Oral and general health-related quality of life in patients treated for oral cancer compared to control group.

BACKGROUND Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is gaining importance as a valuable outcome measure in oral cancer area. The aim of this study was to assess the general and oral HRQoL of oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients 6 or more months after treatment and compare them with a population free from this disease. METHODS A cross-sectional study was carried out with patients treated for oral cancer at least 6 months post-treatment and a gender and age group matched control group. HRQoL was measured with the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12); oral HRQoL (OHRQoL) was evaluated using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and the Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP). Multivariable regression models assessed the association between the outcomes (SF-12, OHIP-14 and OIDP) and the exposure (patients versus controls), adjusting for sex, age, social class, functional tooth units and presence of illness. RESULTS For patients (n = 142) and controls (n = 142), 64.1% were males. The mean age was 65.2 (standard deviation (sd): 12.9) years in patients and 67.5 (sd: 13.7) years in controls. Patients had worse SF-12 Physical Component Summary scores than controls even in fully the adjusted model [β-coefficient = -0.11 (95% CI: -5.12-(-0.16)]. The differences in SF-12 Mental Component Summary were not statistically significant. Regarding OHRQoL patients had 11.63 (95% CI: 6.77-20.01) higher odds for the OHIP-14 and 21.26 (95% CI: 11.54-39.13) higher odds for OIDP of being in a worse category of OHRQoL compared to controls in the fully adjusted model. CONCLUSION At least 6 months after treatment, oral cancer patients had worse OHRQoL, worse physical HRQoL and similar psychological HRQoL than the general population.

Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in general practice investigating the effectiveness of acupuncture against migraine.

BACKGROUND Migraine is a chronic neurologic disease that can severely affect the patient's quality of life. Although in recent years many randomised studies have been carried out to investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for migraine, it remains a controversial issue. Our aim is to determine whether acupuncture, applied under real conditions of clinical practice in the area of primary healthcare, is more effective than conventional treatment. METHODS/DESIGN The design consists of a pragmatic multi-centre, three-armed randomised controlled trial, complemented with an economic evaluation of the results achieved, comparing the effectiveness of verum acupuncture with sham acupuncture, and with a control group receiving normal care only. Patients eligible for inclusion will be those presenting in general practice with migraine and for whom their General Practitioner (GP) is considering referral for acupuncture. Sampling will be by consecutive selection, and by randomised allocation to the three branches of the study, in a centralised way following a 1:1:1 distribution (verum acupuncture; sham acupuncture; conventional treatment). Secondly, one patient in three will be randomly selected from each of the acupuncture (verum or sham) groups for a brain perfusion study (by single photon emission tomography). The treatment with verum acupuncture will consist of 8 treatment sessions, once a week, at points selected individually by the acupuncturist. The sham acupuncture group will receive 8 sessions, one per week, with treatment being applied at non-acupuncture points in the dorsal and lumbar regions, using the minimal puncture technique. The control group will be given conventional treatment, as will the other two groups. DISCUSSION This trial will contribute to available evidence on acupuncture for the treatment of migraine. The primary endpoint is the difference in the number of days with migraine among the three groups, between the baseline period (the 4 weeks prior to the start of treatment) and the period from weeks 9 to 12. As a secondary aspect, we shall record the index of laterality and the percentage of change in the mean count per pixel in each region of interest measured by the brain perfusion tomography, performed on a subsample of the patients within the real and sham acupuncture groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98703707.

Quality of life in patients with respiratory allergy is influenced by the causative allergen.

OBJECTIVE We aimed to analyze health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in adults with newly diagnosed respiratory allergy according to the sensitization profile for relevant aeroallergens in their usual area of residence. METHODS We performed a cross-sectional, epidemiological, observational, descriptive, multicenter study in allergy clinics in Spain. The sample comprised adults diagnosed with rhinitis, asthma, or both caused by significant allergens in their residential area (olive and/or grass pollen or house dust mite). Allergic rhinitis was classified according to the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines; asthma was classified according to the Guía Españiola para el Manejo del Asma (Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma). HRQOL was studied according to the ESPRINT-15 questionnaire and Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Control of asthma was measured using the Asthma Control Questionnaire 5. RESULTS We studied 1437 patients. Rhinitis was the most common respiratory disease. The HRQOL of rhinitis patients was lower in those sensitized to olive pollen only and in those with combined sensitization to olive and grass pollens. HRQOL associated with rhinitis was worse in patients diagnosed with both rhinitis and asthma than in patients diagnosed with rhinitis only. Asthma patients sensitized to olive pollen or olive and grass pollens had worse HRQOL. CONCLUSIONS In our study population, the HRQOL of patients with respiratory allergies varied with the allergen responsible for symptoms. In patients with rhinitis, the presence of asthma significantly worsened rhinitis-associated HRQOL.

Effectiveness of glatiramer acetate compared to other multiple sclerosis therapies.

OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of glatiramer acetate (GA) compared to other multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS Observational cohort study carried out in MS patients treated with GA (GA cohort) or other MS therapies -switched from GA- (non-GA cohort). Study data were obtained through review of our MS patient database. The primary endpoint was the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores reached at the end of treatment/last check-up. RESULTS A total of 180 patients were included: GA cohort n = 120, non-GA cohort n = 60. Patients in the GA cohort showed better EDSS scores at the end of treatment/last check-up (mean ± SD, 2.8 ± 1.8 vs. 3.9 ± 2.2; P = 0.001) and were 1.65 times more likely to show better EDSS scores compared to the non-GA cohort (odds ratio, 0.606; 95%CI, 0.436-0.843; P = 0.003). Patients in the GA cohort showed longer mean time to reach EDSS scores of 6 (209.1 [95%CI, 187.6-230.6] vs. 164.3 [95% CI, 137.0-191.6] months; P = 0.004) and slower disability progression (hazard ratio, 0.415 [95%CI, 0.286-0.603]; P < 0.001). The annualized relapse rate was lower in the GA cohort (mean ± SD, 0.5 ± 0.5 vs. 0.8 ± 0.5; P = 0.001) and patients' quality of life was improved in this study cohort compared to the non-GA cohort (mean ± SD, 0.7 ± 0.1 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS GA may slow down the progression of EDSS scores to a greater extent than other MS therapies, as well as achieving a greater reduction in relapses and a greater improvement in patients' quality of life. Switching from GA to other MS therapies has not proved to entail a better response to treatment.

Cuestiones controvertidas en evaluación económica (II): medidas de resultado en salud de las intervenciones sanitarias

In this second article of a series of three, we will discuss using the Metaplan technique on controversial issues of health outcomes in economic evaluation of health care interventions. The four-discussion areas focus on: choice of health outcomes measures, where any outcome measure is superior to another; extrapolation and transferability of health outcomes measures, which should not be assumed the results of an EEIS of one country to another without making certain adjustments; appropriate instruments to measure quality of life in Spain, where the EQ-5D was indicated as convenient due to its widespread international use; and, indirect comparisons, where the combination of both comparisons, direct and indirect, it would be advisable if the test for indirect estimates is consistent and has been validated. Finally, research lines to try to overcome the identified discrepancies were identified in each of these areas, some of those are: doing studies of correlation between scores of specific and generic instruments measuring quality of life; update or create a database of economic evaluations in Spain; estimating utilities for the Spanish population by existing generic and specific instruments; or, establish a common way to show the results of a meta-analysis network.