FRAX® International Task Force of the 2010 Joint International Society for Clinical Densitometry & International Osteoporosis Foundation Position Development Conference.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors and femoral neck BMD and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) in conjunction with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) assembled an international panel of experts that ultimately developed joint Official Positions of the ISCD and IOF advising clinicians regarding FRAX® usage. As part of the process, the charge of the FRAX® International Task Force was to review and synthesize data regarding geographic and race/ethnic variability in hip fractures, non-hip osteoporotic fractures, and make recommendations about the use of FRAX® in ethnic groups and countries without a FRAX® calculator. This synthesis was presented to the expert panel and constitutes the data on which the subsequent Official Positions are predicated. A summary of the International Task Force composition and charge is presented here.

Calcium antagonists as first-line therapy in hypertension: results of the Swiss Isradipine Study. Swiss Hypertension Society

In this study of the efficacy and safety of isradipine as first-line therapy in hypertension, 1,647 patients enrolled; 1,472 completed the 4-week placebo run-in period and began treatment with isradipine at 2.5 mg twice daily for 4 weeks. During placebo, 11% (n = 175) of the 1,647 patients withdrew because of normalization of blood pressure, side effects, noncompliance, violation of the study protocol, side effects from concomitant therapy, or other reasons. During isradipine therapy (n = 1,376), blood pressure decreased from 168 +/- 18/102 +/- 8 mm Hg at the end of the placebo period to 155 +/- 17/94 +/- 9 mm Hg after 2 weeks (p less than 0.001) and 151 +/- 16/92 +/- 9 mm Hg after 4 weeks (p less than 0.001). During active treatment, 6.4% (n = 94) were withdrawn because of flushing, headache, edema, palpitations, gastrointestinal side effects, skin rashes, or other side effects, and two patients because of lack of efficacy. The side effect score in the remaining patients worsened for flushing, remained unchanged for edema, but significantly improved for palpitations, fatigue, dizziness, headache, and nervousness. After 4 weeks, 60% of patients had diastolic blood pressures of less than or equal to 90 mm Hg. Thus, isradipine is effective and safe as first-line therapy in patients with primary hypertension as seen in general practice.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colonic Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colonic surgery and to provide graded recommendations for items for an evidenced-based enhanced perioperative protocol. METHODS: Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts. For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway, available English-language literature was examined, reviewed and graded. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group. RESULTS: For most of the protocol items, recommendations are based on good-quality trials or meta-analyses of good-quality trials (quality of evidence and recommendations according to the GRADE system). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative care pathway, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society, International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN) and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) present a comprehensive evidence-based consensus review of perioperative care for colonic surgery.

Factor analysis of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument: a study based on a spine registry of patients treated with lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Studies involving factor analysis (FA) of the items in the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome assessment instrument have revealed inconsistent factor structures for the individual items. PURPOSE: This study examined whether the factor structure of the NASS varied in relation to the severity of the back/neck problem and differed from that originally recommended by the developers of the questionnaire, by analyzing data before and after surgery in a large series of patients undergoing lumbar or cervical disc arthroplasty. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective multicenter observational case series. PATIENT SAMPLE: Three hundred ninety-one patients with low back pain and 553 patients with neck pain completed questionnaires preoperatively and again at 3 to 6 and 12 months follow-ups (FUs), in connection with the SWISSspine disc arthroplasty registry. OUTCOME MEASURES: North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument. METHODS: First, an exploratory FA without a priori assumptions and subsequently a confirmatory FA were performed on the 17 items of the NASS-lumbar and 19 items of the NASS-cervical collected at each assessment time point. The item-loading invariance was tested in the German version of the questionnaire for baseline and FU. RESULTS: Both NASS-lumbar and NASS-cervical factor structures differed between baseline and postoperative data sets. The confirmatory analysis and item-loading invariance showed better fit for a three-factor (3F) structure for NASS-lumbar, containing items on "disability," "back pain," and "radiating pain, numbness, and weakness (leg/foot)" and for a 5F structure for NASS-cervical including disability, "neck pain," "radiating pain and numbness (arm/hand)," "weakness (arm/hand)," and "motor deficit (legs)." CONCLUSIONS: The best-fitting factor structure at both baseline and FU was selected for both the lumbar- and cervical-NASS questionnaires. It differed from that proposed by the originators of the NASS instruments. Although the NASS questionnaire represents a valid outcome measure for degenerative spine diseases, it is able to distinguish among all major symptom domains (factors) in patients undergoing lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty; overall, the item structure could be improved. Any potential revision of the NASS should consider its factorial structure; factorial invariance over time should be aimed for, to allow for more precise interpretations of treatment success.