Exercise rehabilitation following intensive care unit discharge for recovery from critical illness

Background: Skeletal muscle wasting and weakness are significant complications of critical illness, associated with the degree of illness severity and periods of reduced mobility during mechanical ventilation. They contribute to the profound physical and functional deficits observed in survivors. These impairments may persist for many years following discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) and may markedly influence health-related quality of life. Rehabilitation is a key strategy in the recovery of patients following critical illness. Exercise based interventions are aimed at targeting this muscle wasting and weakness. Physical rehabilitation delivered during ICU admission has been systematically evaluated and shown to be beneficial. However its effectiveness when initiated after ICU discharge has yet to be established. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of exercise rehabilitation programmes, initiated after ICU discharge, on functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in adult ICU survivors who have been mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours. Search methods:We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), OvidSP MEDLINE, Ovid SP EMBASE, and CINAHL via EBSCO host to 15th May 2014. We used a specific search strategy for each database. This included synonyms for ICU and critical illness, exercise training and rehabilitation. We searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted primary authors to obtain further information regarding potentially eligible studies. We also searched major clinical trials registries (Clinical Trials and Current Controlled Trials) and the personal libraries of the review authors. We applied no language or publication restriction. We reran the search in February 2015. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.  Selection criteria:We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared an exercise interventioninitiated after ICU discharge to any other intervention or a control or ‘usual care’ programme in adult (≥18years) survivors ofcritical illness. Data collection and analysis:We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Main results:We included six trials (483 adult ICU participants). Exercise-based interventions were delivered on the ward in two studies; both onthe ward and in the community in one study; and in the community in three studies. The duration of the intervention varied according to the length of stay in hospital following ICU discharge (up to a fixed duration of 12 weeks).Risk of bias was variable for all domains across all trials. High risk of bias was evident in all studies for performance bias, although blinding of participants and personnel in therapeutic rehabilitation trials can be pragmatically challenging. Low risk of bias was at least 50% for all other domains across all trials, although high risk of bias was present in one study for random sequence generation (selection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) and other sources. Risk of bias was unclear for remaining studies across the domains.All six studies measured effect on the primary outcome of functional exercise capacity, although there was wide variability in natureof intervention, outcome measures and associated metrics, and data reporting. Overall quality of the evidence was very low. Only two studies using the same outcome measure for functional exercise capacity, had the potential for pooling of data and assessment of heterogeneity. On statistical advice, this was considered inappropriate to perform this analysis and study findings were therefore qualitatively described. Individually, three studies reported positive results in favour of the intervention. A small benefit (versus. control)was evident in anaerobic threshold in one study (mean difference, MD (95% confidence interval, CI), 1.8 mlO2/kg/min (0.4 to 3.2),P value = 0.02), although this effect was short-term, and in a second study, both incremental (MD 4.7 (95% CI 1.69 to 7.75) Watts, P value = 0.003) and endurance (MD 4.12 (95% CI 0.68 to 7.56) minutes, P value = 0.021) exercise testing demonstrated improvement.Finally self-reported physical function increased significantly following a rehabilitation manual (P value = 0.006). Remaining studies found no effect of the intervention.Similar variability in with regard findings for the primary outcome of health-related quality of life were also evident. Only two studies evaluated this outcome. Following statistical advice, these data again were considered inappropriate for pooling to determine overall effect and assessment of heterogeneity. Qualitative description of findings was therefore undertaken. Individually, neither study reported differences between intervention and control groups for health-related quality of life as a result of the intervention. Overall quality of the evidence was very low.Mortality was reported by all studies, ranging from 0% to 18.8%. Only one non-mortality adverse event was reported across all patients in all studies (a minor musculoskeletal injury). Withdrawals, reported in four studies, ranged from 0% to 26.5% in control groups,and 8.2% to 27.6% in intervention groups. Loss to follow-up, reported in all studies, ranged from 0% to 14% in control groups, and 0% to 12.5% in intervention groups. Authors’ conclusions:We are unable, at this time, to determine an overall effect on functional exercise capacity, or health-related quality of life, of an exercise based intervention initiated after ICU discharge in survivors of critical illness. Meta-analysis of findings was not appropriate. This was due to insufficient study number and data. Individual study findings were inconsistent. Some studies reported a beneficial effect of the intervention on functional exercise capacity, and others not. No effect was reported on health-related quality of life. Methodological rigour was lacking across a number of domains influencing quality of the evidence. There was also wide variability in the characteristics of interventions, outcome measures and associated metrics, and data reporting.If further trials are identified, we may be able to determine the effect of exercise-based interventions following ICU discharge, on functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in survivors of critical illness.

