The effect of warfarin therapy on breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer survival: a population-based cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

PURPOSE: Pre-clinical studies suggest that oral anticoagulant agents, such as warfarin, may inhibit metastases and potentially prolong survival in cancer patients. However, few population-based studies have examined the association between warfarin use and cancer-specific mortality.

METHODS: Using prescribing, cause of death, and cancer registration data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, four population-based cohorts were constructed, comprising breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 1 January 1998, and the 31 December 2010. Comparing pre-diagnostic warfarin users to non-users, multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS: Overall, 16,525 breast, 12,902 colorectal, 12,296 lung, and 12,772 prostate cancers were included. Pre-diagnostic warfarin use ranged from 2.4 to 4.7 %. There was little evidence of any strong association between warfarin use pre-diagnosis and cancer-specific mortality in prostate (adjusted HR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.84-1.26), lung (adjusted HR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.96-1.16), breast (adjusted HR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.62-1.07), or colorectal (adjusted HR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.77-1.01) cancer patients. Dose-response analyses did not reveal consistent evidence of reductions in users of warfarin defined by the number of prescriptions used and daily defined doses.

CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence of associations between pre-diagnostic use of warfarin and cancer-specific mortality in lung, prostate, breast, or colorectal cancer patients.

Post-diagnostic oral bisphosphonate use and colorectal cancer mortality: a population-based cohort study within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink

Background:We conducted the first study to investigate post-diagnostic oral bisphosphonates use and colorectal cancer-specific mortality.

Methods:Colorectal cancer patients were identified from the National Cancer Data Repository (1998–2007) and linked to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, providing prescription records, and Office of National Statistics mortality data. Time-dependent Cox regression models investigated colorectal cancer-specific mortality in post-diagnostic bisphosphonate users.

Results:Overall, in 4791 colorectal cancer patients, there was no evidence of an association between bisphosphonate use and colorectal cancer-specific mortality (adjusted hazard ratio=1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.80, 1.54) or with drug frequency or type.

Conclusions:In this novel population-based cohort study, post-diagnostic bisphosphonate use was not associated with longer rates of colorectal cancer survival.

β-Blocker usage and colorectal cancer mortality:a nested case-control study in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink cohort

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological and laboratory studies suggest that β-blockers may reduce cancer progression in various cancer sites. The aim of this study was to conduct the first epidemiological investigation of the effect of post-diagnostic β-blocker usage on colorectal cancer-specific mortality in a large population-based colorectal cancer patient cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nested case-control analysis was conducted within a cohort of 4794 colorectal cancer patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2007. Patients were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and confirmed using cancer registry data. Patients with a colorectal cancer- specific death (data from the Office of National Statistics death registration system) were matched to five controls. Conditional logistic regression was applied to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) according to β-blocker usage (data from GP-prescribing records).

RESULTS: Post-diagnostic β-blocker use was identified in 21.4% of 1559 colorectal cancer-specific deaths and 23.7% of their 7531 matched controls, with little evidence of an association (OR = 0.89 95% CI 0.78-1.02). Similar associations were found when analysing drug frequency, β-blocker type or specific drugs such as propranolol. There was some evidence of a weak reduction in all-cause mortality in β-blocker users (adjusted OR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.77-1.00; P = 0.04) which was in part due to the marked effect of atenolol on cardiovascular mortality (adjusted OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.40-0.97; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS: In this novel, large UK population-based cohort of colorectal cancer patients, there was no evidence of an association between post-diagnostic β-blocker use and colorectal cancer-specific mortality.

CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00888797.

Collaborating or Colluding: A Practice Research Project with Ex-Offenders and their Families in Singapore

Working with the family members of ex-offenders is a daunting and newly developing aspect of offender rehabilitation in Singapore. A small scale practice research project was carried out by three social work practitioners and two academics over a period of 22 months, with the aim to explore the pertinent issues and challenges in working with family members of ex-offenders. Systematic documentation of the process of working with three cases was carried out. Specific skills and strategies were suggested, and recommendations for changes to service delivery and policy for working with ex-offenders and family members were made to the authorities. This article highlights the enriching journey of collaboration between the academics and practitioners.

Why Do We Think Practice Research is a Good Idea? Comments and Musings Inspired by the Salisbury Statement

In this paper I raise some questions about current understandings of practice research and whether they are worth pursuing. In particular, the notion of a gap between practice and research is examined in terms of how it constricts thinking about this issue. I also attempt to explicate some of the less examined assumptions associated with practice research. Finally, I suggest that we embrace multiplicity, not by trying to accommodate all views under the practice research umbrella, but by accepting that there will be many versions of practice research that will have differential appeal.

