When I pointed out that it was changed and higher than his normal level she actually argued with me that it was better than the one she compared it to.  I asked the date of that one.  It was compared to when he was in hospital suffering  CAPS and his worst and most life threatening Adrenal Crisis, before diagnosis.  She wasn’t interested.

She was a Resident, which means she was learning how to be a Dr, she was a first year resident, so some basic knowledge should still have been in her brain.

Although at that time I knew Derek’s numbers, what I didn’t know was what those numbers meant.

After some more toing and froing we finally got Derek some SoluCortef, but still no fluid because his sodium had come back in the higher end of normal.  I have since learned that his potassium was just above range and higher than normal for him.

The next day when the General Medical Consultant did ward rounds, his first comment was “So, pneumonia and adrenal crisis, and you are dehydrated.”

He had looked very quickly at a vein in Derek’s neck to confirm, but he was also looking at the blood results.

After I got home I started investigating what it was, when sodium was normal, that told him Derek was dehydrated, and why drinking water hadn’t helped.

Here’s what I found out.

Why Sodium and Water may not help. A very simple explanation.

Although Sodium can be a sign of dehydration, when you are on fludrocortisone sodium can be kept within range, but it won’t stop the kidneys from functioning below par.

When creatinine is higher, and therefore eGFR is lower than YOUR normal, it is a commonly known indicator of dehydration.  The lower the eGFR number the more dehydrated you are.

But why don’t sodium and fluids help?

If you are really suffering low cortisol then that same low cortisol stops your body absorbing fluids so you not only need sodium, but you need cortisol, to keep you from becoming dehydrated.  This is where Blood Pressure comes in.  When you are first dehydrated, your body kicks in with a lot of other system mechanisms, to keep your blood volume up, hence you don’t suffer low BP immediately.  It is the dehydration that determines when your blood pressure lowers.

The reason HC works to lower your BP is because it helps your body absorb the fluids it needs to increase blood volume, and thereby reduce the other mechanisms from activating, to try and balance things out.  This won’t necessarily stop the crisis, but it will help you long enough to get more help.

So if you are told you can’t be dehydrated because your sodium isn’t low, ask what your creatinine (or eGFR) is.  If they don’t know, ask them to find out.  If they still argue, ask them what anti-diuretic hormone does, and the effect of that when you have low cortisol.    It is one of a number of the mechanisms in your body to keep your blood volume up when dehydrated.

Generally, a high serum creatinine level means that your kidneys aren’t working well. Your creatinine level may temporarily increase if you’re dehydrated, have a low blood volume, eat a large amount of meat or take certain medications. – Mayo Clinic Website.

 

Back to Derek

When Derek is dehydrated he slips from Stage 2 to Stage 3 CKD.  We have to monitor it regularly.  IF you don’t know what your normal is perhaps you should find out when you are feeling healthy.  This could save you a lot of medical issues when you are sick.  And check out my post on “know your own normal” because sometimes, it too can save you.

One thing I remember is when Derek was in hospital in crisis before diagnosis, after 3 days they had to stop the fluids as his body was swelling up, and wasn’t absorbing the fluids.  His kidney’s were failing, his blood pressure had started going down, and fluids were not working as he was just absorbing into tissue, his blood volume was going down.

A number of people have asked why they get fluids and fee better, before they are in crisis.  these people still appear to have a very small amount of cortisol production.  It may be that it’s enough to help absorb the fluids.  Derek has no production, so at the time his body had nothing, including aldosterone, to help.

 

Preparedness is Key

I have a friend who also blogs about her Rare Condition. It’s well worth a read. I was “on line” with Sarah as we all went through these situations. It can be very stressful for someone who is lacking their natural stress hormones. But they are there for those who need help, any time of day or night.

Spoons and Adrenals

Last night, I had to sit back and wait, helpless, while a fellow AI warrior slipped into adrenal crisis.