Unfractioned heparin therapy in infants and children

Unfractionated heparin is frequently used in tertiary pediatric centers for the prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic disease. Recent evidence suggests that the clinical outcomes of unfractionated heparin therapy in children are poor, as determined by target-range achievement and adverse-event rates. These reports of poor outcomes may be related to an age-dependent mechanism of action of unfractionated heparin. Furthermore, several published studies have indicated that unfractionated heparin–monitoring assays currently in clinical use have significant limitations that likely affect the safety and efficacy of anticoagulant management. This review summarizes the growing body of evidence suggesting that pediatric-specific recommendations for unfractionated heparin therapy management are required to improve clinical outcomes related to this commonly prescribed medication.

Ranibizumab versus Bevacizumab to Treat Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration: One-Year Findings from the IVAN Randomized Trial.

Purpose
To compare the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab and bevacizumab intravitreal injections to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Design
Multicenter, noninferiority factorial trial with equal allocation to groups. The noninferiority limit was 3.5 letters. This trial is registered (ISRCTN92166560).

Participants
People >50 years of age with untreated nAMD in the study eye who read =25 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart.

Methods
We randomized participants to 4 groups: ranibizumab or bevacizumab, given either every month (continuous) or as needed (discontinuous), with monthly review.

Main Outcome Measures
The primary outcome is at 2 years; this paper reports a prespecified interim analysis at 1 year. The primary efficacy and safety outcome measures are distance visual acuity and arteriothrombotic events or heart failure. Other outcome measures are health-related quality of life, contrast sensitivity, near visual acuity, reading index, lesion morphology, serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels, and costs.

Results
Between March 27, 2008 and October 15, 2010, we randomized and treated 610 participants. One year after randomization, the comparison between bevacizumab and ranibizumab was inconclusive (bevacizumab minus ranibizumab -1.99 letters, 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.04 to 0.06). Discontinuous treatment was equivalent to continuous treatment (discontinuous minus continuous -0.35 letters; 95% CI, -2.40 to 1.70). Foveal total thickness did not differ by drug, but was 9% less with continuous treatment (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.97; P = 0.005). Fewer participants receiving bevacizumab had an arteriothrombotic event or heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.07; P = 0.03). There was no difference between drugs in the proportion experiencing a serious systemic adverse event (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80 to 2.27; P = 0.25). Serum VEGF was lower with bevacizumab (GMR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.54; P<0.0001) and higher with discontinuous treatment (GMR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.42; P = 0.004). Continuous and discontinuous treatment costs were £9656 and £6398 per patient per year for ranibizumab and £1654 and £1509 for bevacizumab; bevacizumab was less costly for both treatment regimens (P<0.0001).

Conclusions
The comparison of visual acuity at 1 year between bevacizumab and ranibizumab was inconclusive. Visual acuities with continuous and discontinuous treatment were equivalent. Other outcomes are consistent with the drugs and treatment regimens having similar efficacy and safety.

Financial Disclosure(s)
Proprietary or commercial disclosures may be found after the references.

Pharmacological interventions for dementia in people with Down Syndrome (Protocol).

