Folate pathway polymorphisms and neuropsychological impairment after leukemia therapy

Neuropsychological impairment occurs in 20%-40% of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) survivors, possibly mediated by folate depletion following methotrexate chemotherapy. We evaluated the relationship between two folate pathway polymorphisms and neuropsychological impairment after childhood ALL chemotherapy. Eighty-six childhood ALL survivors were recruited between 2004-2007 at Texas Children's Hospital after exclusion for central nervous system leukemia, cranial irradiation, and age<1 year at diagnosis. Neuropsychological evaluation at a median of 5.3 years off therapy included a parental questionnaire and the following child performance measures: Trail Making Tests A and B, Grooved Pegboard Test Dominant-Hand and Nondominant-Hand, and Digit Span subtest. We performed genotyping for polymorphisms in two folate pathway genes: reduced folate carrier (RFC1 80G>A, rs1051266) and dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR Intron-1 19bp deletion). Fisher exact test, logistic regression, Student's t-test, and ANOVA were used to compare neuropsychological test scores by genotype, using a dominant model to group genotypes. In univariate analysis, survivors with cumulative methotrexate exposure ≥9000 mg/m2 had an increased risk of attention disorder (OR=6.2, 95% CI 1.2 – 31.3), compared to survivors with methotrexate exposure <9000 mg/m2. On average, female survivors scored 8.5 points higher than males on the Digit Span subtest, a test of working memory (p=0.02). The RFC1 80G>A and DHFR Intron-1 deletion polymorphisms were not related to attention disorder or impairment on tests of attention, processing speed, fine motor speed, or memory. These data imply a strong relationship between methotrexate dose intensity and impairment in attention after childhood ALL therapy. We did not find an association between the RFC1 80G>A or DHFR Intron-1 deletion polymorphisms and long-term neuropsychological impairment in childhood ALL survivors.^

Performance of HbA1c for classifying diabetes and diagnostic threshold for diabetes among the Mexican American border community

Objective. In 2009, the International Expert Committee recommended the use of HbA1c test for diagnosis of diabetes. Although it has been recommended for the diagnosis of diabetes, its precise test performance among Mexican Americans is uncertain. A strong “gold standard” would rely on repeated blood glucose measurement on different days, which is the recommended method for diagnosing diabetes in clinical practice. Our objective was to assess test performance of HbA1c in detecting diabetes and pre-diabetes against repeated fasting blood glucose measurement for the Mexican American population living in United States-Mexico border. Moreover, we wanted to find out a specific and precise threshold value of HbA1c for Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and pre-diabetes for this high-risk population which might assist in better diagnosis and better management of patient diabetes. ^ Research design and methods. We used CCHC dataset for our study. In 2004, the Cameron County Hispanic Cohort (CCHC), now numbering 2,574, was established drawn from randomly selected households on the basis of 2000 Census tract data. The CCHC study randomly selected a subset of people (aged 18-64 years) in CCHC cohort households to determine the influence of SES on diabetes and obesity. Among the participants in Cohort-2000, 67.15% are female; all are Hispanic. ^ Individuals were defined as having diabetes mellitus (Fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≥ 126 mg/dL or pre-diabetes (100 ≤ FPG < 126 mg/dL). HbA1c test performance was evaluated using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. Moreover, change-point models were used to determine HbA1c thresholds compatible with FPG thresholds for diabetes and pre-diabetes. ^ Results. When assessing Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) is used to detect diabetes, the sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 6.5% was 75% and 87% respectively (area under the curve 0.895). Additionally, when assessing FPG to detect pre-diabetes, the sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 6.0% (ADA recommended threshold) was 18% and 90% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 5.7% (International Expert Committee recommended threshold) for detecting pre-diabetes was 31% and 78% respectively. ROC analyses suggest HbA1c as a sound predictor of diabetes mellitus (area under the curve 0.895) but a poorer predictor for pre-diabetes (area under the curve 0.632). ^ Conclusions. Our data support the current recommendations for use of HbA1c in the diagnosis of diabetes for the Mexican American population as it has shown reasonable sensitivity, specificity and accuracy against repeated FPG measures. However, use of HbA1c may be premature for detecting pre-diabetes in this specific population because of the poor sensitivity with FPG. It might be the case that HbA1c is differentiating the cases more effectively who are at risk of developing diabetes. Following these pre-diabetic individuals for a longer-term for the detection of incident diabetes may lead to more confirmatory result.^

