The effects of centrally acting ACE inhibitors on the rate of cognitive and functional decline in dementia: a KDD approach

Alzheimer’s Disease and other dementias are one of the most challenging illnesses confronting countries with ageing populations. Treatment options for dementia are limited, and the costs are significant. There is a growing need to develop new treatments for dementia, especially for the elderly. There is also growing evidence that centrally acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, which cross the blood-brain barrier, are associated with a reduced rate of cognitive and functional decline in dementia, especially in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The aim of this research is to investigate the effects of centrally acting ACE inhibitors (CACE-Is) on the rate of cognitive and functional decline in dementia, using a three phased KDD process. KDD, as a scientific way to process and analysis clinical data, is used to find useful insights from a variety of clinical databases. The data used are from three clinic databases: Geriatric Assessment Tool (GAT), the Doxycycline and Rifampin for Alzheimer’s Disease (DARAD), and the Qmci validation databases, which were derived from several different geriatric clinics in Canada. This research involves patients diagnosed with AD, vascular or mixed dementia only. Patients were included if baseline and end-point (at least six months apart) Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE), Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) or Activities Daily Living (ADL) scores were available. Basically, the rates of change are compared between patients taking CACE-Is, and those not currently treated with CACE-Is. The results suggest that there is a statistically significant difference in the rate of decline in cognitive and functional scores between CACE-I and NoCACE-I patients. This research also validates that the Qmci, a new short assessment test, has potential to replace the current popular screening tests for cognition in the clinic and clinical trials.

A critical realist examination of the inhibitors of double loop learning in an agile adoption

The original solution to the high failure rate of software development projects was the imposition of an engineering approach to software development, with processes aimed at providing a repeatable structure to maintain a consistency in the ‘production process’. Despite these attempts at addressing the crisis in software development, others have argued that the rigid processes of an engineering approach did not provide the solution. The Agile approach to software development strives to change how software is developed. It does this primarily by relying on empowered teams of developers who are trusted to manage the necessary tasks, and who accept that change is a necessary part of a development project. The use of, and interest in, Agile methods in software development projects has expanded greatly, yet this has been predominantly practitioner driven. There is a paucity of scientific research on Agile methods and how they are adopted and managed. This study aims at addressing this paucity by examining the adoption of Agile through a theoretical lens. The lens used in this research is that of double loop learning theory. The behaviours required in an Agile team are the same behaviours required in double loop learning; therefore, a transition to double loop learning is required for a successful Agile adoption. The theory of triple loop learning highlights that power factors (or power mechanisms in this research) can inhibit the attainment of double loop learning. This study identifies the negative behaviours - potential power mechanisms - that can inhibit the double loop learning inherent in an Agile adoption, to determine how the Agile processes and behaviours can create these power mechanisms, and how these power mechanisms impact on double loop learning and the Agile adoption. This is a critical realist study, which acknowledges that the real world is a complex one, hierarchically structured into layers. An a priori framework is created to represent these layers, which are categorised as: the Agile context, the power mechanisms, and double loop learning. The aim of the framework is to explain how the Agile processes and behaviours, through the teams of developers and project managers, can ultimately impact on the double loop learning behaviours required in an Agile adoption. Four case studies provide further refinement to the framework, with changes required due to observations which were often different to what existing literature would have predicted. The study concludes by explaining how the teams of developers, the individual developers, and the project managers, working with the Agile processes and required behaviours, can inhibit the double loop learning required in an Agile adoption. A solution is then proposed to mitigate these negative impacts. Additionally, two new research processes are introduced to add to the Information Systems research toolkit.

Do selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of atherothrombosis? Meta-analysis of randomised trials

Objective: To assess the effects of selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the risk of vascular events. Design: Meta-analysis of published and unpublished tabular data from randomised trials, with indirect estimation of the effects of traditional NSAIDs. Data sources: Medline and Embase (January 1966 to April 2005); Food and Drug Administration records; and data on file from Novartis, Pfizer, and Merck. Review methods: Eligible studies were randomised trials that included a comparison of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus placebo or a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus a traditional NSAID, of at least four weeks' duration, with information on serious vascular events (defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death). Individual investigators and manufacturers provided information on the number of patients randomised, numbers of vascular events, and the person time of follow-up for each randomised group. Results: In placebo comparisons, allocation to a selective COX 2 inhibitor was associated with a 42% relative increase in the incidence of serious vascular events (1.2%/year v 0.9%/year; rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.78; P = 0.003), with no significant heterogeneity among the different selective COX 2 inhibitors. This was chiefly attributable to an increased risk of myocardial infarction (0.6%/year v 0.3%/year; 1.86, 1.33 to 2.59; P = 0.0003), with little apparent difference in other vascular outcomes. Among trials of at least one year's duration (mean 2.7 years), the rate ratio for vascular events was 1.45 (1.12 to 1.89; P = 0.005). Overall, the incidence of serious vascular events was similar between a selective COX 2 inhibitor and any traditional NSAID (1.0%/year v 0.9/%year; 1.16, 0.97 to 1.38; P = 0.1). However, statistical heterogeneity (P = 0.001) was found between trials of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus naproxen (1.57, 1.21 to 2.03) and of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus non-naproxen NSAIDs (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12). The summary rate ratio for vascular events, compared with placebo, was 0.92 (0.67 to 1.26) for naproxen, 1.51 (0.96 to 2.37) for ibuprofen, and 1.63 (1.12 to 2.37) for diclofenac. Conclusions: Selective COX 2 inhibitors are associated with a moderate increase in the risk of vascular events, as are high dose regimens of ibuprofen and diclofenac, but high dose naproxen is not associated with such an excess.