Background: People with Down syndrome are vulnerable to developing dementia at an earlier age than the general population. Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline in people with Down syndrome can place a significant burden on both the person with Down syndrome and their family and carers. Various pharmacological interventions, including donepezil, galantamine, memantine and rivastigmine, appear to have some effect in treating cognitive decline in people without Down syndrome, but their effectiveness for those with Down syndrome remains unclear. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of anti-dementia pharmacological interventions and nutritional supplements for treating cognitive decline in people with Down syndrome. Search methods In January 2015, we searched CENTRAL, ALOIS (the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, seven other databases, and two trials registers. In addition, we checked the references of relevant reviews and studies and contacted study authors, other researchers and relevant drug manufacturers to identify additional studies. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-dementia pharmacological interventions or nutritional supplements for adults (aged 18 years and older) with Down syndrome, in which treatment was administered and compared with either placebo or no treatment. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and extracted the relevant data. Review authors contacted study authors to obtain missing information where necessaryMain results Only nine studies (427 participants) met the inclusion criteria for this review. Four of these (192 participants) assessed the effectiveness of donepezil, two (139 participants) assessed memantine, one (21 participants) assessed simvastatin, one study (35 participants) assessed antioxidants, and one study (40 participants) assessed acetyl-L-carnitine. Five studies focused on adults aged 45 to 55 years, while the remaining four studies focused on adults aged 20 to 29 years. Seven studies were conducted in either the USA or UK, one between Norway and the UK, and one in Japan. Follow-up periods in studies ranged from four weeks to two years. The reviewers judged all included studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Analyses indicate that for participants who received donepezil, scores in measures of cognitive functioning (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to 1.13) and measures of behaviour (SMD 0.42, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.89) were similar to those who received placebo. However, participants who received donepezil were significantly more likely to experience an adverse event (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.62). The quality of this body of evidence was low. None of the included donepezil studies reported data for carer stress, institutional/home care, or death. For participants who received memantine, scores in measures of cognitive functioning (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.52), behaviour (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.11), and occurrence of adverse events (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.17) were similar to those who received placebo. The quality of this body of evidence was low. None of the included memantine studies reported data for carer stress, institutional/home care, or death. Due to insufficient data, it was possible to provide a narrative account only of the outcomes for simvastatin, antioxidants, and acetylL-carnitine. Results from one pilot study suggest that participants who received simvastatin may have shown a slight improvement in cognitive measures. Authors’ conclusions Due to the low quality of the body of evidence in this review, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of any pharmacological intervention for cognitive decline in people with Down syndrome.

Assessment of clinical response to ivacaftor with lung clearance index in cystic fibrosis patients with a G551D-CFTR mutation and preserved spirometry:A randomised controlled trial

Background: Ivacaftor has shown a clinical benefit in patients with cystic fibrosis who have the G551D-CFTR mutation and reduced lung function. Lung clearance index (LCI) using multiple-breath washout might be an alternative to and more sensitive method than forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) to assess treatment response in the growing number of children and young adults with cystic fibrosis who have normal spirometry. The aim of the study was to assess the treatment effects of ivacaftor on LCI in patients with cystic fibrosis, a G551D-CFTR mutation, and an FEV₁ >90% predicted. Methods: This phase 2, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind 2×2 crossover study of ivacaftor treatment was conducted in patients with cystic fibrosis, at least one G551D-CFTR allele, and an FEV₁ >90% predicted. Patients also had to have an LCI higher than 7·4 at screening, age of 6 years or older, and a weight higher than or equal to 15 kg. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to receive one of two treatment sequences (placebo first followed by ivacaftor 150 mg twice daily [sequence 1] or ivacaftor 150 mg twice daily first followed by placebo [sequence 2]) of 28 days' treatment in each period, with a 28-day washout between the two treatment periods. Randomisation (ratio 1:1) was done with block sizes of 4, and all site personnel including the investigator, the study monitor, and the Vertex study team were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in LCI. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01262352. Findings: Between February and November, 2011, 21 patients were enrolled, of which 11 were assigned to the sequence 1 group, and 10 to the sequence 2 group. 20 of these patients received treatment and 17 completed the trial (eight in sequence 1 group and 9 in sequence 2 group). Treatment with ivacaftor led to significant improvements compared with placebo in LCI (difference between groups in the average of mean changes from baseline at days 15 and 29 was -2·16 [95% CI -2·88 to -1·44]; p<0·0001). Adverse events experienced by study participants were similar between treatment groups; at least one adverse event was reported by 15 (79%) of 19 patients who received placebo and 13 (72%) of 18 patients who received ivacaftor. No deaths occurred during study period. Interpretation: In patients with cystic fibrosis aged 6 years or older who have at least one G551D-CFTR allele, ivacaftor led to improvements in LCI. LCI might be a more sensitive alternative to FEV₁ in detecting response to intervention in these patients with mild lung disease. Funding: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

