3 resultados para GRoVar protocol (Geographic Routing with Variable transmission range)
Resumo:
This study aimed to identify clusters of symptoms, to determine the patient characteristics associated with identified, and determine their strength of association with survival in patients with advanced cancer (ACPs). Consecutively eligible ACPs not receiving cancer-specific treatment, and referred to a Tertiary Palliative Care Clinic, were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. At first consultation, patients rated 9 symptoms through the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (0-10 scale) and 10 others using a Likert scale (1-5). Principal component analysis was used in an exploratory factor analysis to identify. Of 318 ACPs, 301 met eligibility criteria with a median (range) age of 69 (37-94) years. Three SCs were identified: neuro-psycho-metabolic (NPM) (tiredness, lack of appetite, lack of well-being, dyspnea, depression, and anxiety); gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, constipation, hiccups, and dry mouth) and sleep impairment (insomnia and sleep disturbance). Exploratory factor analysis accounted for 40% of variance of observed variables in all SCs. Shorter survival was observed for patients with the NPM cluster (58 vs. 23, P < 0.001), as well as for patients with two or more SCs (45 vs. 21, P = 0.005). In a multivariable model for survival at 30-days, age (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97-0.99; P = 0.008), hospitalization at inclusion (HR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.47-3.51; P < 0.001), poorer performance status (HR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.24-2.89; P = 0.003), and NPM (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.17-2.31; P = 0.005), were associated with worse survival. Three clinically meaningful SC in patients with advanced cancer were identifiable. The NPM cluster and the presence of two or more SCs, had prognostic value in relation to survival.
Resumo:
To determine whether the slope of a maximal bronchial challenge test (in which FEV1 falls by over 50%) could be extrapolated from a standard bronchial challenge test (in which FEV1 falls up to 20%), 14 asthmatic children performed a single maximal bronchial challenge test with methacholin(dose range: 0.097–30.08 umol) by the dosimeter method. Maximal dose-response curves were included according to the following criteria: (1) at least one more dose beyond a FEV1 ù 20%; and (2) a MFEV1 ù 50%. PD20 FEV1 was calculated, and the slopes of the early part of the dose-response curve (standard dose-response slopes) and of the entire curve (maximal dose-response slopes) were calculated by two methods: the two-point slope (DRR) and the least squares method (LSS) in % FEV1 × umol−1. Maximal dose-response slopes were compared with the corresponding standard dose-response slopes by a paired Student’s t test after logarithmic transformation of the data; the goodness of fit of the LSS was also determined. Maximal dose-response slopes were significantly different (p < 0.0001) from those calculated on the early part of the curve: DRR20% (91.2 ± 2.7 FEV1% z umol−1)was 2.88 times higher than DRR50% (31.6 ± 3.4 DFEV1% z umol−1), and the LSS20% (89.1 ± 2.8% FEV1 z umol−1) was 3.10 times higher than LSS 50% (28.8 ± 1.5%FEV1 z umol−1). The goodness of fit of LSS 50% was significant in all cases, whereas LSS 20% failed to be significant in one. These results suggest that maximal dose-response slopes cannot be predicted from the data of standard bronchial challenge tests.
Resumo:
Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) can be affected by a multitude of neurologic and psychiatric symptoms with a wide range of prevalence and severity. Irrespectively from attribution to SLE or other causes, neuropsychiatric (NP) symptoms strongly impact short-term and long-term outcomes,thus NP evaluation during routine clinical practice in SLE should be undertaken regularly. The assessment of NP involvement in SLE patients is challenging and the available diagnostic tools fail to guarantee optimal diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity to changes as well as feasibility in routine clinical care. Standardised questionnaires (both physician-administered and self-reported) can offer valuable help to the treating physician to capture all possible NP syndromes; few SLE-specific NP questionnaire have been developed but validation in large cohort or cross-cultural adaptations are still pending. On the other hand, general instruments have been largely applied to SLE patients. Both kinds of questionnaires can address all possible NP manifestations either globally or, more frequently, focus on specific NP symptoms. These latter have been mainly used in SLE to detect and classify mild and subtle symptoms, more likely to be overlooked during routine clinical assessment such as headache, cognitive impairment and psychiatric manifestations. In conclusion, this literature review highlights a clear case for validation studies in this area and the wider implementation of questionnaires to assess NP involvement is still warranted. The broader use of such instruments could have important consequences; first of all, by standardising symptom assessment, a better definition of the prevalence of NP manifestation across different centres could be achieved. Secondly, prospective studies could allow for the evaluation of clinical significance of mild symptoms and their impact on the patient’s function and quality of life.