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.

Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.

Acute haematogenous prosthetic joint infection: prospective evaluation of medical and surgical management

The optimum treatment for prosthetic joint infections has not been clearly defined. We report our experience of the management of acute haematogenous prosthetic joint infection (AHPJI) in patients during a 3-year prospective study in nine Spanish hospitals. Fifty patients, of whom 30 (60%) were female, with a median age of 76 years, were diagnosed with AHPJI. The median infection-free period following joint replacement was 4.9 years. Symptoms were acute in all cases. A distant previous infection and/or bacteraemia were identified in 48%. The aetiology was as follows: Staphylococcus aureus, 19; Streptococcus spp., 14; Gram-negative bacilli, 12; anaerobes, two; and mixed infections, three. Thirty-four (68%) patients were treated with a conservative surgical approach (CSA) with implant retention, and 16 had prosthesis removal. At 2-year follow-up, 24 (48%) were cured, seven (14%) had relapsed, seven (14%) had died, five (10%) had persistent infection, five had re-infection, and two had an unknown evolution. Overall, the treatment failure rates were 57.8% in staphylococcal infections and 14.3% in streptococcal infections. There were no failures in patients with Gram-negative bacillary. By multivariate analysis, CSA was the only factor independently associated with treatment failure (OR 11.6; 95% CI 1.29-104.8). We were unable to identify any factors predicting treatment failure in CSA patients, although a Gram-negative bacillary aetiology was a protective factor. These data suggest that although conservative surgery was the only factor independently associated with treatment failure, it could be the first therapeutic choice for the management of Gram-negative bacillary and streptococcal AHPJI, and for some cases with acute S. aureus infections.