The use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis in COMFORT-II: an open-label, phase 3 study assessing efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy in the treatment of myelofibrosis

BACKGROUND: Anemia is considered a negative prognostic risk factor for survival in patients with myelofibrosis. Most patients with myelofibrosis are anemic, and 35-54 % present with anemia at diagnosis. Ruxolitinib, a potent inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2, was associated with an overall survival benefit and improvements in splenomegaly and patient-reported outcomes in patients with myelofibrosis in the two phase 3 COMFORT studies. Consistent with the ruxolitinib mechanism of action, anemia was a frequently reported adverse event. In clinical practice, anemia is sometimes managed with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of concomitant ruxolitinib and ESA administration in patients enrolled in COMFORT-II, an open-label, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib with best available therapy for treatment of myelofibrosis. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib 15 or 20 mg twice daily or best available therapy. Spleen volume was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan.

RESULTS: Thirteen of 146 ruxolitinib-treated patients had concomitant ESA administration (+ESA). The median exposure to ruxolitinib was 114 weeks in the +ESA group and 111 weeks in the overall ruxolitinib arm; the median ruxolitinib dose intensity was 33 mg/day for each group. Six weeks before the first ESA administration, 10 of the 13 patients had grade 3/4 hemoglobin abnormalities. These had improved to grade 2 in 7 of the 13 patients by 6 weeks after the first ESA administration. The rate of packed red blood cell transfusions per month within 12 weeks before and after first ESA administration remained the same in 1 patient, decreased in 2 patients, and increased in 3 patients; 7 patients remained transfusion independent. Reductions in splenomegaly were observed in 69 % of evaluable patients (9/13) following first ESA administration.

CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of an ESA with ruxolitinib was well tolerated and did not affect the efficacy of ruxolitinib. Further investigations evaluating the effects of ESAs to alleviate anemia in ruxolitinib-treated patients are warranted (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00934544; July 6, 2009).

Efficacy and Safety of Radium-223 Dichloride in Symptomatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Patients With or Without Baseline Opioid Use From the Phase 3 ALSYMPCA Trial

Background: The phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial enrolled metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with or without baseline opioid use.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) versus placebo in ALSYMPCA patients by baseline opioid use.

Design, setting, and participants: Nine hundred and twenty one patients enrolled at 136 centers globally.

Intervention: Radium-223 (50 kBq/kg, intravenous injection) every 4 wk for six cycles or matching placebo, each plus best standard of care.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]), main secondary efficacy endpoints, and safety were evaluated by baseline opioid use. Additional analyses included time to first opioid use, time to first external beam radiation therapy for bone pain, and safety of concomitant external beam radiation therapy.

