Health-related quality of life in survivors of childhood cancer: the role of chronic health problems

INTRODUCTION The influence of specific health problems on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in childhood cancer survivors is unknown. We compared HRQoL between survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings, determined factors associated with HRQoL, and investigated the influence of chronic health problems on HRQoL. METHODS Within the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we sent a questionnaire to all survivors (≥16 years) registered in the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry, who survived >5 years and were diagnosed 1976-2005 aged <16 years. Siblings received similar questionnaires. We assessed HRQoL using Short Form-36 (SF-36). Health problems from a standard questionnaire were classified into overweight, vision impairment, hearing, memory, digestive, musculoskeletal or neurological, and thyroid problems. RESULTS The sample included 1,593 survivors and 695 siblings. Survivors scored significantly lower than siblings in physical function, role limitation, general health, and the Physical Component Summary (PCS). Lower score in PCS was associated with a diagnosis of central nervous system tumor, retinoblastoma or bone tumor, having had surgery, cranio-spinal irradiation, or bone marrow transplantation. Lower score in Mental Component Summary was associated with older age. All health problems decreased HRQoL in all scales. Most affected were survivors reporting memory problems and musculoskeletal or neurological problems. Health problems had the biggest impact on physical functioning, general health, and energy and vitality. CONCLUSIONS In this study, we showed the negative impact of specific chronic health problems on survivors' HRQoL. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS Therapeutic preventive measures, risk-targeted follow-up, and interventions might help decrease health problems and, consequently, improve survivors' quality of life.

Building silent compartments at the nuclear periphery: a recurrent theme.

In eukaryotes, the genetic material is stored in the nucleus, which is enclosed in a double lipid bilayer, the nuclear envelope (NE). It protects the genome from physical stress and separates it from the rest of the cell. On top of this physical function, growing evidence shows that the nuclear periphery contributes to the 3D organization of the genome. In turn, tridimensional organization of chromatin in the nuclear space influences genome expression. Here we review recent findings on the function of this physical barrier in gene repression and latest models on how silent subnuclear compartments at the NE are built in yeast as well as in the nematode C. elegans and mammalian cells; trying to draw parallels between the three systems.

The course of radiographic loosening, pain and functional outcome around the first revision of a total hip arthroplasty

Background: The published data on pain and physical function before and after revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is scarce. The study reports the course and interrelationships of radiographic loosening, pain and physical function 5 year before and after a first revision THA. Methods: The study was based on the IDES-THA database. All patients with their first THA revision for aseptic loosening and a documented index surgery on the same side and at least one pre-revision and one post-revision follow-up were selected. Only patients with an intact contralateral hip joint (Charnley class-A) were included. Follow-ups within ±5.5 years around the revision time point were analyzed. Annual prevalences of radiographic component loosening and the non-desired outcomes (moderate/severe/intolerable pain, walking <30 minutes, hip flexion range <90°) were calculated. Results: Signs of radiographic component loosening started to increase about 4 years before revision surgery. Two years later, a sharp increase of painful hips from 15% to 80% in the revision year was observed. In the year after revision surgery, this rate dropped back to below 10%. Walking capacity started to noticeably deteriorate 3 years before revision and in the revision year about 65% of patients could not walk longer than 30 minutes. As opposed to pain, walking capacity did not recover to pre-revision levels and the best outcome was only reached two years post-revision. Hip flexion range had the slowest and least extent of deterioration (≈45% flexed <70° in the revision year) but with the best outcomes at only three years after revision surgery it took the longest to recover. Conclusion: Prevalence of radiological loosening signs and/or pain intensity follow an almost parallel course around the first revision of a THA for aseptic component loosening. This process begins about 4 years (radiographic loosening) before the actual revision surgery and intensifies about 2 years later (pain). It also involves walking capacity and hip range of motion. While pain levels go back to levels similar to those after primary surgery, range of motion and even more walking capacity remain moderately compromised.

Structural equation modeling of the medical outcome study: Short Form 36 (SF-36)