You see, I help moderate an online support group for people with adrenal insufficiency. Someone reached out to us for help, but we didn’t know where they were, how to reach them. Their online profile was locked down tightly, for security, and there was no way to know if this person survived the night.

**As I’m writing this, a friend of this person reached out to let me know that this person lived through the night… And I’ve burst into tears!**

On another group, a member frantically asked what they needed to do because they were afraid a crisis was imminent. They didn’t have a doctor to reach out to late at night, and didn’t know if their fear was warranted or not. They are new to this diagnosis.

Today, another…

View original post 304 more words

Chinese Whispers and Medical Research

 


Reminder, we are an AI patient and wife, not medical scientists, or medical Doctors.  This is based on our own observations and experience even though we do discuss legitimate research here.


The origin of the term “Chinese Whispers” isn’t clear according to the wonderful Internet.  It has also been called “Russian Scandal” or in the US “Telephone”.  We all know what it is and have probably played it.  You say a phrase or sentence, whispered into some’s ear.  They then, without confirming what was said, repeat that phrase to the next person.  This continues until everyone has heard the phrase once.

The challenge is to pass the message through a number of people without it becoming misheard and altered.  The enjoyment of the game is that regardless how careful you are, the final message heard invariably is not what was originally said.   It is used to show how gossip can affect outcomes, how we feel, what we believe, who we trust.  The message being, if it isn’t from the horses mouth, then is it correct.

But were you aware that it can also happen with the written word.  Someone writes something, a person looks at it, takes from it what THEY are looking for, and ignores something that although the author thought was relevant, the reader felt was of no significance.

A good recent example would be from a New Zealand Senior School Exam question.

The exam asked pupils to write an essay on the following question: “Julius Caesar once said, ‘Events of importance are the result of trivial causes’. With reference to the causes and consequences of a historical event you have studied this year, analyse the extent to which you agree or disagree with Caesar.”(Otago Daily Times)

The students sitting the exam had a serious issue with the word Trivial.  Apparently many of them didn’t actually know what the word meant.  I wasn’t so much concerned with the question (or the word Trivial) but with the quote itself.  It is a 1980’s rewrite of the original and its context has slightly changed with its reinterpretation. 

10 years ago, I would have taken what was written in research as correct, accurate and as it’s peer reviewed, good methodology.  But in fact, it’s not always.  In reading research for Adrenal Insufficiency, Derek and I have discovered this happens in referencing and “quoting” research as well.

But why is that important?

It doesn’t seem important at all, in fact some could say it’s trivial.  But it is those trivial little re wordings’, the leaving out of part of a statement of the not reading the entire document and therefore missing an apparently trivial piece of information, that can have a big impact on how people are treated, and how their Dr’s will, or won’t listen to them.

One example we are looking at currently is dosing.  What is better?  Twice a day? Thrice a day?  Four times a day?  Maybe even five?

Derek is currently researching the origins of the belief that 15-25mg HC is all that is required.  In doing this, we have come across a number of discussions around how many times a day to dose.  What we have found is inconsistencies, misquotes, and lack of acknowledgement of some of the results from an original paper that is quoted.

The Original Paper:


Ekman, Bertil & Bachrach-Lindstrom, Margareta & Lindström, Torbjörn & Wahlberg, Jeanette & Blomgren, Johan & Arnqvist, Hans. (2012). A randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing two- and four-dose hydrocortisone regimen with regard to quality of life, cortisol and ACTH profiles in patients with primary adrenal insufficiency. Clinical endocrinology. 77. 18-25. 10.1111/j.1365-2265.2012.04352.x.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22288685

Results:

The four-dose regimen gave a higher serum cortisol before tablet intake in the morning (P = 0·027) and a higher 24-h cortisol (AUC) (P < 0·0001) compared with the two-dose period. In contrast, a lower median plasma ACTH in the morning before tablet intake (P = 0·003) and a lower 24-h ln (ACTH(AUC) ) were found during the four-dose period. The patients preferred the four-dose regimen (P = 0·03), and the HRQoL scores tended to be higher (high score indicates better HRQoL) for the four-dose period. In summary, a four-dose regimen gives increased availability of cortisol and an enhanced effect with a less elevated ACTH in the morning in comparison with a two-dose regimen but the effect on HRQoL remains inconclusive.


