Daily physical activities and sports in adult survivors of childhood cancer and healthy controls: a population-based questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthy lifestyle including sufficient physical activity may mitigate or prevent adverse long-term effects of childhood cancer. We described daily physical activities and sports in childhood cancer survivors and controls, and assessed determinants of both activity patterns. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study is a questionnaire survey including all children diagnosed with cancer 1976-2003 at age 0-15 years, registered in the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry, who survived ≥5 years and reached adulthood (≥20 years). Controls came from the population-based Swiss Health Survey. We compared the two populations and determined risk factors for both outcomes in separate multivariable logistic regression models. The sample included 1058 survivors and 5593 controls (response rates 78% and 66%). Sufficient daily physical activities were reported by 52% (n = 521) of survivors and 37% (n = 2069) of controls (p<0.001). In contrast, 62% (n = 640) of survivors and 65% (n = 3635) of controls reported engaging in sports (p = 0.067). Risk factors for insufficient daily activities in both populations were: older age (OR for ≥35 years: 1.5, 95CI 1.2-2.0), female gender (OR 1.6, 95CI 1.3-1.9), French/Italian Speaking (OR 1.4, 95CI 1.1-1.7), and higher education (OR for university education: 2.0, 95CI 1.5-2.6). Risk factors for no sports were: being a survivor (OR 1.3, 95CI 1.1-1.6), older age (OR for ≥35 years: 1.4, 95CI 1.1-1.8), migration background (OR 1.5, 95CI 1.3-1.8), French/Italian speaking (OR 1.4, 95CI 1.2-1.7), lower education (OR for compulsory schooling only: 1.6, 95CI 1.2-2.2), being married (OR 1.7, 95CI 1.5-2.0), having children (OR 1.3, 95CI 1.4-1.9), obesity (OR 2.4, 95CI 1.7-3.3), and smoking (OR 1.7, 95CI 1.5-2.1). Type of diagnosis was only associated with sports. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Physical activity levels in survivors were lower than recommended, but comparable to controls and mainly determined by socio-demographic and cultural factors. Strategies to improve physical activity levels could be similar as for the general population.

Insertion dans les soins après une première hospitalisation dans un secteur pour psychose [Linkage to care after first hospitalisation for psychosis]

BACKGROUND: First hospitalisation for a psychotic episode causes intense distress to patients and families, but offers an opportunity to make a diagnosis and start treatment. However, linkage to outpatient psychiatric care remains a notoriously difficult step for young psychotic patients, who frequently interrupt treatment after hospitalisation. Persistence of symptoms, and untreated psychosis may therefore remain a problem despite hospitalisation and proper diagnosis. With persisting psychotic symptoms, numerous complications may arise: breakdown in relationships, loss of family and social support, loss of employment or study interruption, denial of disease, depression, suicide, substance abuse and violence. Understanding mechanisms that might promote linkage to outpatient psychiatric care is therefore a critical issue, especially in early intervention in psychotic disorders. OBJECTIVE: To study which factors hinder or promote linkage of young psychotic patients to outpatient psychiatric care after a first hospitalisation, in the absence of a vertically integrated program for early psychosis. Method. File audit study of all patients aged 18 to 30 who were admitted for the first time to the psychiatric University Hospital of Lausanne in the year 2000. For statistical analysis, chi2 tests were used for categorical variables and t-test for dimensional variables; p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: 230 patients aged 18 to 30 were admitted to the Lausanne University psychiatric hospital for the first time during the year 2000, 52 of them with a diagnosis of psychosis (23%). Patients with psychosis were mostly male (83%) when compared with non-psychosis patients (49%). Furthermore, they had (1) 10 days longer mean duration of stay (24 vs 14 days), (2) a higher rate of compulsory admissions (53% vs 22%) and (3) were more often hospitalised by a psychiatrist rather than by a general practitioner (83% vs 53%). Other socio-demographic and clinical features at admission were similar in the two groups. Among the 52 psychotic patients, 10 did not stay in the catchment area for subsequent treatment. Among the 42 psychotic patients who remained in the catchment area after discharge, 20 (48%) did not attend the scheduled or rescheduled outpatient appointment. None of the socio demographic characteristics were associated with attendance to outpatient appointments. On the other hand, voluntary admission and suicidal ideation before admission were significantly related to attending the initial appointment. Moreover, some elements of treatment seemed to be associated with higher likelihood to attend outpatient treatment: (1) provision of information to the patient regarding diagnosis, (2) discussion about the treatment plan between in- and outpatient staff, (3) involvement of outpatient team during hospitalisation, and (4) elaboration of concrete strategies to face basic needs, organise daily activities or education and reach for help in case of need. CONCLUSION: As in other studies, half of the patients admitted for a first psychotic episode failed to link to outpatient psychiatric care. Our study suggests that treatment rather than patient's characteristics play a critical role in this phenomenon. Development of a partnership and involvement of patients in the decision process, provision of good information regarding the illness, clear definition of the treatment plan, development of concrete strategies to cope with the illness and its potential complications, and involvement of the outpatient treating team already during hospitalisation, all came out as critical strategies to facilitate adherence to outpatient care. While the current rate of disengagement after admission is highly concerning, our finding are encouraging since they constitute strategies that can easily be implemented. An open approach to psychosis, the development of partnership with patients and a better coordination between inpatient and outpatient teams should therefore be among the targets of early intervention programs. These observations might help setting up priorities when conceptualising new programs and facilitate the implementation of services that facilitate engagement of patients in treatment during the critical initial phase of psychotic disorders.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics of once-daily raltegravir and atazanavir in healthy volunteers.