The factorial validity of the SF-36 was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) methods, structural equation modeling (SEM), and multigroup structural equation modeling (MSEM). First, the measurement and structural model of the hypothesized SF-36 was explicated. Second, the model was tested for the validity of a second-order factorial structure, upon evidence of model misfit, determined the best-fitting model, and tested the validity of the best-fitting model on a second random sample from the same population. Third, the best-fitting model was tested for invariance of the factorial structure across race, age, and educational subgroups using MSEM.^ The findings support the second-order factorial structure of the SF-36 as proposed by Ware and Sherbourne (1992). However, the results suggest that: (a) Mental Health and Physical Health covary; (b) general mental health cross-loads onto Physical Health; (c) general health perception loads onto Mental Health instead of Physical Health; (d) many of the error terms are correlated; and (e) the physical function scale is not reliable across these two samples. This hierarchical factor pattern was replicated across both samples of health care workers, suggesting that the post hoc model fitting was not data specific. Subgroup analysis suggests that the physical function scale is not reliable across the "age" or "education" subgroups and that the general mental health scale path from Mental Health is not reliable across the "white/nonwhite" or "education" subgroups.^ The importance of this study is in the use of SEM and MSEM in evaluating sample data from the use of the SF-36. These methods are uniquely suited to the analysis of latent variable structures and are widely used in other fields. The use of latent variable models for self reported outcome measures has become widespread, and should now be applied to medical outcomes research. Invariance testing is superior to mean scores or summary scores when evaluating differences between groups. From a practical, as well as, psychometric perspective, it seems imperative that construct validity research related to the SF-36 establish whether this same hierarchical structure and invariance holds for other populations.^ This project is presented as three articles to be submitted for publication. ^

Exercise for osteoarthritis of the hip.

BACKGROUND Current international treatment guidelines recommending therapeutic exercise for people with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA) report are based on limited evidence. OBJECTIVES To determine whether land-based therapeutic exercise is beneficial for people with hip OA in terms of reduced joint pain and improved physical function and quality of life. SEARCH METHODS We searched five databases from inception up to February 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with hip OA and comparing some form of land-based therapeutic exercise (as opposed to exercises conducted in water) with a non-exercise group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Four review authors independently selected studies for inclusion. We resolved disagreements through consensus. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We conducted analyses on continuous outcomes (pain, physical function and quality of life) and dichotomous outcomes (proportion of study withdrawals). MAIN RESULTS We considered that seven of the 10 included RCTs had a low risk of bias. However, the results may be vulnerable to performance and detection bias as none of the RCTs were able to blind participants to treatment allocation and, while most RCTs reported blinded outcome assessment, pain, physical function and quality of life were participant self reported. One of the 10 RCTs was only reported as a conference abstract and did not provide sufficient data for the evaluation of bias risk.High-quality evidence from nine trials (549 participants) indicated that exercise reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.55 to -0.20) and improved physical function (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.05) immediately after treatment. Pain and physical function were estimated to be 29 points on a 0- to 100-point scale (0 was no pain or loss of physical function) in the control group; exercise reduced pain by an equivalent of 8 points (95% CI 4 to 11 points; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6) and improved physical function by an equivalent of 7 points (95% CI 1 to 12 points; NNTB 6). Only three small studies (183 participants) evaluated quality of life, with overall low quality evidence, with no benefit of exercise demonstrated (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.36). Quality of life was estimated to be 50 points on a norm-based mean (standard deviation (SD)) score of 50 (10) in the general population in the control group; exercise improved quality of life by 0 points. Moderate-quality evidence from seven trials (715 participants) indicated an increased likelihood of withdrawal from the exercise allocation (event rate 6%) compared with the control group (event rate 3%), but this difference was not significant (risk difference 1%; 95% CI -1% to 4%). Of the five studies reporting adverse events, each study reported only one or two events and all were related to increased pain attributed to the exercise programme.The reduction in pain was sustained at least three to six months after ceasing monitored treatment (five RCTs, 391 participants): pain (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.18). Pain was estimated to be 29 points on a 0- to 100-point scale (0 was no pain) in the control group, the improvement in pain translated to a sustained reduction in pain intensity of 8 points (95% CI 4 to 12 points) compared with the control group (0 to 100 scale). The improvement in physical function was also sustained (five RCTs, 367 participants): physical function (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.16). Physical function was estimated to be 24 points on a 0- to 100-point scale (0 was no loss of physical function) in the control group, the improvement translated to a mean of 7 points (95% CI 4 to 13) compared with the control group.Only five of the 10 RCTs exclusively recruited people with symptomatic hip OA (419 participants). There was no significant difference in pain or physical function outcomes compared with five studies recruiting participants with hip or knee OA (130 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Pooling the results of these 10 RCTs demonstrated that land-based therapeutic exercise programmes can reduce pain and improve physical function among people with symptomatic hip OA.