The final statement is rather subjective.  The patients FELT it improved their QoL, but statistical analysis of the questionnaires could not support how the real life patients perceived it.  Is that a fault in the questionnaire rather than the actual results?

Articles (peer reviewed and published) citing the above reference and “quoting” the conclusion:

Paper 1


Amir-Hossein Rahvar, Christian S. Haas, Sven Danneberg, and Birgit Harbeck, “Increased Cardiovascular Risk in Patients with Adrenal Insufficiency: A Short Review,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2017, Article ID 3691913, 5 pages, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3691913.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2017/3691913/

Quote

Nonetheless, all regimens used so far fail to exactly mirror the physiological circadian rhythm, thereby having a negative impact on the metabolic system. However, other approaches like using a four-dose regimen were not able to show significant changes in quality of life, body weight, blood pressure, or glucose levels compared to a two-dose regimen [15*,16].


This report focused on the results of a small group over 8 weeks with 2 different dosing regimes.  What they didn’t mention was the significant variation + of the:  Free urine cortisol nmol/24-h 2 doses (337 ± 173) vs 4 doses (330 ± 93).  Although the mean was close, the variation was very wide and over time, could this have a higher impact on other health outcomes.  Also the preference to four doses a day was significantly higher than twice a day dosing preference for quality of life.  Without the full document, and the figures, we could believe the above statement in it’s entirety.

Paper 2


Stefan R. Bornstein  Bruno Allolio  Wiebke Arlt  Andreas Barthel  Andrew Don-Wauchope Gary D. Hammer  Eystein S. Husebye  Deborah P. Merke  M. Hassan Murad Constantine A. Stratakis  David J. Torpy. (2016). Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Adrenal Insufficiency: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Volume 101, Issue 2, 1 February 2016, Pages 364–389, https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2015-1710

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/101/2/364/2810222

Quote

One double-blind, randomized, crossover study evaluating two-dose vs four-dose hydrocortisone treatments (98) concluded that cortisol pharmacokinetics were more physiological on the four-dose regimen; surprisingly, participating patients preferred this regimen.


The preference was a statistically valid conclusion, yet this group were surprised at the result.

They appear to have got the information right yet although the document notes that HRQoL scores tended to be higher indicating a better HRQoL with four doses a day they still only recommend 2-3 doses a day, with a rider that “high frequency regimes and size-based dosing may be beneficial in individual cases”.   They do recommend 3-4 doses a day for children.

Derek and I use this paper a lot the good work in it.  You just have to know if using it for your Dr, the parts to point highlight.  If you are in the US and you see a lot of non US researchers listed don’t worry as NADF do approve and reproduce this document for use within America so it is valid there as well.

Paper 3


Jitske Tiemensma, Cornelie D Andela, Ad A Kaptein, Johannes A Romijn, Roos C van der Mast, Nienke R Biermasz, Alberto M Pereira. (2014). Psychological morbidity and impaired quality of life in patients with stable treatment for primary adrenal insufficiency: cross-sectional study and review of the literature

in European Journal of Endocrinology. https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-14-0023

https://eje.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/eje/171/2/171.xml

Quote

QoL did not differ between patients on a four-dose regimen and patients on a two-dose regimen, but patients on a four-dose regimen tended to report better QoL .


This one has me a little confused.  One sentence which states QoL did not differ, AND reported better QoL?

Paper 4


Frédéric Castinetti, Laurence Guignat, Claire Bouvattier, Dinane Samara-Boustani, Yves Reznik. (2017). Group 4: Replacement therapy for adrenal insufficiency. Annales d’Endocrinologie. 78. 525-534. 10.1016/j.ando.2017.10.007

https://www.em-consulte.com/en/article/1184799

Quote (invalid cite?)

