1. Home
  2. Nausea

Nausea

Adrenal Insufficiency in Adults: A Review

Author/s: 
Anand Vaidya, James Findling, Irina Bancos

Importance: Adrenal insufficiency is a syndrome of cortisol deficiency and is categorized as primary, secondary, or glucocorticoid induced. Although primary and secondary adrenal insufficiency are rare, affecting less than 279 per 1 million individuals, glucocorticoid-induced adrenal insufficiency is common.

Observations: Primary adrenal insufficiency, which involves deficiency of all adrenocortical hormones, is caused by autoimmune destruction, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, pharmacological inhibition (eg, high doses of azole antifungal therapy), infection (eg, tuberculosis, fungal infections), or surgical removal of adrenal cortical tissue. Secondary adrenal insufficiency is caused by disorders affecting the pituitary gland, such as tumors, hemorrhage, inflammatory or infiltrative conditions (eg, hypophysitis, sarcoidosis, hemochromatosis), surgery, radiation therapy, or medications that suppress corticotropin production, such as opioids. Glucocorticoid-induced adrenal insufficiency is caused by administration of supraphysiological doses of glucocorticoids. Patients with adrenal insufficiency typically present with nonspecific symptoms, including fatigue (50%-95%), nausea and vomiting (20%-62%), and anorexia and weight loss (43%-73%). Glucocorticoid-induced adrenal insufficiency should be suspected in patients who have recently tapered or discontinued a supraphysiological dose of glucocorticoids. Early-morning (approximately 8 am) measurements of serum cortisol, corticotropin, and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) are used to diagnose adrenal insufficiency. Primary adrenal insufficiency is typically characterized by low morning cortisol levels (<5 µg/dL), high corticotropin levels, and low DHEAS levels. Patients with secondary and glucocorticoid-induced adrenal insufficiency typically have low or intermediate morning cortisol levels (5-10 µg/dL) and low or low-normal corticotropin and DHEAS levels. Patients with intermediate early-morning cortisol levels should undergo repeat early-morning cortisol testing or corticotropin stimulation testing (measurement of cortisol before and 60 minutes after administration of cosyntropin, 250 µg). Treatment of adrenal insufficiency involves supplemental glucocorticoids (eg, hydrocortisone, 15-25 mg daily, or prednisone, 3-5 mg daily). Mineralocorticoids (eg, fludrocortisone, 0.05-0.3 mg daily) should be added for patients with primary adrenal insufficiency. Adrenal crisis, a syndrome that can cause hypotension and shock, hyponatremia, altered mental status, and death if untreated, can occur in patients with adrenal insufficiency who have inadequate glucocorticoid therapy, acute illness, and physical stress. Therefore, all patients with adrenal insufficiency should be instructed how to increase glucocorticoids during acute illness and prescribed injectable glucocorticoids (eg, hydrocortisone, 100 mg intramuscular injection) to prevent or treat adrenal crisis.

Conclusions and relevance: Although primary and secondary adrenal insufficiency are rare, glucocorticoid-induced adrenal insufficiency is a common condition. Diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency involves early-morning measurement of cortisol, corticotropin, and DHEAS. All patients with adrenal insufficiency should be treated with glucocorticoids and instructed how to prevent and treat adrenal crisis.

Keywords 
Adrenal Hyperplasia Congenital Acute Disease Hemochromatosis Injections Intramuscular Nausea Vomiting

Tilt Table Testing

Author/s: 
Chesire, W.P., Dudenkov, D.V., Munipalli, B.

A 43-year-old woman presented with a 1-year history of recurring symptoms of sudden onset of fatigue, palpitations, dyspnea, chest pain, lightheadedness, and nausea that were associated with standing and resolved with sitting. These symptoms began 1 month after mild COVID-19 infection. At presentation, while supine, blood pressure (BP) was 123/70 mm Hg and heart rate (HR) was 90/min; while seated, BP was 120/80 and HR was 93/min; after standing for 1 minute, BP was 124/80 and HR was 119/min. Physical examination results were normal. Oxygen saturation was 98% at rest while breathing room air. She had no oxygen desaturation during a 6-minute walk test but walked only 282 m (45% predicted). Complete blood cell count, morning cortisol, and thyrotropin blood levels were normal. Electrocardiogram (ECG), chest computed tomography, pulmonary function testing, methacholine challenge, bronchoscopy, echocardiography, and cardiac catheterization findings were normal. During tilt table testing, the patient experienced lightheadedness and nausea when moved from horizontal to the upright position. Results of the tilt table test are shown in the Table and Figure.

Keywords 
tilt table testing syncope COVID-19 Dyspnea electrocardiography Echocardiography tilt table Physical Examination Cardiac Catheterization

Tilt Table Testing

Author/s: 
Chesire, W.P., Dudenkov, D.V., Munipalli, B.