Intra-articular corticosteroid for knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic pain, disability, and decreased quality of life. Despite the long-standing use of intra-articular corticosteroids, there is an ongoing debate about their benefits and safety. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and harms of intra-articular corticosteroids compared with sham or no intervention in people with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, physical function, quality of life, and safety. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (from inception to 3 February 2015), checked trial registers, conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham injection or no treatment in people with knee osteoarthritis. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain, function, quality of life, joint space narrowing, and risk ratios (RRs) for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 27 trials (13 new studies) with 1767 participants in this update. We graded the quality of the evidence as 'low' for all outcomes because treatment effect estimates were inconsistent with great variation across trials, pooled estimates were imprecise and did not rule out relevant or irrelevant clinical effects, and because most trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Intra-articular corticosteroids appeared to be more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.22), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 1.0 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale between corticosteroids and sham injection and translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 (95% CI 6 to 13). An I(2) statistic of 68% indicated considerable between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested some asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -1.21, 95%CI -3.58 to 1.17). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.21), small at 13 weeks (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00), and no evidence of an effect at 26 weeks (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.11). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 63% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.001), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.43). There was evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.05) or at least 100 participants per group (P=0.013), in trials that used concomittant viscosupplementation (P=0.08), and in trials that used concomitant joint lavage (P≤0.001).Corticosteroids appeared to be more effective in function improvement than control interventions (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.09), which corresponds to a difference in functions scores of -0.7 units on standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10 and translates into a NNTB of 10 (95% CI 7 to 33). An I(2) statistic of 69% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -4.07, 95% CI -8.08 to -0.05). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were small to moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.14), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.09), and no evidence of an effect at 13 weeks (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.10) or at 26 weeks (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.28). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 62% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.004), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.52). We found evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.023), in unpublished trials (P=0.023), in trials that used non-intervention controls (P=0.031), and in trials that used concomitant viscosupplementation (P=0.06).Participants on corticosteroids were 11% less likely to experience adverse events, but confidence intervals included the null effect (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.23, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 67% less likely to withdraw because of adverse events, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.07, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 27% less likely to experience any serious adverse event, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.67, I(2)=0%).We found no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on quality of life compared to control (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.28, I(2)=0%). There was also no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on joint space narrowing compared to control interventions (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.46). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Whether there are clinically important benefits of intra-articular corticosteroids after one to six weeks remains unclear in view of the overall quality of the evidence, considerable heterogeneity between trials, and evidence of small-study effects. A single trial included in this review described adequate measures to minimise biases and did not find any benefit of intra-articular corticosteroids.In this update of the systematic review and meta-analysis, we found most of the identified trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham or non-intervention control small and hampered by low methodological quality. An analysis of multiple time points suggested that effects decrease over time, and our analysis provided no evidence that an effect remains six months after a corticosteroid injection.

Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis. METHODS For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose. FINDINGS We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 74 randomised trials with a total of 58 556 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·46) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·73 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for celecoxib (p=0·030), diclofenac (p=0·031), and naproxen (p=0·026). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis. INTERPRETATION On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients. FUNDING Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.

Social support, health status and health services utilization among the noninstitutionalized elderly: An analysis of the Supplement on Aging to the 1984 national health interview survey

The association between Social Support, Health Status, and Health Services Utilization of the elderly, was explored based on the analysis of data from the Supplement on Aging to the National Health Interview Survey, 1984 (N = 11,497) using a modified framework of Aday and Andersen's Expanded Behavioral Model. The results suggested that Social Support as operationalized in this study was an independent determinant of the use of health services. The quantity of social activities and the use of community services were the two most consistent determinants across different types of health services use.^ The effects of social support on the use of health services were broken down into three components to facilitate explanations of the mechanisms through which social support operated. The Predisposing and Enabling component of Social Support had independent, although not uniform, effects on the use of health services. Only slight substitute effects of social support were detected. These included the substitution of the use of senior centers for longer stay in the hospital and the substitution of help with IADL problems for the use of formal home care services.^ The effect of financial support on the use of health services was found to be different for middle and low income populations. This differential effect was also found for the presence of intimate networks, the frequencies of interaction with children and the perceived availability of support among urban/rural, male/female and white/non-white subgroups.^ The study also suggested that the selection of appropriate Health Status measures should be based on the type of Health Services Utilization in which a researcher is interested. The level of physical function limitation and role activity limitation were the two most consistent predictors of the volume of physician visits, number of hospital days, and average length of stay in the hospital during the past year.^ Some alternative hypotheses were also raised and evaluated, when possible. The impacts of the complex sample design, the reliability and validity of the measures and other limitations of this analysis were also discussed. Finally, a revised framework was proposed and discussed based on the analysis. Some policy implications and suggestions for future study were also presented. ^