Hydrocortisone must be delivered in 2 or 3 doses per day, the first and highest dose on waking and the last (in the case of a 3 dose regimen) 4 to 6 hours before going to bed. An international cohort study of 1245 patients with primary adrenal insufficiency (84%) or secondary adrenal insufficiency (16%) underlined that the majority of patients were on a 2 or 3 dose regimen (42% and 32%) while other regimens were less common (one dose, 10%, other regimens, 17%) [2]. Neither of the two most common therapeutic regimens were shown to be better, but the number of comparative studies is quite small [21, 32, 33]


One paper references the original research to justify 2 or 3 doses a day, yet the original document had no mention of 3 doses a day.

Paper 5


Forss M, Batcheller G, Skrtic S, Johannsson G. (2012). Current practice of glucocorticoid replacement therapy and patient-perceived health outcomes in adrenal insufficiency – a worldwide patient survey. BMC Endocrine Disorders 2012 12:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6823-12-8

https://bmcendocrdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6823-12-8

Quote

The results from this survey are in line with a recently published clinical study [24] which showed that a majority of the patients preferred the four-daily dosing regimen to twice daily when comparing equal doses of hydrocortisone given either twice daily or four times daily. The reasons reported were less fatigue, more alertness during the day, less headache and a feeling that the treatment effect was less varying during the day. The patients had complaints after the study that a four-dose regimen may be difficult to manage in the long run [24].


This final document quotes things correctly and picked up on the information buried within the report.  It looks like they may have actually read the document properly.

My take on this. 

If your Dr had only read the original document, he would have no problem if you wanted to move to 4 doses a day, especially when you aren’t increasing your dose, but spreading it out. It was also noted that on 4 doses a day, there was the potential to reduce your overall daily dose.   Yet if they read some of the other more recent documents they would say there is no difference, so why change?

Chinese Whispers?  Or just misinterpretation?  This is just ONE example Derek and I have looked at.  There are many more out there.  And these changes in wording, or missing wording, can actually have an impact on a persons’ health and quality of life.

Next time a Dr tells you that “according to X research, Y is the case” ask them if that is the original research, or someone’s interpretation right or wrong, of that research.  Then check that he has read the original research or just the abstract?   The answer to the latter question will probably be no, because in a busy practice, Doctors don’t have time to read all the research.  It is up to the well-educated/informed patient to politely assist them by highlighting the significant parts.  That is, if the Doctor is happy to work as part of a team, with your best health outcomes in mind.

 

The Half-life of Facts

Aside

I was watching QI this morning. It’s a show where the facts are “Quite Interesting”, and generally obscure.

This morning the episode said something I was so intrigued with, that I rewound it to.
It stated that “At medical college, they usually teach that half of what medical students will learn, will be considered untrue in 10-20 years. This is termed the “half-life of facts”. That is to say that you know that half of the information will be untrue, you just don’t know which half.”

I found that to be Quite Interesting. Enough so that I decided to look the fact up, and see if there was any truth to it.

Samuel Arbesman, a mathematician at Harvard, titled his new book “The Half-life of Facts”. When talking to the Economist, he stated:

For example, in the area of medical science dealing with hepatitis and cirrhosis, two liver diseases, researchers actually measured how long it takes for half of the knowledge in these fields to be overturned. They gave a whole bunch of research papers from fifty years ago to a panel of experts and asked them which were still regarded as true and which had been refuted or no longer considered interesting. They plotted this on a graph. What they found is that there is a nice, smooth rate of decay; you can predict that every 45 years, half of this particular sort of knowledge gets outdated.”

But why am I citing an article in the Economist. Because you probably know a Dr that is still using that 50% of knowledge that is now outdated. Yet they treat you based on that knowledge.

According to Dr. Michael Gold from the Medical University of South Carolina; To paraphrase:

The half-life of medical knowledge is seven years.”