Knowledge-Production Processes in Practice Research - Outcomes and Critical Elements

The welfare sector has seen considerable changes in its operational context. Welfare services respond to an increasing number of challenges as citizens are confronted with life’s uncertainties and a variety of complex situations. At the same time the service-delivery system is facing problems of co-operation and the development of staff competence, as well as demands to improve service effectiveness and outcomes. In order to ensure optimal user outcomes in this complex, evolving environment it is necessary to enhance professional knowledge and skills, and to increase efforts to develop the services. Changes are also evident in the new emergent knowledge-production models. There has been a shift from knowledge acquisition and transmission to its construction and production. New actors have stepped in and the roles of researchers are subject to critical discussion. Research outcomes, in other words the usefulness of research with respect to practice development, is a topical agenda item. Research is needed, but if it is to be useful it needs to be not only credible but also useful in action. What do we know about different research processes in practice? What conceptions, approaches, methods and actor roles are embedded? What is the effect on practice? How does ‘here and now’ practice challenge research methods? This article is based on the research processes conducted in the institutes of practice research in social work in Finland. It analyses the different approaches applied by elucidating the theoretical standpoints and the critical elements embedded in them, and reflects on the outcomes in and for practice. It highlights the level of change and progression in practice research, arguing for diverse practice research models with a solid theoretical grounding, rigorous research processes, and a supportive infrastructure.

Partnership in Practice Research: a Norwegian Experience

This article outlines some of the issues involved in developing partnerships between service users, practitioners and researchers. It discusses these through some experience in Oslo as part of a national level agreement (HUSK) to improve social services in Norway through research and knowledge development. It begins with a review of the main concepts and debates involved in developing collaborative partnerships for practice-based research, particularly in the social services arena. The HUSK program is then described. The article then traces some specific developments and challenges in negotiating partnership relations as discussed by program participants (users, practitioners and researchers) in a series of workshops designed to elicit the issues directly from their experience.

What is Practice Research in Social Work - Definitions, Barriers and Possibilities

Practice is subject to increasing pressure to demonstrate its ability to achieve outcomes required by public policy makers. As part of this process social work practice has to engage with issues around advancing knowledge-based learning processes in a close collaboration with education and research based perspectives. This has given rise to approaches seeking to combine research methodology, field research and practical experience. Practice research is connected to both “the science of the concrete” – a field of research oriented towards subjects more than objects and “mode 2 knowledge production” – an application-oriented research where frameworks and findings are discussed by a number of partners. Practice research is defined into two approaches: practice research – collaboration between practice and research – and practitioner research – processes controlled and accomplished by practitioners. The basic stakeholders in practice research are social workers, service users, administrators, management, organisations, politicians and researchers. Accordingly, practice research is necessarily collaborative, involving a meeting point for different views, interests and needs, where complexity and dilemmas are inherent. Instead of attempting to balance or reconcile these differences, it is important to respect the differences if collaboration is to be established. The strength of both practice and research in practice research is to address these difficult challenges. The danger for both fields is to avoid and reject them.

Why are patients prescribed proton pump inhibitors? Retrospective analysis of link between morbidity and prescribing in the General Practice Research Database

Objectives: To establish the relation between new prescriptions for proton pump inhibitors and recorded upper gastrointestinal morbidity within a large computerised general practitioner database.

The autonomy of the EU legal order and the law-making activities of international organizations. Some examples regarding the Council most recent practice. Research Papers in Law 03/2012

[Introduction.] It is generally believed that while the principle of the autonomy of the EU legal order, in the sense of constitutional and institutional autonomy that is to say what concerns the autonomous decision-making of the EU, has been clearly strengthened by the most recent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (eg. Moxplant3, Intertanko or the Kadi/Al Baraakat judgements or the Opinion 1/2009 of the CJEU etc.) as well as, in my opinion, in many aspects by the Treaty of Lisbon, it is still valid to add that the principle of a favourable approach, stemming from the Court jurisprudence, for the enhanced openness of the EU legal order to international law has remained equally important for the EU4. On the other hand, it should be also seen that in a globalized world, and following the increased role of the EU as an international actor, its indispensable and crucial role concerning the creation of world (legal) order in many policy fields ( for example let's think about the G20 issues, the global economic and financial crisis, the role of the EU in promoting and protecting human rights worldwide, the implementation of the multilateral or regional conventional law, developed in the framework the UN (e.g. in the field of agriculture or environment etc) or what concerns the Kyoto process on climate change or the conservation of marine biological resources at international level etc), it seems reasonable and justified to submit that the influence, for example, of the law-making activities of the main stakeholder international organizations in the mentioned policy-areas on the EU (especially on the development of its constantly evolving legal order) or vice-versa the influence of the EU law-making practice on these international organizations is significant, in many aspects mutually interdependent and more and more remarkable. This tendency of the 21st century doesn't mean, however, in my view, that the notion of the autonomy of the EU legal order would have been weakened by this increasing interaction between international law and EU law over the passed years. This contribution is going to demonstrate and prove these departuring points by giving some concrete examples from the most recent practice of the Council (all occuring either in the second half of 2009 or after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty), and which relate to two very important policy areas in the EU, namely the protection of human rights and the Common Fishery Policy.