Reproducibilidad de la batería EPESE de desempeño físico en atención primaria

Objetivo. Estimar la reproducibilidad de tres medidas objetivas de desempeño físico de personas mayores en atención primaria. Diseño. Estudio descriptivo y prospectivo con observación directa de la función física por parte de profesionales de la salud de acuerdo a un protocolo estandarizado. Emplazamiento. Tres centros de atención primaria de las provincias de Alicante y Valencia. Participantes. Muestra de 66 personas de 70 y más años, evaluadas en dos ocasiones por el mismo profesional al objeto de replicar idénticas condiciones del estudio, en un intervalo temporal de dos semanas (mediana de 14 días). Mediciones principales. Se evaluó el funcionamiento físico a través de tres pruebas objetivas de desempeño: el test de equilibrio, el de velocidad de la marcha, y la capacidad para levantarse y sentarse de una silla. Estas medidas provienen de los estudios E PESE (Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly). Se ha calculado la fiabilidad test-retest mediante el coeficiente de correlación intraclase. Resultados. Los coeficientes de correlación intraclase (CCI) fueron de 0,55 para el test de equilibrio, de 0,69 para el test de levantarse de la silla, y de O, 79 para el de velocidad de la marcha. El valor para la puntuación total de la batería EPESE fue de 0,80. Conclusiones. La reproducibilidad de estas medidas de desempeño es tan aceptable como las aportadas por la bibliografía de referencia. Estas pruebas de desempeño permiten evaluar con rigor cambios importantes en funcionamiento y salud que se producen con el tiempo.

A combined analysis of two randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction on self-reported emotional experience and physiological symptoms among Veterans with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Two knees or not two knees? Patient costs and outcomes following bilateral and unilateral total knee joint replacement surgery for OA

Aims: This study aims to address medical and non-medical direct costs and health outcomes of bilateral and unilateral total knee replacement from the patients' perspective during the first year post-surgery. Methods: Osteoarthritis patients undergoing primary unilateral total knee or bilateral total knee replacement (TKR) surgery at three Sydney hospitals were eligible. Patients completed questionnaires pre-operatively to record expenses during the previous three months and health status immediately prior to surgery. Patients then maintained detailed prospective cost diaries and completed SF-36 and WOMAC Index each three months for the first post-operative year. Results: Pre-operatively, no significant differences in health status were found between patients undergoing unilateral TKR and bilateral TKR. Both unilateral and bilateral TKR patients showed improvements in pain, stiffness and function from pre-surgery to 12 months post-surgery. Patients who had bilateral TKR spent an average of 12.3 days in acute hospital and patients who had unilateral TKR 13.6 days. Totally uncemented prostheses were used in 6% of unilateral replacements and 48% of bilateral replacements. In hospital, patients who had bilateral TKR experienced significantly more complications, mainly thromboembolic, than patients who had unilateral TKR. Regression analysis showed that for every one point increase in the pre-operative SF-36 physical score (i.e. improving physical status) out-of-pocket costs decreased by 94%. Out-of-pocket costs for female patients were 3.3 times greater than for males. Conclusion: Patients undergoing bilateral TKR and unilateral TKR had a similar length of stay in hospital and similar out-of-pocket expenditures. Bilateral replacement patients reported better physical function and general health with fewer health care visits one year post procedure. Patients requiring bilateral TKR have some additional information to aid their decision making. While their risk of peri-operative complications is higher, they have an excellent chance of good health outcomes at 12 months and are not going to be doubly 'out-of-pocket' for the experience. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Quality of life compared during pharmacological treatments and clinical monitoring for non-localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial

To investigate the effects of different management strategies for non-localized prostate cancer on men's quality of life and cognitive functioning. Men with prostate cancer were randomly assigned to one of four treatment arms: leuprorelin, goserelin, cyproterone acetate (CPA), or close clinical monitoring. In a repeated-measures design, men were assessed before treatment (baseline) and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. A community comparison group of men of the same age with no prostate cancer participated for the same length of time. The men were recruited from public and private urology departments from university teaching hospitals. All those with prostate cancer who were eligible for hormonal therapy had no symptoms requiring immediate therapy. In all, 82 patients were randomized and 62 completed the 1-year study, and of the 20 community participants, 15 completed the study. The main outcome measures were obtained from questionnaires on emotional distress, existential satisfaction, physical function and symptoms, social and role function, subjective cognitive function, and sexual function, combined with standard neuropsychological tests of memory, attention, and executive functions. Sexual dysfunction increased for patients on androgen-suppressing therapies, and emotional distress increased in those assigned to CPA or close clinical monitoring. Compared with before treatment there was evidence of an adverse effect of leuprorelin, goserelin, and CPA on cognitive function. In deciding the timing of androgen suppression therapy for prostate cancer, consideration should be given to potential adverse effects on quality of life and cognitive function.