Results and limitations: At baseline, 408 (44%) patients had no pain and no analgesic use or mild pain with nonopioid therapy (World Health Organization ladder pain score 0–1 [nonopioid subgroup]), and 513 (56%) had moderate pain with occasional opioids or severe pain with regular daily opioids (World Health Organization ladder pain score 2–3 [opioid subgroup]). Radium-223 significantly prolonged OS versus placebo in nonopioid (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52–0.93; p = 0.013) and opioid (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.54–0.86; p = 0.001) subgroups, and significantly reduced risk of symptomatic skeletal events versus placebo, regardless of baseline opioid use (nonopioid subgroup: HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39–0.82, p = 0.002; opioid subgroup: HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53–0.98, p = 0.038). Time to first opioid use for bone pain was significantly delayed with radium-223 versus placebo (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.46–0.85,p = 0.002). Adverse event incidences were similar between opioid subgroups.

Conclusions: Radium-223 versus placebo significantly prolonged OS and reduced symptomatic skeletal event risk with a favorable safety profile in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with symptomatic bone metastases, regardless of baseline opioid use.

Patient summary: In this ALSYMPCA opioid subgroup analysis, baseline symptom levels did not appear to impact radium-223 dichloride efficacy or safety.

Effect of intravenous haloperidol on the duration of delirium and coma in critically ill patients (Hope-ICU):A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Delirium is frequently diagnosed in critically ill patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Haloperidol is the most commonly used drug for delirium despite little evidence of its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to establish whether early treatment with haloperidol would decrease the time that survivors of critical illness spent in delirium or coma. Methods: We did this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in a general adult intensive care unit (ICU). Critically ill patients (≥18 years) needing mechanical ventilation within 72 h of admission were enrolled. Patients were randomised (by an independent nurse, in 1:1 ratio, with permuted block size of four and six, using a centralised, secure web-based randomisation service) to receive haloperidol 2·5 mg or 0·9% saline placebo intravenously every 8 h, irrespective of coma or delirium status. Study drug was discontinued on ICU discharge, once delirium-free and coma-free for 2 consecutive days, or after a maximum of 14 days of treatment, whichever came first. Delirium was assessed using the confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). The primary outcome was delirium-free and coma-free days, defined as the number of days in the first 14 days after randomisation during which the patient was alive without delirium and not in coma from any cause. Patients who died within the 14 day study period were recorded as having 0 days free of delirium and coma. ICU clinical and research staff and patients were masked to treatment throughout the study. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, number ISRCTN83567338. Findings: 142 patients were randomised, 141 were included in the final analysis (71 haloperidol, 70 placebo). Patients in the haloperidol group spent about the same number of days alive, without delirium, and without coma as did patients in the placebo group (median 5 days [IQR 0-10] vs 6 days [0-11] days; p=0·53). The most common adverse events were oversedation (11 patients in the haloperidol group vs six in the placebo group) and QTc prolongation (seven patients in the haloperidol group vs six in the placebo group). No patient had a serious adverse event related to the study drug. Interpretation: These results do not support the hypothesis that haloperidol modifies duration of delirium in critically ill patients. Although haloperidol can be used safely in this population of patients, pending the results of trials in progress, the use of intravenous haloperidol should be reserved for short-term management of acute agitation. Funding: National Institute for Health Research. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences in a University Population: Associations with Use of Social Services

This paper is part of a series published by the Multiple Adverse Childhood Experiences research group based at QUB. First-year undergraduates took part in an online survey, self-reporting on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) and measures of social service contact. The 10-item ACE questionnaire measures abuse, neglect and household dysfunction (current sample ?????????The study achieved a response rate of 18.6%. (N=765; 552 (72.7%) females and 212 (27.2%) males; 21.8% reporting having been educated at a ‘Protestant’ school, 42% reporting having been educated at a ‘Catholic’ school and 20.4% reporting previous school religious affiliation as ‘other’). Despite obvious non-response bias, ACE scores for this student population are comparable with college-educated populations in the US. Current respondents with previous social service contact are over twenty three times more likely than peers to have experienced multiple adversities. Findings support the hypothesis that social service contact, alone, acts as a proxy indicator for the presence of multiple adverse childhood experiences, with no significant elevation in ACE scores for those going through court proceedings or subject to child protection registration. This study supports current concerns by policy makers to target those children experiencing multiple adversities.

