An evaluation of tobacco brief intervention training in three Indigenous health care settings in north Queensland

Objective: To evaluate the pilot phase of a tobacco brief intervention program in three Indigenous health care settings in rural and remote north Queensland. Methods: A combination of in-depth interviews with health staff and managers and focus groups with health staff and consumers. Results: The tobacco brief intervention initiative resulted in changes in clinical practice among health care workers in all three sites. Although health workers had reported routinely raising the issue of smoking in a variety of settings prior to the intervention, the training provided them with an additional opportunity to become more aware of new approaches to smoking cessation. Indigenous health workers in particular reported that their own attempts to give up smoking following the training had given them confidence and empathy in offering smoking cessation advice. However, the study found no evidence that anybody had actually given up smoking at six months following the intervention. Integration of brief intervention into routine clinical practice was constrained by organisational, interpersonal and other factors in the broader socio-environmental context. Conclusions/implications: While modest health gains may be possible through brief intervention, the potential effectiveness in Indigenous settings will be limited in the absence of broader strategies aimed at tackling community-identified health priorities such as alcohol misuse, violence, employment and education. Tobacco and other forms of lifestyle brief. intervention need to be part of multi-level health strategies. Training in tobacco brief intervention should address both the Indigenous context and the needs of Indigenous health care workers.

Cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with average cholesterol levels and established ischaemic heart disease: is it cost-effective?

Objective: To measure the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with established ischaemic heart disease and average baseline cholesterol levels. Design: Prospective economic evaluation within a double-blind randomised trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease [LIPID]), in which patients with a history of unstable angina or previous myocardial infarction were randomised to receive 40 mg of pravastatin daily or matching placebo. Patients and setting: 9014 patients aged 35-75 years from 85 centres in Australia and New Zealand, recruited from June 1990 to December 1992. Main outcome measures: Cost per death averted, cost per life-year gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, calculated from measures of hospitalisations, medication use, outpatient visits, and quality of life. Results: The LIPID trial showed a 22% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 6 years, hospital admissions for coronary heart disease and coronary revascularisation were reduced by about 20%. Over this period, pravastatin cost $A4913 per patient, but reduced total hospitalisation costs by $A1385 per patient and other long-term medication costs by $A360 per patient. In a subsample of patients, average quality of life was 0.98 (where 0 = dead and 1 = normal good health); the treatment groups were not significantly different. The absolute reduction in all-cause mortality was 3.0% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.4%), and the incremental cost was $3246 per patient, resulting in a cost per life saved of $107730 (95% Cl, $68626-$209881) within the study period. Extrapolating long-term survival from the placebo group, the undiscounted cost per life-year saved was $7695 (and $10 938 with costs and life-years discounted at an annual rate of 5%). Conclusions: Pravastatin therapy for patients with a history of myocardial infarction or unstable angina and average cholesterol levels reduces all-cause mortality and appears cost effective compared with accepted treatments in high-income countries.

Effect of Rosiglitazone on Insulin Sensitivity and Body Composition in Type 2 Diabetic Patients

Objective: To investigate the effects of rosiglitazone (RSG) on insulin sensitivity and regional adiposity (including intrahepatic fat) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Research Methods and Procedures: We examined the effect of RSG (8 mg/day, 2 divided doses) compared with placebo on insulin sensitivity and body composition in 33 type 2 diabetic patients. Measurements of insulin sensitivity (euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp), body fat (abdominal magnetic resonance imaging and DXA), and liver fat (magnetic resonance spectroscopy) were taken at baseline and repeated after 16 weeks of treatment. Results: There was a significant improvement in glycemic control (glycosylated hemoglobin -0.7 +/- 0.7%, p less than or equal to 0.05) and an 86% increase in insulin sensitivity in the RSG group (glucose-disposal rate change from baseline: 17.5 +/- 14.5 mumol glucose/min/kg free fat mass, P < 0.05), but no significant change in the placebo group compared with baseline. Total body weight and fat mass increased (p &LE; 0.05) with RSG (2.1 +/- 2.0 kg and 1.4 +/- 1.6 kg, respectively) with 95% of the increase in adiposity occurring in nonabdominal regions. In the abdominal region, RSG increased subcutaneous fat area by 8% (25.0 +/- 28.7 cm(2), p = 0.02), did not alter intra-abdominal fat area, and reduced intrahepatic fat levels by 45% (-6.7 +/- 9.7%, concentration relative to water). Discussion: Our data indicate that RSG greatly improves insulin sensitivity in patients with type 2 diabetes and is associated with an increase in adiposity in subcutaneous but not visceral body regions.

Estimation of total body water from bioelectrical impedance analysis in patients with pancreatic cancer - agreement between three methods of prediction

Introduction Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a useful field measure to estimate total body water (TBW). No prediction formulae have been developed or validated against a reference method in patients with pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between three prediction equations for the estimation of TBW in cachectic patients with pancreatic cancer. Methods Resistance was measured at frequencies of 50 and 200 kHz in 18 outpatients (10 males and eight females, age 70.2 +/- 11.8 years) with pancreatic cancer from two tertiary Australian hospitals. Three published prediction formulae were used to calculate TBW - TBWs developed in surgical patients, TBWca-uw and TBWca-nw developed in underweight and normal weight patients with end-stage cancer. Results There was no significant difference in the TBW estimated by the three prediction equations - TBWs 32.9 +/- 8.3 L, TBWca-nw 36.3 +/- 7.4 L, TBWca-uw 34.6 +/- 7.6 L. At a population level, there is agreement between prediction of TBW in patients with pancreatic cancer estimated from the three equations. The best combination of low bias and narrow limits of agreement was observed when TBW was estimated from the equation developed in the underweight cancer patients relative to the normal weight cancer patients. When no established BIA prediction equation exists, practitioners should utilize an equation developed in a population with similar critical characteristics such as diagnosis, weight loss, body mass index and/or age. Conclusions Further research is required to determine the accuracy of the BIA prediction technique against a reference method in patients with pancreatic cancer.