A double blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel group study of the effectiveness and tolerance of intraarticular hyaluronan in osteoarthritis of the knee

Objective. To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of a course of 5 injections of hyaluronan (HA) given at intervals of one week in patients with symptomatic, mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Methods: A double blind, randomized, parallel group, multicenter (17 centers), saline vehicle-controlled study was conducted over 18 weeks. Patients received either 25 mg (2.5 ml) HA in a phosphate buffered solution or 2.5 ml vehicle containing only the buffer by intraarticular injection. Five injections were given at one week intervals and the patients were followed for a further 13 weeks. The Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) OA instrument was used as the primary efficacy variable and repeated measures analysis of covariance was used to compare the 2 treatments over Weeks 6, 10, 14, and 18. Results. Of 240 patients randomized for inclusion in the study, 223 were evaluable for the modified intention to treat analysis. The active treatment and control groups were comparable for demographic details, OA history, and previous treatments. Scores for the pain and stiffness subscales of the WOMAC were modestly but significantly lower in the HA-treated group overall (Weeks 6 to 18; p < 0.05) and the statistically significant difference from the control was not apparent until after the series of injections was complete. The physical function subscale did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.064). Tolerability of the procedure was good and there were no serious adverse events that were considered to have a possible causal relationship with the study treatment. Conclusion. Intraarticular HA treatment was significantly more effective than saline vehicle in mild to moderate OA of the knee for the 13 week postinjection period of the study.

Validating the functional capacity index: A comparison of predicted versus observed total body scores

Background: The Functional Capacity Index (FCI) was designed to predict physical function 12 months after injury. We report a validation study of the FCI. Methods: This was a consecutive case series registered in the Queensland Trauma Registry who consented to the prospective 12-month telephone-administered follow-up study. FCI scores measured at 12 months were compared with those originally predicted. Results: Complete Abbreviated Injury Scale score information was available for 617 individuals, of whom 587 (95%) could be assigned at least one FCI score (range, 1-17). Agreement between the largest predicted FCI and observed FCI score was poor (kappa = 0.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.10) and explained only 1% of the variability in observed FCI. Using an encompassing model that included all FCI assignments, agreement remained poor (kappa = 0.05; 95% confidence interval, -0.02-0.12), and the model explained only 9% of the variability in observed FCI. Conclusion: The predicted functional capacity poorly agrees with actual functional outcomes. Further research should consider including other (noninjury) explanatory factors in predicting FCI at 12 months.

Comparison of ASAS improvement criteria for ankylosing spondylitis with clinically relevant improvement according to an expert panel

Objective: To investigate whether the recently developed (statistically derived) "ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group" improvement criteria (ASAS-IC) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) reflect clinically relevant improvement according to the opinion of an expert panel. Methods: The ASAS-IC consist of four domains: physical function, spinal pain, patient global assessment, and inflammation. Scores on these four domains of 55 patients with AS, who had participated in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy trial, were presented to an international expert panel (consisting of patients with AS and members of the ASAS Working Group) in a three round Delphi exercise. The number of (non-) responders according to the ASAS-IC was compared with the final-consensus of the experts. The most important domains in the opinion of the experts were identified, and also selected with discriminant analysis. A number of provisional criteria sets that best represented the consensus of the experts were defined. Using other datasets, these clinically derived criteria sets as well as the statistically derived ASAS-IC were then tested for discriminative properties and for agreement with the end of trial efficacy by patient and doctor. Results: Forty experts completed the three Delphi rounds. The experts considered twice as many patients to be responders than the ASAS-IC (42 v 21). Overall agreement between experts and ASAS-IC was 62%. Spinal pain was considered the most important domain by most experts and was also selected as such by discriminant analysis. Provisional criteria sets with an agreement of greater than or equal to 80% compared with the consensus of the experts showed high placebo response rates (27-42%), in contrast with the ASAS-IC with a predefined placebo response rate of 25%. All criteria sets and the ASAS-IC discriminated well between active and placebo treatment (chi(2) = 36-45; p < 0.001). Compared with the end of trial efficacy assessment, the provisional criteria sets showed an agreement of 71-82%, sensitivity of 67-83%, and specificity of 81-88%. The ASAS-IC showed an agreement of 70%, sensitivity of 62%, and specificity of 89%. Conclusion: The ASAS-IC are strict in defining response, are highly specific, and consequently show lower sensitivity than the clinically derived criteria sets. However, those patients who are considered as responders by applying the ASAS-IC are acknowledged as such by the expert panel as well as by. patients' and doctors' judgments, and are therefore likely to be true responders.