If Dr’s are not keeping up to date, they may be treating you based on what is now outdated knowledge. We have found one such Dr in the guise of the Medical Advisor of one national Advocacy group

He trained 50 years ago. Based on the half-life of facts, if he finished his training in 1970, by 2010, almost 50% of what he learned is outdated. Some of that is “knowledge” is still stating as fact which is on the groups public webiste. When we recently questioned this knowledge (which we showed with research papers to be obsolete) we were told by the Advisor “I don’t care.” (words in writing).

This attitude by the “Medical Avisor” of a major Advocacy Group for a rare condition leads to several questions.

  1. Why is he holding the position? Is it just that it has some kudos?
  2. How does his obsolete knowledge help patients today to live a better life when other Doctor use that “knowledge” to treat the patient.

Knowledge is Power, but obsolete Knowledge is DANGEROUS!

Continuing education is key to good Doctoring. And that continuing education must include reading recent research on the conditions they are treating and accepting that just because it goes against what they have been taught, doesn’t mean it is wrong, or that the Dr researching and promoting the new information is doing it “for ulterior motives”.

Next time you speak to your Dr, ask him the date of the last Research Paper was that they read? If it is before 2000, then there is a better than even chance that half that knowledge is obsolete, or will be in the next couple of years. Ask them if they have heard the term Half-life Of Facts.

Some will agree, others will get upset because they will be reminded that they are not as up to date as they should be, and others will probably refute the statement, or get angry about it. Most likely the latter, are so well past their half-life with knowledge, that they should perhaps be ignored completely.

The Expert Patient

As far back as 2002 an article was written for the British Medical Journal encouraging patients to become “Expert Patients”.

Clin Med (Lond). 2002 May-Jun;2(3):227-9.
The expert patient: a new approach to chronic disease management for the twenty-first century.   Tattersall RL1.  Author information

Abstract
The expert patient: a new approach to chronic disease management for the twenty-first century, produced by the Department of Health, recommends the introduction of ‘user-led self management’ for chronic diseases to all areas of the NHS by 2007. The premise is that many patients are expert in managing their disease, and this could be used to encourage others to become ‘key decision makers in the treatment process’. Furthermore, these expert patients could ‘contribute their skills and insights for the further improvement of services’. It is hypothesised that self-management programmes could reduce the severity of symptoms and improve confidence, resourcefulness and self-efficacy. It is stressed that this is more than just patient education to improve compliance. Instead there should be ‘a cultural change…so that user-led self management can be fully valued and understood by healthcare professionals’. I point out that these ideas, while welcome, are not particularly new. Achieving the desired culture change will not be easy.

“Expert patient”—dream or nightmare?

BMJ 2004328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7442.723 (Published 25 March 2004)Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:723:

The concept of a well informed patient is welcome, but a new name is needed

Since the chief medical officer for England first introduced the term expert patient, it has been picked up and used very widely.1 During this time, the notion of the expert patient seems to have been criticised by doctors at least as much as it has been welcomed.2 If one asks lawyers, architects, social workers, or management consultants whether they prefer clients who take an interest in the issues they face and are motivated to work in partnership to achieve successful results, the answer seems obvious. So why does the idea of expert patients provoke such antipathy within the medical profession?

There is even a Training Course across England called the “The Expert Patient Program which states:

“Creative thinking is key for the Expert Patients Programme (EPP), a thriving Community Interest Company that gives people more control over their conditions through cognitive therapy courses.

It has made a particular difference to people with long-term illnesses, such as diabetes, arthritis or respiratory problems, by teaching them how to self manage and monitor their own symptoms. “It’s giving patients more control,” says Renata Drinkwater, Chief Executive (interim). “Courses like these are proven to make a difference. They boost confidence and, in some cases, can delay the onset of other conditions. They also have other benefits, like reducing the amount of times the patient needs to go into hospital or use Accident and Emergency.”

Conclusions
So, will the vision set out by Professor Donaldson and the Expert Patient’s Task Force work? The simple answer is ‘no’, unless there is a sea change in attitudes among patients and, more importantly, healthcare professionals.

