Share This Link

Glucuronidation does not primarily involve fecal excretion; it conjugates drugs for urinary excretion. Hydrolysis is unrelated, and fecal routes are secondary, so this is incorrect for glucuronidation’s role.

Enterohepatic recirculation involves some drugs, but glucuronidation aims for excretion, not recycling. Prolonging drug presence is not the goal, so this is incorrect for the process.

Glucuronidation facilitates excretion, not reabsorption. Reabsorbing drugs would counteract its purpose of eliminating metabolites, making this incorrect compared to urinary excretion.

Increasing aspirin dosage without medical guidance risks toxicity, including gastrointestinal bleeding and ulceration, as aspirin inhibits COX enzymes, reducing prostaglandin production. Prostaglandins mediate pain and inflammation, but excessive inhibition can damage the stomach lining. This approach is unsafe and not recommended for managing menstrual cramps effectively, as it may exacerbate adverse effects without ensuring better pain relief.

Acetaminophen lacks significant anti-inflammatory effects, as it primarily inhibits COX enzymes in the central nervous system, not peripherally. It reduces pain and fever but does not effectively target prostaglandin-mediated inflammation in menstrual cramps. Therefore, it is less effective than NSAIDs like ibuprofen for dysmenorrhea, making it an inappropriate substitute in this context.

Avoiding COX inhibitors due to Reye’s syndrome risk is unwarranted here, as Reye’s syndrome is primarily associated with aspirin use in children with viral infections. Menstrual cramps are unrelated to this condition, and COX inhibitors like NSAIDs are standard treatment. This choice is overly restrictive and not clinically justified for managing dysmenorrhea.

Insulin does not stimulate the liver to convert glycogen to glucose; instead, it promotes glycogenesis and inhibits glycogenolysis. By facilitating glucose uptake and storage, insulin lowers blood glucose levels, counteracting the process of glycogen breakdown into glucose, which is regulated by glucagon and other hormones, making this choice incorrect.

Insulin does not promote amino acid synthesis into glucose (gluconeogenesis). It inhibits gluconeogenesis in the liver, reducing glucose production from amino acids and other substrates. By enhancing glucose uptake and storage, insulin maintains glucose homeostasis, making this option incorrect as it misrepresents insulin’s role in glucose metabolism.

Insulin does not stimulate the pancreas to reabsorb glucose. The pancreas produces insulin, which acts on target tissues like muscle and fat to facilitate glucose uptake. Glucose reabsorption occurs in the kidneys, regulated by sodium-glucose cotransporters, not insulin, making this choice scientifically inaccurate for insulin’s function.

To calculate the volume, divide the ordered dose (8 mg) by the concentration (5 mg/mL): 8 ÷ 5 = 1.6 mL. Choice A (1.4 mL) underestimates the volume, delivering only 7 mg (1.4 × 5), which is insufficient for the prescribed dose, making it incorrect for accurate medication administration.

Calculating 8 mg ÷ 5 mg/mL yields 1.6 mL. Choice B (1.8 mL) would deliver 9 mg (1.8 × 5), exceeding the ordered dose. This overdose could increase the risk of sedation or respiratory depression, as Valium (diazepam) is a benzodiazepine with potent CNS effects, making this choice incorrect.

The correct volume is 8 mg ÷ 5 mg/mL = 1.6 mL. Choice C (1.2 mL) delivers only 6 mg (1.2 × 5), which is below the prescribed dose. This underdose could result in inadequate therapeutic effects, such as insufficient anxiety relief or seizure control, making it an incorrect choice.

Adrenergic neuron blockers, like guanethidine, reduce blood pressure by inhibiting norepinephrine release. They are not first-line for stage 1 hypertension (140-159/90-99 mm Hg). Their side effects, like orthostatic hypotension, make them less suitable. Lifestyle changes are preferred initially for this patient’s mild elevation and normal diagnostic tests, making this choice inappropriate.

Beta blockers, like atenolol, reduce heart rate and cardiac output, lowering blood pressure. They are not first-line for stage 1 hypertension without compelling indications (e.g., heart failure). Guidelines recommend lifestyle modifications first for this patient’s blood pressure range, as they effectively reduce risk without medication side effects, making this choice less suitable.

ACE inhibitors, like lisinopril, block angiotensin II formation, reducing blood pressure. They are effective but not first-line for stage 1 hypertension without comorbidities. Lifestyle changes are prioritized to avoid medication side effects like cough or hyperkalemia, making this choice less appropriate for initial management in this patient.

