Vie professionnelle et vie familiale et sociale : une gestion du temps et de la fatigue

Sur la base d'une enquête de terrain, les auteures abordent la nécessité de repenser la division du travail tant sur le plan du travail professionnel, que domestique. Elles s'appuient sur l'expérience des TL (transports lausannois) qui ont mis en place une nouvelle gestion des horaires permettant aux conducteurs d'avoir une assez grande latitude sur leurs itinéraires des bus. Le taux d'absentéisme alarmant avait inquiété les dirigeants qui s'attachaient à faire le tour de solutions à même de réduire la fatigue des collaborateurs. Les effets indirects de cette innovation managériale a été de permettre une véritable conciliation vie privée-vie professionnelle avec, cependant, comme effet non voulu un clivage entre anciens et nouveaux - les anciens ayant priorité quant au choix d'itinéraire. Les femmes, minoritaires dans le métier, ont du mal à faire entendre leur voix pour un système qui va clairement dans le sens d'une double activité facilitée. [Auteurs]

Renal response to the angiotensin II receptor subtype 1 antagonist irbesartan versus enalapril in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the acute and sustained renal hemodynamic effects on hypertensive patients of 100 mg irbesartan and 20 mg enalapril each once daily. PATIENTS: Twenty patients (aged 35-70 years) with uncomplicated, mild-to-moderate essential hypertension and normal serum creatinine levels completed this study. STUDY DESIGN: After random allocation to treatment (n=10 per group), administration schedule (morning or evening) was determined by further random allocation, with crossover of schedules after 6 weeks' therapy. Treatment and administration assignments were double-blind. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure was monitored before and after 6 and 12 weeks of therapy. Renal hemodynamics were determined on the first day of drug administration and 12 and 24 h after the last dose during chronic treatment. RESULTS: Administration of each antihypertensive agent induced a renal vasodilatation with no significant change in glomerular filtration rate. However, the time course appeared to differ: irbesartan had no significant acute effect 4 h after the first dose, but during chronic administration a renal vasodilatory response was found 12 and 24 h after the dose; enalapril was effective acutely and 12 h after administration, but no residual effect was found 24 h after the dose. Both antihypertensive agents lowered mean ambulatory blood pressure effectively, with no significant difference between treatments or between administration schedules (morning versus evening). CONCLUSIONS: Irbesartan and enalapril have comparable effects on blood pressure and renal hemodynamics in hypertensive patients with normal renal functioning. However, the time profiles of the renal effects appear to differ, which might be important for long-term renoprotective effects.

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.

Parent-child agreement and prevalence estimates of diagnoses in childhood: direct interview versus family history method.

Diagnostic information on children is typically elicited from both children and their parents. The aims of the present paper were to: (1) compare prevalence estimates according to maternal reports, paternal reports and direct interviews of children [major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety and attention-deficit and disruptive behavioural disorders]; (2) assess mother-child, father-child and inter-parental agreement for these disorders; (3) determine the association between several child, parent and familial characteristics and the degree of diagnostic agreement or the likelihood of parental reporting; (4) determine the predictive validity of diagnostic information provided by parents and children. Analyses were based on 235 mother-offspring, 189 father-offspring and 128 mother-father pairs. Diagnostic assessment included the Kiddie-schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS) (offspring) and the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (DIGS) (parents and offspring at follow-up) interviews. Parental reports were collected using the Family History - Research Diagnostic Criteria (FH-RDC). Analyses revealed: (1) prevalence estimates for internalizing disorders were generally lower according to parental information than according to the K-SADS; (2) mother-child and father-child agreement was poor and within similar ranges; (3) parents with a history of MDD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) reported these disorders in their children more frequently; (4) in a sub-sample followed-up into adulthood, diagnoses of MDD, separation anxiety and conduct disorder at baseline concurred with the corresponding lifetime diagnosis at age 19 according to the child rather than according to the parents. In conclusion, our findings support large discrepancies of diagnostic information provided by parents and children with generally lower reporting of internalizing disorders by parents, and differential reporting of depression and ADHD by parental disease status. Follow-up data also supports the validity of information provided by adolescent offspring.

Complete longitudinal analyses of the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of sunitinib in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor following imatinib failure.

PURPOSE: To analyze final long-term survival and clinical outcomes from the randomized phase III study of sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients after imatinib failure; to assess correlative angiogenesis biomarkers with patient outcomes. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Blinded sunitinib or placebo was given daily on a 4-week-on/2-week-off treatment schedule. Placebo-assigned patients could cross over to sunitinib at disease progression/study unblinding. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using conventional statistical methods and the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) method to explore cross-over impact. Circulating levels of angiogenesis biomarkers were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 243 patients were randomized to receive sunitinib and 118 to placebo, 103 of whom crossed over to open-label sunitinib. Conventional statistical analysis showed that OS converged in the sunitinib and placebo arms (median 72.7 vs. 64.9 weeks; HR, 0.876; P = 0.306) as expected, given the cross-over design. RPSFT analysis estimated median OS for placebo of 39.0 weeks (HR, 0.505, 95% CI, 0.262-1.134; P = 0.306). No new safety concerns emerged with extended sunitinib treatment. No consistent associations were found between the pharmacodynamics of angiogenesis-related plasma proteins during sunitinib treatment and clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-over design provided evidence of sunitinib clinical benefit based on prolonged time to tumor progression during the double-blind phase of this trial. As expected, following cross-over, there was no statistical difference in OS. RPSFT analysis modeled the absence of cross-over, estimating a substantial sunitinib OS benefit relative to placebo. Long-term sunitinib treatment was tolerated without new adverse events.

Swiss consensus statement: Recommendations for optimising re-treatment with MabThera (rituximab) in rheumatoid arthritis.

Rituximab is an effective treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), which has been approved for the treatment of moderate to severe disease in patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies. Rituximab differs from other available biological agents for RA by way of its unique mode of action and unrivalled long dosing interval. The efficacy of rituximab subsides progressively over time and re-therapy is generally required to maintain long term disease control. The timing of re-treatment is currently not well established and varies widely in clinical practice. The present document is a concise recommendation regarding re-treatment with rituximab, based on validated outcomes such as the DAS28 and the EULAR response criteria. The recommendation was established through consensus between practitioners familiar with rituximab therapy in RA. Optimisation of the rituximab re-treatment schedule may improve patient outcomes and balance risks and benefits for the individual patient.