Contribution of Individual and Environmental Factors to Physical Activity Level among Spanish Adults

BACKGROUND: Lack of physical activity (PA) is a major risk for chronic disease and obesity. The main aims of the present study were to identify individual and environmental factors independently associated with PA and examine the relative contribution of these factors to PA level in Spanish adults. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A population-based cross-sectional sample of 3,000 adults (18-75 years old) from Gran Canaria (Spain) was selected using a multistage stratified random sampling method. The participants were interviewed at home using a validated questionnaire to assess PA as well as individual and environmental factors. The data were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression. One demographic variable (education), two cognitive (self-efficacy and perceived barriers), and one social environmental (organized format) were independently associated with PA in both genders. Odds ratios ranged between 1.76-2.07 in men and 1.35-2.50 in women (both p<0.05). Individual and environmental factors explained about one-third of the variance in PA level. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Self-efficacy and perceived barriers were the most significant factors to meet an adequate level of PA. The risk of insufficient PA was twofold greater in men with primary or lesser studies and who are employed. In women, living in rural environments increased the risk of insufficient PA. The promotion of organized PA may be an efficient way to increase the level of PA in the general population. Improvement in the access to sport facilities and places for PA is a prerequisite that may be insufficient and should be combined with strategies to improve self-efficacy and overcome perceived barriers in adulthood

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Comparative studies of two-times-daily versus three-times-daily indinavir in combination with zidovudine and lamivudine

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of two-times-daily versus three-times-daily indinavir in combination with zidovudine and lamivudine. Design: Two multicenter, open-label, randomized 24-week studies. Methods: Adults HIV-1 infection, HIV-1 RNA greater than 10 000 copies/ml, and no prior lamivudine or protease inhibitor therapy were eligible. In a pilot study (Study A), patients received indinavir at 800 mg every 8 h, 1000 mg every 12 h, or 1200 mg every 12 h. In a subsequent study (Study B), patients received indinavir at 800 mg every 8 h or 1200 mg every 12 h. All subjects received zidovudine (300 mg) and lamivudine (150 mg) every 12 h. An intent-to-treat analysis was used. Results: In Study A, which enrolled 88 patients, neither HIV-1 RNA nor CD4, cell responses differed significantly between treatment groups at 24 weeks when corrected for multiple comparisons. Study B enrolled 433 patients, but was prematurely discontinued when interim analysis suggested greater efficacy of three-times-daily indinavir. Of the first 87 patients reaching week 24, HIV-1 RNA was less than 400 copies/ml in 91% receiving three-times-daily versus 64% receiving two-times daily indinavir (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Three-limes-daily indinavir appears more efficacious than two-times-daily dosing when administered with zidovudine and lamivudine. Two-times-daily indinavir dosing should only be considered in situations characterized by favorable pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. (C) 2000 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.14131973197