A 43-year-old woman presented with a 1-year history of recurring symptoms of sudden onset of fatigue, palpitations, dyspnea, chest pain, lightheadedness, and nausea that were associated with standing and resolved with sitting. These symptoms began 1 month after mild COVID-19 infection. At presentation, while supine, blood pressure (BP) was 123/70 mm Hg and heart rate (HR) was 90/min; while seated, BP was 120/80 and HR was 93/min; after standing for 1 minute, BP was 124/80 and HR was 119/min. Physical examination results were normal. Oxygen saturation was 98% at rest while breathing room air. She had no oxygen desaturation during a 6-minute walk test but walked only 282 m (45% predicted). Complete blood cell count, morning cortisol, and thyrotropin blood levels were normal. Electrocardiogram (ECG), chest computed tomography, pulmonary function testing, methacholine challenge, bronchoscopy, echocardiography, and cardiac catheterization findings were normal. During tilt table testing, the patient experienced lightheadedness and nausea when moved from horizontal to the upright position. Results of the tilt table test are shown in the Table and Figure.

Keywords 
tilt table testing syncope COVID-19 Dyspnea electrocardiography Echocardiography tilt table Physical Examination Cardiac Catheterization

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain

Author/s: 
McDonagh, M. S., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Morasco, B., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

Objectives. To evaluate the evidence on benefits and harms of cannabinoids and similar plant-based compounds to treat chronic pain.

Data sources. Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Embase®, the Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS® databases, reference lists of included studies, submissions received after Federal Register request were searched to July 2021.

Review methods. Using dual review, we screened search results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with chronic pain evaluating cannabis, kratom, and similar compounds with any comparison group and at least 1 month of treatment or followup. Dual review was used to abstract study data, assess study-level risk of bias, and rate the strength of evidence. Prioritized outcomes included pain, overall function, and adverse events. We grouped studies that assessed tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD) based on their THC to CBD ratio and categorized them as high-THC to CBD ratio, comparable THC to CBD ratio, and low-THC to CBD ratio. We also grouped studies by whether the product was a whole-plant product (cannabis), cannabinoids extracted or purified from a whole plant, or synthetic. We conducted meta-analyses using the profile likelihood random effects model and assessed between-study heterogeneity using Cochran’s Q statistic chi square and the I2 test for inconsistency. Magnitude of benefit was categorized into no effect or small, moderate, and large effects.

Results. From 2,850 abstracts, 20 RCTs (N=1,776) and 7 observational studies (N=13,095) assessing different cannabinoids were included; none of kratom. Studies were primarily short term, and 75 percent enrolled patients with a variety of neuropathic pain. Comparators were primarily placebo or usual care. The strength of evidence (SOE) was low, unless otherwise noted. Compared with placebo, comparable THC to CBD ratio oral spray was associated with a small benefit in change in pain severity (7 RCTs, N=632, 0 to10 scale, mean difference [MD] −0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.95 to −0.19, I2=28%; SOE: moderate) and overall function (6 RCTs, N=616, 0 to 10 scale, MD −0.42, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.16, I2=24%). There was no effect on study withdrawals due to adverse events. There was a large increased risk of dizziness and sedation and a moderate increased risk of nausea (dizziness: 6 RCTs, N=866, 30% vs. 8%, relative risk [RR] 3.57, 95% CI 2.42 to 5.60, I2=0%; sedation: 6 RCTs, N=866, 22% vs. 16%, RR 5.04, 95% CI 2.10 to 11.89, I2=0%; and nausea: 6 RCTs, N=866, 13% vs. 7.5%, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.78, I2=0%). Synthetic products with high-THC to CBD ratios were associated with a moderate improvement in pain severity, a moderate increase in sedation, and a large increase in nausea (pain: 6 RCTs, N=390 to 10 scale, MD −1.15, 95% CI −1.99 to −0.54, I2=39%; sedation: 3 RCTs, N=335, 19% vs. 10%, RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.63, I2=0%; nausea: 2 RCTs, N=302, 12% vs. 6%, RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.77 to 5.39; I²=0%). We found moderate SOE for a large increased risk of dizziness (2 RCTs, 32% vs. 11%, RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.47 to 6.86, I2=0%). Extracted whole-plant products with high-THC to CBD ratios (oral) were associated with a large increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events (1 RCT, 13.9% vs. 5.7%, RR 3.12, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.33) and dizziness (1 RCT, 62.2% vs. 7.5%, RR 8.34, 95% CI 4.53 to 15.34). We observed a moderate improvement in pain severity when combining all studies of high-THC to CBD ratio (8 RCTs, N=684, MD −1.25, 95% CI −2.09 to −0.71, I2=50%; SOE: moderate). Evidence on whole-plant cannabis, topical CBD, low-THC to CBD, other cannabinoids, comparisons with active products, and impact on use of opioids was insufficient to draw conclusions. Other important harms (psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive effects) were not reported.