Associations between maternal characteristics and pregnancy-related stress among low-risk mothers: An observational cross-sectional study

Background: Pregnancy is viewed as a major life event and, while the majority of healthy, low-risk women adapt well to pregnancy, there are those whose levels of stress are heightened by the experience.

Objectives: To determine the level of pregnancy-related stress experienced by a group of healthy, low-risk pregnant women and to relate the level of stress with a number of maternal characteristics.

Design: An observational cross-sectional study.

Setting: A large, urban maternity centre in Northern Ireland.

Participants: Of the 306 pregnant women who were invited to participate, 278 provided informed consent and were administered one self-complete questionnaire. Due to the withdrawal criteria, 15 questionnaires were removed from the analysis, resulting in a final sample of 263 healthy, low-risk pregnant women.

Methods: Levels of stress were measured using a self-report measure designed to assess specific worries and concerns relating to pregnancy. Maternal characteristics collected included age, marital status, social status, parity, obstetric history, perceived health status and 'wantedness' for the pregnancy. Regression analysis was undertaken using an ordinary linear regression model.

Results: The mean prenatal distress score in the sample was 15.1 (SD = 7.4; range 0-46). The regression model showed that women who had had previous pregnancies, with or without complications, had significantly lower mean prenatal distress scores than primiparous women (p < 0.01). Women reporting poorer physical health had higher mean prenatal distress scores than those who reported at least average health, while women aged 16-20 experienced a mean increase in the reported prenatal distress score (p < 0.05) in comparison to the reference group of 36 years and over.

Conclusions: This study brings to light the prevalence of pregnancy-related stress within a sample representative of healthy, low-risk women. Current antenatal care is ill-equipped to identify women suffering from high levels of stress; yet a growing body of research evidence links stress with adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study emphasises that healthy, low-risk women experience a range of pregnancy-related stress and identification of stress levels, either through the use of a simple stress measurement tool or through the associated factors identified within this research study, provides valuable data on maternal well-being. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A population-based study of adverse physical effects following prostate cancer treatments: Results from the PiCTure (Prostate cancer treatment – your experience) study

Background:

Men and clinicians need reliable population based information when making decisions about investigation and treatment of prostate cancer. In the absence of clearly preferred treatments, differences in outcomes become more important.

Aim:

To investigate rates of adverse physical effects among prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis by treatment, and estimate population burden.

Methods:

A cross sectional, postal survey to 6,559 survivors (all ages) diagnosed with primary, invasive prostate cancer (ICD10-C61), identified in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland via cancer registries. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, treatments received and adverse physical effects (impotence, urinary incontinence, bowel problems, breast changes, libido loss, hot flashes, fatigue) experienced ‘ever’ and ‘current’ i.e. at questionnaire completion. Physical effect levels were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis for all prostate cancer survivors. Bonferroni corrections were applied to account for multiple comparisons.

Results:

Adjusted response rate 54%, (n=3,348). 75% reported at least one current physical effect (90% ever), with 29% reporting at least three. These varied by treatment. Current impotence was reported by 76% post-prostatectomy, 64% post-external beam radiotherapy with hormone therapy, with average for all survivors of 57%. Urinary incontinence (overall current level: 16%) was highest post-prostatectomy (current 28%, ever 70%). 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no current adverse physical effects; however 43% reported current impotence and 8% current incontinence. Current hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more commonly by patients on hormone therapy.

Conclusions:

This study provides evidence that adverse physical effects following prostate cancer represent a significant public health burden; an estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor with a current adverse physical effect. This information should facilitate investigation and treatment decision-making and follow-up care of patients.