Atazanavir inhibits UDP-glucuronyl-transferase-1A1 (UGT1A1), which metabolizes raltegravir, but the magnitude of steady-state inhibition and role of the UGT1A1 genotype are unknown. Sufficient inhibition could lead to reduced-dose and -cost raltegravir regimens. Nineteen healthy volunteers, age 24 to 51 years, took raltegravir 400 mg twice daily (arm A) and 400 mg plus atazanavir 400 mg once daily (arm B), separated by ?3 days, in a crossover design. After 1 week on each regimen, raltegravir and raltegravir-glucuronide plasma and urine concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in multiple samples obtained over 12 h (arm A) or 24 h (arm B) and analyzed by noncompartmental methods. UGT1A1 promoter variants were detected with a commercially available kit and published primers. The primary outcome was the ratio of plasma raltegravir C(tau), or concentration at the end of the dosing interval, for arm B (24 h) versus arm A (12 h). The arm B-to-arm A geometric mean ratios (95% confidence interval, P value) for plasma raltegravir C(tau), area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(0-12)), and raltegravir-glucuronide/raltegravir AUC(0-12) were 0.38 (0.22 to 0.65, 0.001), 1.32 (0.62 to 2.81, 0.45), and 0.47 (0.38 to 0.59, <0.001), respectively. Nine volunteers were heterozygous and one was homozygous for a UGT1A1 reduction-of-function allele, but these were not associated with metabolite formation. Although atazanavir significantly reduced the formation of the glucuronide metabolite, its steady-state boosting of plasma raltegravir did not render the C(tau) with a once-daily raltegravir dose of 400 mg similar to the C(tau) with the standard twice-daily dose. UGT1A1 promoter variants did not significantly influence this interaction.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Adjuvant early breast cancer systemic therapies according to daily used technologies.

Prognosis of early breast cancer patients is significantly improved with the use of adjuvant therapies. Various guidelines have been proposed to select patients who will derive the most benefit from such treatments. However, classifications have limited usefulness in subsets of patients such as those with node negative breast cancer. The 2007 St. Paul de Vence Clinical Practice Recommendations proposed to consider adjuvant therapy in accordance with the 10-year relapse-free survival reduction estimated by Adjuvant! Online. However, many limitations remain regarding the use of Adjuvant! Online. Among them, adverse prognostic and/or predictive factors such as vascular invasion, mitotic activity, progesterone receptor negativity, and HER-2 expression are not incorporated in the routine clinical decision process. Our group has therefore issued guidelines based on the consideration of both Adjuvant! Online calculations and the prognostic and/or predictive effects of these markers. In addition, web-accessible comprehensive tables summarizing these recommendations are provided.

Chest pain in daily practice: occurrence, causes and management

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: We assessed the occurrence and aetiology of chest pain in primary care practice. These features differ between primary and emergency care settings, where most previous studies have been performed. METHODS: 59 GPs in western Switzerland recorded all consecutive cases presenting with chest pain. Clinical characteristics, laboratory tests and other investigations as well as the diagnoses remaining after 12 months of follow-up were systematically registered. RESULTS: Among 24,620 patients examined during a total duration of 300 weeks of observation, 672 (2.7%) presented with chest pain (52% female, mean age 55 +/- 19(SD)). Most cases, 442 (1.8%), presented new symptoms and in 356 (1.4%) it was the reason for consulting. Over 40 ailments were diagnosed: musculoskeletal chest pain (including chest wall syndrome) (49%), cardiovascular (16%), psychogenic (11%), respiratory (10%), digestive (8%), miscellaneous (2%) and without diagnosis (3%). The three most prevalent diseases were: chest wall syndrome (43%), coronary artery disease (12%) and anxiety (7%). Unstable angina (6), myocardial infarction (4) and pulmonary embolism (2) were uncommon (1.8%). Potentially serious conditions including cardiac, respiratory and neoplasic diseases accounted for 20% of cases. A large number of laboratory tests (42%), referral to a specialist (16%) or hospitalisation (5%) were performed. Twentyfive patients died during follow-up, of which twelve were for a reason directly associated with thoracic pain [cancer (7) and cardiac causes (5)]. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic pain was present in 2.7% of primary care consultations. Chest wall syndrome pain was the main aetiology. Cardio - vascular emergencies were uncommon. However chest pain deserves full consideration because of the occurrence of potentially serious conditions.