Conclusions. Low to moderate strength evidence suggests small to moderate improvements in pain (mostly neuropathic), and moderate to large increases in common adverse events (dizziness, sedation, nausea) and study withdrawal due to adverse events with high- and comparable THC to CBD ratio extracted cannabinoids and synthetic products in short-term treatment (1 to 6 months). Evidence for whole-plant cannabis, and other comparisons, outcomes, and PBCs were unavailable or insufficient to draw conclusions. Small sample sizes, lack of evidence for moderate and long-term use and other key outcomes, such as other adverse events and impact on use of opioids during treatment, indicate that more research is needed.

Unhealthy alcohol use in a 65-year-old man awaiting surgery

Author/s: 
Brothers, T. D., Kaulbach, J., Tran, A.

Three months before elective hip arthroplasty, a 65-yearold man with osteoarthritis presents to his family physician to discuss his alcohol consumption. His surgeon had expressed concern and advised him to speak to his family physician about decreasing his drinking before surgery. He reports drinking around 6 to 10 ounces of whiskey daily for the past 5 years. His alcohol intake increased gradually after retirement, and he now has cravings daily. He recently abstained from alcohol for 4 days while visiting family and developed irritability, tremor, nausea and headache. He has never had withdrawal seizures or delirium tremens, and he does not use any other substances. He is otherwise healthy, apart from hypertension that is controlled with perindopril. He is alarmed by his cravings, withdrawal symptoms and surgeon’s concerns, and is considering decreasing his alcohol use.

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study

Author/s: 
Chen, N, Zhou, M, Dong, X, Qu, J, Gong, F, Han, Y, Qiu, Y, Wang, J, Liu, Y, Wei, Y, Xia, J, Yu, T, Zhang, X, Zhang, L

BACKGROUND:

In December, 2019, a pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) emerged in Wuhan, China. We aimed to further clarify the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 2019-nCoV pneumonia.

METHODS:

In this retrospective, single-centre study, we included all confirmed cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital from Jan 1 to Jan 20, 2020. Cases were confirmed by real-time RT-PCR and were analysed for epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and radiological features and laboratory data. Outcomes were followed up until Jan 25, 2020.

FINDINGS:

Of the 99 patients with 2019-nCoV pneumonia, 49 (49%) had a history of exposure to the Huanan seafood market. The average age of the patients was 55·5 years (SD 13·1), including 67 men and 32 women. 2019-nCoV was detected in all patients by real-time RT-PCR. 50 (51%) patients had chronic diseases. Patients had clinical manifestations of fever (82 [83%] patients), cough (81 [82%] patients), shortness of breath (31 [31%] patients), muscle ache (11 [11%] patients), confusion (nine [9%] patients), headache (eight [8%] patients), sore throat (five [5%] patients), rhinorrhoea (four [4%] patients), chest pain (two [2%] patients), diarrhoea (two [2%] patients), and nausea and vomiting (one [1%] patient). According to imaging examination, 74 (75%) patients showed bilateral pneumonia, 14 (14%) patients showed multiple mottling and ground-glass opacity, and one (1%) patient had pneumothorax. 17 (17%) patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome and, among them, 11 (11%) patients worsened in a short period of time and died of multiple organ failure.

INTERPRETATION:

The 2019-nCoV infection was of clustering onset, is more likely to affect older males with comorbidities, and can result in severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome. In general, characteristics of patients who died were in line with the MuLBSTA score, an early warning model for predicting mortality in viral pneumonia. Further investigation is needed to explore the applicability of the MuLBSTA score in predicting the risk of mortality in 2019-nCoV infection.

FUNDING:

National Key R&D Program of China.

Keywords 
coronavirus 2019-nCOV 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia China

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Author/s: 
Butler, CC, van der Velden, AW, Bongard, E, Saville, BR, Holmes, J, Coenen, S, Cook, J, Francis, NA, Lewis, RJ, Godycki-Cwirko, M, Llor, C, Chlabicz, S, Lionis, C, Seifert, B, Sundvall, PD, Colliers, A, Aabenhus, R, Bjerrum, L, Jonassen Harbin, N, Lindbæk M, Glinz, D, Bucher, HC, Kovacs, B, Radzeviciene Jurgute, R, Touboul Lundgren, P, Little, P, Murphy, AW, De Sutter, A, Openshaw, P, de Jong, MD, Connor, JT, Matheeussen, V, Ieven, M, Goossens, H, Verheij, TJ

BACKGROUND:

Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups.

METHODS:

We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921.

FINDINGS:

Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group.

INTERPRETATION:

Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner.

FUNDING:

European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.

Keywords 
influenza flu Tamiful oseltamivir
Subscribe to Nausea