Search

Objective: This study aims to determine sex differences in poststroke hypertriglyceridemia (serum triglyceride levels ⩾ 200 mg/dl) and high stroke severity in ischemic stroke patients. Method: Our study analyzed data from 392 males and 373 females with hypertriglyceridemia. Stroke severity on admission was measured using the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) with a value ⩽7 indicating a more favorable post-stroke prognosis while a score of >7 indicates poorer post-stroke outcomes. Logistic regression models adjusted for demographic and risk factors. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each clinical risk factor were used to predict the increasing odds of an association of a specific clinical baseline risk factor with the male or female AIS with hypertriglyceridemia. Results: In the adjusted analysis, male patients with hypertriglyceridemia, diastolic blood pressure (OR = 1.100, 95% CI, 1.034-1.171, P =.002), and Ischemic stroke mortality (OR = 6.474, 95% CI, 3.262-12.847, P <.001) were significantly associated with increased stroke severity. In female patients with hypertriglyceridemia, age (OR = 0.920, 95% CI, 0.866-0.978, P =.008) was associated with reduced stroke severity, while ischemic stroke mortality score (OR = 37.477, 95% CI, 9.636-145.756, P <.001) was associated with increased stroke severity. Conclusion: Increased ischemic stroke mortality risk score was associated with increased severity in both male and female AIS patients with hypertriglyceridemia. Our findings provide information about sex differences in specific risk factors that can be managed to improve the care of male and female ischemic stroke patients with hypertriglyceridemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Urine drug screening has become standard of care in many medical practice settings to assess compliance, detect misuse, and/or to provide basis for medical or legal action. The antibody-based enzymatic immunoassays used for qualitative analysis of urine have significant drawbacks that clinicians are often not aware of. Recent literature suggests that there is a lack of understanding of the shortcomings of these assays by clinicians who are ordering and/or interpreting them. This article addresses the state of each of the individual immunoassays that are most commonly used today in order to help the reader become proficient in the interpretation and application of the results. Some literature already exists regarding sources of “false positives” and “false negatives,” but none seem to present the material with the practicing clinician in mind. This review aims to avoid overwhelming the reader with structures and analytical chemistry. The reader will be presented relevant clinical knowledge that will facilitate appropriate interpretation of immunoassays regardless of practice settings. Using this review as a learning tool and a reference, clinicians will be able to interpret the results of commonly used immunoassays in an evidence-based, informed manner and minimize the negative impact that misinterpretation has on patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]