Background: There is increasing evidence for the extensive use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients with psoriasis. Clinical research in the arena of CAM and psoriasis treatment is evolving and includes some randomized controlled trials. Objective: To study CAM use among patients with psoriasis attending a dermatology clinic in a major university hospital in northern Israel. Prevalence, reasons for CAM use and its relevance to doctor-patient communication were emphasized. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with psoriasis patients in a dermatology clinic. Consent was obtained for 78 patients. Post-visit questionnaires were given to 5 physicians. Results: Seventy-eight patients with psoriasis were interviewed and 77 were studied. Sixty-two percent used CAM. Fifty-eight percent of users had seen a CAM practitioner. The study found a trend of CAM use among patients with psoriasis from Arab compared to Jewish descent (p = 0.087). CAM users reported on average 2 different CAM modalities. Herbal medicine and nutritional treatments ranked first, followed by homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and nutritional supplements. The main reason for CAM use was stated to be to do everything to heal the disease, followed by a quest for improved quality of life. Others mentioned an interest in a less toxic treatment, disappointment with conventional treatment and stress reduction. Well over half of the study participants and their dermatologists did not initiate a discussion about CAM use. The dermatologists’ ability to predict CAM use in their patients was relatively low. Conclusion: There is growing evidence of extensive CAM use among patients with psoriasis. Most patients use CAM as a complementary treatment, rather than an alternative to conventional treatment. Teaching CAM should be integrated into the dermatology residency curriculum. Dermatologists need to increase their awareness of CAM use by their patients in order to improve therapeutic communication.

1. In patients with cirrhosis of the liver and in healthy control subjects, the rates of nitrogen flux, protein synthesis and protein breakdown were studied, using a single oral dose of 200 mg of [15N]glycine as a tracer. The nitrogen flux through the amino acid pool was measured separately with both urinary ammonia and urinary urea as end products; the average value was used for further calculations. 2. Subjects were studied in the fed state, both on an adequate and a protein-restricted diet, and also in the fasting state. 3. The rates of protein synthesis were markedly increased in the patients, not only in the fed but also in the fasting state. Protein breakdown rates were increased in the patients in the fed state. 4. The nitrogen balance in steady-state conditions in the fed state was more positive in the patients, while their nitrogen loss in the fasting state was no higher than that of control subjects. 5. A hypothesis is put forward that the high protein requirements of cirrhotic patients could be caused by small and inadequate liver glycogen stores; due to these small stores, gluconeogenesis from amino acids will take place and lead to an extra amino acid loss even during short-term fasting. This increased amino acid loss could explain the elevated protein requirements in cirrhotic patients.

To determine if prophylactic use of intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medication is effective in reducing the IOP spikes after intravitreal injections of pegaptanib, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab. Methods: Seventy-one patients with exudative agerelated macular degeneration received intravitreal injections of 1 of 3 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor medications: 30 patients received pegaptanib (0.09 mL), 47 patients received bevacizumab (0.05 mL), and 42 patients received ranibizumab (0.05 mL). Intraocular pressure-lowering medication, 1 hour prior to the injection, was used 63%, 74%, and 66% of the time in eyes that received pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab, respectively. Intraocular pressure was measured prior to injection, within 1 minute after injection, and every 5 to 10 minutes until the pressure was reduced to a safe level. Results: All 3 intravitreal injections caused significant initial IOP spikes (mean [SD] IOP of 38.5 [11.56] mm Hg in the pegaptanib group, 37.75 [8.36] mm Hg in the ranibizumab group, and 34.88 [10.45] mm Hg in the bevacizumab group). The IOP reduced to less than 30 mm Hg in all 3 groups within 20 minutes. Prophylactic medication did not prevent postinjection IOP spikes. Patients with and without glaucoma showed a similar rate of IOP normalization over time in all 3 groups. Conclusion: Intraocular pressure spikes after intravitreal injection of pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab are common and in most cases transient. Routine prophylactic use of IOP-lowering medications is essentially ineffective in preventing IOP spikes after intravitreal injection of pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab and therefore not necessary before the injection.

No abstract