Quality of reporting of dental survival analyses

To explore the quality of reporting (writing and graphics) of articles that used time-to-event analyses to report dental treatment outcomes. A systematic search of the top 50 dental journals in 2008 produced the sample of articles for this analysis. Articles reporting treatment outcomes with (n = 95) and without (n = 91) time-to-event statistics were reviewed. Survival descriptive words used in the two groups were analysed (Pearson's chi-square). The quality of life tables, survival curves and time-to-event statistics were assessed (Kappa analysed agreement) and explored. Words describing dental outcomes 'over time' were more common in time-to-event compared with control articles (77%, 3%, P < 0.001). Non-specific use of 'rate' was common across both groups. Life tables and survival curves were used by 39% and 48% of the time-to-event articles, with at least one used by 82%. Construction quality was poor: 21% of life tables and 28% of survival curves achieved an acceptable standard. Time-to-event statistical reporting was poor: 3% achieved a high and 59% achieved an acceptable standard. The survival statistic, summary figure and standard error were reported in 76%, 95% and 20% of time-to-event articles. Individual statistical terms and graphic aids were common within and unique to time-to-event articles. Unfortunately, important details were regularly omitted from statistical descriptions and survival figures making the overall quality poor. It is likely this will mean such articles will be incorrectly indexed in databases, missed by searchers and unable to be understood completely if identified.

The effects of blood pressure lowering on development of cognitive impairment and dementia in patients without apparent prior cerebrovascular disease

BACKGROUND: Hypertension and cognitive impairment are prevalent in older people. It is known that hypertension is a direct risk factor for vascular dementia and recent studies have suggested hypertension also impacts upon prevalence of Alzheimer's disease. The question is therefore whether treatment of hypertension lowers the rate of cognitive decline. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of blood pressure lowering treatments for the prevention of dementia and cognitive decline in patients with hypertension but no history of cerebrovascular disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: The trials were identified through a search of CDCIG's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL on 27 April 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trials in which pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions to lower blood pressure were given for at least six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. The following outcomes were assessed: incidence of dementia, cognitive change from baseline, blood pressure level, incidence and severity of side effects and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials including 12,091 hypertensive subjects were identified. Average age was 72.8 years. Participants were recruited from industrialised countries. Mean blood pressure at entry across the studies was 170/84 mmHg. All trials instituted a stepped care approach to hypertension treatment, starting with a calcium-channel blocker, a diuretic or an angiotensin receptor blocker. The combined result of the three trials reporting incidence of dementia indicated no significant difference between treatment and placebo (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.89, 95% CI 0.69, 1.16). Blood pressure reduction resulted in a 11% relative risk reduction of dementia in patients with no prior cerebrovascular disease but this effect was not statistically significant (p = 0.38) and there was considerable heterogeneity between the trials. The combined results from the two trials reporting change in Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) did not indicate a benefit from treatment (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) = 0.10, 95% CI -0.03, 0.23). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were reduced significantly in the two trials assessing this outcome (WMD = -7.53, 95% CI -8.28, -6.77 for systolic blood pressure, WMD = -3.87, 95% CI -4.25, -3.50 for diastolic blood pressure).Two trials reported adverse effects requiring discontinuation of treatment and the combined results indicated a significant benefit from placebo (OR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.06, 1.30). When analysed separately, however, more patients on placebo in SCOPE were likely to discontinue treatment due to side effects; the converse was true in SHEP 1991. Quality of life data could not be analysed in the three studies. There was difficulty with the control group in this review as many of the control subjects received antihypertensive treatment because their blood pressures exceeded pre-set values. In most cases the study became a comparison between the study drug against a usual antihypertensive regimen. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no convincing evidence from the trials identified that blood pressure lowering prevents the development of dementia or cognitive impairment in hypertensive patients with no apparent prior cerebrovascular disease. There were significant problems identified with analysing the data, however, due to the number of patients lost to follow-up and the number of placebo patients given active treatment. This introduced bias. More robust results may be obtained by analysing one year data to reduce differential drop-out or by conducting a meta-analysis using individual patient data.