Intravenous administration does not inherently address the risks of a narrow therapeutic range. While it ensures rapid delivery, it increases toxicity risk due to immediate bioavailability. Monitoring plasma levels is more critical than the route to maintain safe and effective drug concentrations, making this choice less appropriate.

Administering at intervals longer than the half-life may lead to subtherapeutic levels for drugs with a narrow therapeutic range, reducing efficacy. Consistent dosing and plasma level monitoring are needed to maintain steady-state concentrations within the therapeutic window, making this choice incorrect for managing such drugs.

Teaching that maximum effects occur quickly is inaccurate for most narrow therapeutic range drugs, which often require steady-state concentrations over time. Without monitoring, toxicity or inefficacy risks increase. Patient education should focus on adherence and monitoring, not rapid effects, making this choice inappropriate.

Ordering complete blood counts is relevant for drugs affecting bone marrow (e.g., chemotherapy), but it’s too narrow. Toxic drugs may impact other organs like the liver or kidneys, requiring broader monitoring (e.g., LFTs, renal panels). Focusing solely on blood counts misses other potential toxicities, making this choice incomplete.

Discontinuing all medications is drastic and inappropriate without assessing the drug’s benefits versus risks. Many toxic drugs (e.g., methotrexate) are essential for treatment. Monitoring and managing side effects are preferred to maintain therapy efficacy while minimizing harm, making this choice clinically unsound.

Waiting for symptoms before follow-up risks missing subclinical toxicity, as many drug-induced organ damages (e.g., hepatotoxicity) are asymptomatic initially. Proactive monitoring of organ function through lab tests is essential to detect issues early, making this reactive approach inadequate for managing drugs with known toxic effects.

Diphenhydramine, an antihistamine, does not significantly interact with aspirin’s antiplatelet effects. It primarily blocks histamine receptors, affecting allergies, not platelet aggregation. While it may cause drowsiness, it doesn’t increase bleeding risk or counteract aspirin’s cardiovascular benefits, making it safe to use concurrently with low-dose aspirin.

Loratadine, a second-generation antihistamine, targets histamine receptors to relieve allergy symptoms. It has no known interaction with aspirin’s antiplatelet mechanism or bleeding risk. Its minimal side effect profile makes it compatible with low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular protection, so avoiding it is unnecessary in this context.

Multivitamins do not interfere with aspirin’s antiplatelet action or increase bleeding risk. They provide supplemental nutrients without affecting COX-1 inhibition or platelet aggregation. There’s no pharmacological basis for avoiding multivitamins with low-dose aspirin, making this choice irrelevant for the patient’s cardiovascular regimen.

Synthesis of more receptor sites (upregulation) typically occurs with receptor antagonists, not agonists, as the body compensates for blocked receptors. This would increase drug sensitivity, not decrease effectiveness. For most medications, continuous exposure leads to desensitization, not receptor proliferation, making this choice incorrect for explaining tolerance.

Decreased receptor selectivity implies a drug binding to unintended receptors, causing varied effects, not reduced efficacy. Tolerance results from receptor desensitization, not altered selectivity. This mechanism doesn’t explain the patient’s “immunity” to the drug’s therapeutic effects, making this choice scientifically inaccurate for the scenario.

The body does not produce antagonists to compete with drugs for receptor sites. Tolerance arises from receptor desensitization or metabolic changes (e.g., enzyme induction), not endogenous antagonist production. This mechanism is not a recognized pharmacological process for reduced drug effectiveness, making this choice incorrect.

Decreased blood pressure triggers the baroreceptor reflex, increasing sympathetic activity to raise heart rate and vasoconstriction to restore pressure. A decreased heart rate would occur with increased blood pressure, not hypotension, as parasympathetic activation dominates. This choice is incorrect as it opposes the body’s compensatory response to low blood pressure.

Erythema, or skin redness, results from vasodilation or inflammation, not directly from hypotension. While compensatory vasoconstriction occurs in hypotension, it reduces skin perfusion, potentially causing pallor, not erythema. This manifestation is unrelated to the cardiovascular response to decreased blood pressure, making this choice incorrect.

Increased temperature is not a direct response to decreased blood pressure. Hypotension triggers sympathetic activation, prioritizing heart rate and vasoconstriction to maintain perfusion. Temperature changes may occur in shock states, but they’re not primary manifestations of routine hypotension, making this choice irrelevant to the expected clinical response.