The paper presents an analysis of clinical symptoms, signs and laboratory data of 330 diabetic patients who developed lactic acidosis after having been treated with biguanides (phenformin, buformin, metformin). From the review of the literature an attempt is made to find special features that predisposed patients to develop lactic acidosis such as accompanying illnesses and additional medications, to describe the course of illness and also the factors that influenced the prognosis. Of the patients that developed lactic acidosis 50.3% died. These patients were older, they suffered more frequently from cardiovascular shock, their acidosis was more severe, the whole blood lactate concentration was higher, and the degree of renal insufficiency was more advanced. From our observations we conclude the the treatment of diabetes mellitus with biguanides should be reserved for specially selected patients.
In order to define clinically relevant lactic acidosis, 12 biochemical variables, eight clinical symptoms and signs, leading diagnoses, and mortality were evaluated prospectively in approximately 2,000 unselected patients with internal diseases, consecutively admitted to the hospital. Patients with incomplete data sets were not considered. Of those patients who repeatedly were admitted to the hospital during the time of the study, only the first admission was included for statistical analysis. In addition to 11 definitions of lactic acidosis given in the literature, sequential cluster analyses of the biochemical variables were used to estimate the incidence of lactic acidosis in 1,467 patients. Depending upon which definition was used, 0.5-3.8% of all patients were classified as suffering from lactic acidosis, with a mortality rate ranging from 30-88%. From this study it is concluded that a limit of less than or equal to 7.35 for pH and of greater than 5-6 mmol/L for the concentration of lactate in whole blood will minimize false-negative or false-positive classifications.
Background. There is an ongoing discussion about the risks of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) exposure for the general population as well as for specific subgroups in various medical settings. Haemodialysis patients certainly belong to the group with the highest exposure taking into account the repeated treatments over a long period of time. Many studies have shown that DEHP metabolites are more active with regard to cellular responses than DEHP itself. Although 4-heptanone has been shown to be a DEHP metabolite in rats, this has never been tested in humans. On the other hand, 4-heptanone was reported to be associated with diabetes mellitus. Methods. After establishing analytical methods for all postulated metabolites, we analysed (i) plasma samples from 50 patients on haemodialysis and 50 controls; (ii) urine samples from 100 diabetic patients and 100 controls; and (iii) urine samples from 10 controls receiving DEHP intravenously. Results. 4-Heptanone concentrations in urine did not differ between controls (128.6±11.4 mg/l, mean± SEM) and diabetic patients (131.2±11.6 mg/l) but were significantly elevated in plasma from haemodialysis patients (95.9±9.6 mg/l) compared with controls (10.4±0.5 mg/l). Exposure to DEHP led to a significant increase (P<0.001) of the metabolite 4-heptanone and all the proposed intermediates in urine of healthy persons within 24 h. Conclusions. These studies show that 4-heptanone is not associated with diabetes but is a major DEHP metabolite in humans. Studies concerning the toxicity of DEHP in haemodialysis patients and other highly exposed groups should therefore include 4-heptanone together with DEHP and its primary metabolites mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP) and 2-ethylhexanol.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.