What About You?

As someone with a chronic illness, would you consider yourself an “Expert Patient”?  Do you consider your Dr a Good Dr or a Bad Dr.  Is he bad because he has a history of harming patients, or a bad Dr because he doesn’t know your specific condition.

As a patient with a chronic illness you go to your Dr expecting a good level of knowledge, and that they keep their knowledge up to date.

You go to a specialist with the same expectation.

What happens though if the chronic illness you have is rare condition?  If your Dr or Specialist only has 1 patient with your condition, but over 1000 with a more common one.  Do you expect them to keep their knowledge up to date?

The reality is, if you have a rare condition, you can’t and shouldn’t expect them to be as up to date as you want, or to have the knowledge you would like, at least not when you are a new patient.  It’s different if you have had them for 2, 3, 4 or more years.

Instead, what you CAN expect, is to be listened to, to have them acknowledge that it is a learning process for you both, and that if you are able to provide relevant up to date information, they will accept it and not dismiss it because it wasn’t what they learned when they were training 20/30/40 years ago.

Yet this is also not always the case.  So instead you learn what you can about your condition, to fill the gaps and hope you can at least work around your Dr.

In truth, a patient goes to the specialist wanting help to improve their quality of life.  If you are lucky your specialist, knowing you are coming, has done a quick review of your medical notes, a quick read up of the condition.  But with that, they have decided, almost before you walk in the door, what treatments they will or will not offer.  If you ask a question they are not expecting, you take them off guard.  But they don’t want to appear like they don’t know the answer (which they probably don’t) so they either ignore the question, or give some answer they drag from the back blocks of their brain where they remember something they heard once years ago, whether right or wrong.

These are the Dr’s we hear about in the forums.  The ones that “don’t get it”.  We get frequent cries of “I’ve fired my endo.”  “My Dr is an Idiot.” “I can’t find a decent Dr who knows anything.”  And I can see why they say it.  I have heard the horror stories of medical appointments, ED/ER visits, lack of knowledge and but refusal to acknowledge it.  These Dr’s need training in your condition, but they are not getting it.  Why?  Is it lack of time?  Lack of interest?  Or maybe they don’t know where to start?

What would happen if, instead of leaving frustrated, angry, and ready to fire them, you sat down and tried talking to them as equals?

What if you opened up the consultation with a different tact.  If, instead of expecting them to know everything, or worse, you go in expecting to have a bad appointment with them knowing NOTHING,  you went in knowing they didn’t know anything, but were open to learning.

What would happen if you opened up the conversation with something like “I am struggling with my conditions, and with the general lack of knowledge and research available.   I don’t know how you Dr’s keep up to date when there are so many rare conditions out there.  I need to get a better quality of life, perhaps we could learn and work together on how to better manage my health.”

What would your Dr say?  You are not challenging their knowledge, but you are also not putting expectations on them to know it all.   If they take that bit well, perhaps go on with “Do you have any recent research I could read, or a website where I could go to get good up to date research on my condition so I can learn more about how to help myself”.

The worst that could happen is they dismiss you out of hand and go back to their personal ideas. If this happens you have two options, you can get upset and leave the consultation frustrated then go on line to rant.  Or you could ask them straight what their objection to having a knowledgeable patient is.

By now you have nothing to lose
if you have already decided to leave
and find a new Dr?

You might get a surprise.  You MIGHT get a Dr that is willing to work and learn with you.

The Expert Patient may not only need to be an expert in their condition, but also in negotiation.  A Win/Win negotiation is an art.  It requires giving the Dr something they really need (which may be stroking their ego) but also getting what you need, which is  a Dr willing to work with you.

Dr’s won’t learn, if they are not taught and quitting a Dr because he doesn’t already know simply means that the next patient will get what you have, a Dr that has neither the time or interest to learn.  You never know, you might awaken in that Specialist or Dr, a new interest in your rare condition.  Then he won’t be a Dr to run from, but a Dr to run TO.