An evaluation of sleep hypnotic and stimulant effect on human performance using a computerized psychological test battery

This study evaluated the administration-time-dependent effects of a stimulant (Dexedrine 5-mg), a sleep-inducer (Halcion 0.25-mg) and placebo (control) on human performance. The investigation was conducted on 12 diurnally active (0700-2300) male adults (23-38 yrs) using a double-blind, randomized sixway-crossover three-treatment, two-timepoint (0830 vs 2030) design. Performance tests were conducted hourly during sleepless 13-hour studies using a computer generated, controlled and scored multi-task cognitive performance assessment battery (PAB) developed at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. Specific tests were Simple and Choice Reaction Time, Serial Addition/Subtraction, Spatial Orientation, Logical Reasoning, Time Estimation, Response Timing and the Stanford Sleepiness Scale. The major index of performance was "Throughput", a combined measure of speed and accuracy.^ For the Placebo condition, Single and Group Cosinor Analysis documented circadian rhythms in cognitive performance for the majority of tests, both for individuals and for the group. Performance was best around 1830-2030 and most variable around 0530-0700 when sleepiness was greatest (0300).^ Morning Dexedrine dosing marginally enhanced performance an average of 3% with reference to the corresponding in time control level. Dexedrine AM also increased alertness by 10% over the AM control. Dexedrine PM failed to improve performance with reference to the corresponding PM control baseline. With regard to AM and PM Dexedrine administrations, AM performance was 6% better with subjects 25% more alert.^ Morning Halcion administration caused a 7% performance decrement and 16% increase in sleepiness and a 13% decrement and 10% increase in sleepiness when administered in the evening compared to corresponding in time control data. Performance was 9% worse and sleepiness 24% greater after evening versus morning Halcion administration.^ These results suggest that for evening Halcion dosing, the overnight sleep deprivation occurring in coincidence with the nadir in performance due to circadian rhythmicity together with the CNS depressant effects combine to produce performance degradation. For Dexedrine, morning administration resulted in only marginal performance enhancement; Dexedrine in the evening was less effective, suggesting the 5-mg dose level may be too low to counteract the partial sleep deprivation and nocturnal nadir in performance. ^

The performance of human papillomavirus high-risk DNA testing in the screening and diagnostic settings.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the performance of the human papillomavirus high-risk DNA test in patients 30 years and older. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screening (n=835) and diagnosis (n=518) groups were defined based on prior Papanicolaou smear results as part of a clinical trial for cervical cancer detection. We compared the Hybrid Capture II (HCII) test result with the worst histologic report. We used cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 or worse as the reference of disease. We calculated sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and areas under the ROC curves for the HCII test. We also considered alternative strategies, including Papanicolaou smear, a combination of Papanicolaou smear and the HCII test, a sequence of Papanicolaou smear followed by the HCII test, and a sequence of the HCII test followed by Papanicolaou smear. RESULTS: For the screening group, the sensitivity was 0.69 and the specificity was 0.93; the area under the ROC curve was 0.81. The LR+ and LR- were 10.24 and 0.34, respectively. For the diagnosis group, the sensitivity was 0.88 and the specificity was 0.78; the area under the ROC curve was 0.83. The LR+ and LR- were 4.06 and 0.14, respectively. Sequential testing showed little or no improvement over the combination testing. CONCLUSIONS: The HCII test in the screening group had a greater LR+ for the detection of CIN 2/3 or worse. HCII testing may be an additional screening tool for cervical cancer in women 30 years and older.