Coffee bean extracts rich and poor in kahweol both give rise to elevation of liver enzymes in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND: Coffee oil potently raises serum cholesterol levels in humans. The diterpenes cafestol and kahweol are responsible for this elevation. Coffee oil also causes elevation of liver enzyme levels in serum. It has been suggested that cafestol is mainly responsible for the effect on serum cholesterol levels and that kahweol is mainly responsible for the effect on liver enzyme levels. The objective of this study was to investigate whether coffee oil that only contains a minute amount of kahweol indeed does not cause elevation of liver enzyme levels. METHODS: The response of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALAT) and aspartate aminotransferase (ASAT) to Robusta coffee oil (62 mg/day cafestol, 1.6 mg/day kahweol) was measured in 18 healthy volunteers. RESULTS: After nine days one subject was taken off Robusta oil treatment due to an ALAT level of 3.6 times the upper limit of normal (ULN). Another two subjects stopped treatment due to other reasons. After 16 days another two subjects were taken off Robusta oil treatment. One of those subjects had levels of 5.8 ULN for ALAT and 2.0 ULN for ASAT; the other subject had an ALAT level of 12.4 ULN and an ASAT level of 4.7 ULN. It was then decided to terminate the study. The median response of subjects to Robusta oil after 16 days was 0.27 ULN (n = 15, 25(th),75(th )percentile: 0.09;0.53) for ALAT and 0.06 ULN (25(th),75(th )percentile -0.06;0.22) for ASAT. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the effect on liver enzyme levels of coffee oil containing hardly any kahweol is similar to that of coffee oil containing high amounts of kahweol. Therefore it is unlikely that kahweol is the component of coffee oil that is responsible for the effect. Furthermore, we conclude that otherwise unexplained elevation of liver enzyme levels observed in patients might be caused by a switch from consumption of filtered coffee to unfiltered coffee

The acceptability of waiting times for elective general surgery and the appropriateness of prioritising patients

BACKGROUND: Problematic waiting lists in public health care threaten the equity and timeliness of care provision in several countries. This study assesses different stakeholders' views on the acceptability of waiting lists in health care, their preferences for priority care of patients, and their judgements on acceptable waiting times for surgical patients. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted among 257 former patients (82 with varicose veins, 86 with inguinal hernia, and 89 with gallstones), 101 surgeons, 95 occupational physicians, and 65 GPs. Judgements on acceptable waiting times were assessed using vignettes of patients with varicose veins, inguinal hernia, and gallstones. RESULTS: Participants endorsed the prioritisation of patients based on clinical need, but not on ability to benefit. The groups had significantly different opinions (p < 0.05) on the use of non-clinical priority criteria and on the need for uniformity in the prioritisation process. Acceptable waiting times ranged between 2 and 25 weeks depending on the type of disorder (p < 0.001) and the severity of physical and psychosocial problems of patients (p < 0.001). Judgements were similar between the survey groups (p = 0.3) but responses varied considerably within each group depending on the individual's attitude towards waiting lists in health care (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The explicit prioritisation of patients seems an accepted means for reducing the overall burden from waiting lists. The disagreement about appropriate prioritisation criteria and the need for uniformity, however, raises concern about equity when implementing prioritisation in daily practice. Single factor waiting time thresholds seem insufficient for securing timely care provision in the presence of long waiting lists as they do not account for the different consequences of waiting between patients

Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee arthroplasties and cataract surgery: Instruments validation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prioritisation instruments were developed for patients on waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasties (AI) and cataract surgery (CI). The aim of the study was to assess their convergent and discriminant validity and inter-observer reliability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Multicentre validation study which included orthopaedic surgeons and ophthalmologists from 10 hospitals. Participating doctors were asked to include all eligible patients placed in the waiting list for the procedures under study during the medical visit. Doctors assessed patients' priority through a visual analogue scale (VAS) and administered the prioritisation instrument. Information on socio-demographic data and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (HUI3, EQ-5D, WOMAC and VF-14) was obtained through a telephone interview with patients. The correlation coefficients between the prioritisation instrument score and VAS and HRQOL were calculated. For the reliability study a self-administered questionnaire, which included hypothetic patients' scenarios, was sent via postal mail to the doctors. The priority of these scenarios was assessed through the prioritisation instrument. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between doctors was calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Correlations with VAS were strong for the AI (0.64, CI95%: 0.59–0.68) and for the CI (0.65, CI95%: 0.62–0.69), and moderate between the WOMAC and the AI (0.39, CI95%: 0.33–0.45) and the VF-14 and the CI (0.38, IC95%: 0.33–0.43). The results of the discriminant analysis were in general as expected. Inter-observer reliability was 0.79 (CI95%: 0.64–0.94) for the AI, and 0.79 (CI95%: 0.63–0.95) for the CI.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results show acceptable validity and reliability of the prioritisation instruments in establishing priority for surgery.</p

Health state utilities associated with attributes of treatments for hepatitis C

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analyses are frequently conducted to compare treatments for hepatitis C, which are often associated with complex regimens and serious adverse events. Thus, the purpose of this study was to estimate the utility associated with treatment administration and adverse events of hepatitis C treatments. DESIGN: Health states were drafted based on literature review and clinician interviews. General population participants in the UK valued the health states in time trade-off (TTO) interviews with 10- and 1-year time horizons. The 14 health states described hepatitis C with variations in treatment regimen and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 182 participants completed interviews (50 % female; mean age = 39.3 years). Utilities for health states describing treatment regimens without injections ranged from 0.80 (1 tablet) to 0.79 (7 tablets). Utilities for health states describing oral plus injectable regimens were 0.77 (7 tablets), 0.75 (12 tablets), and 0.71 (18 tablets). Addition of a weekly injection had a disutility of −0.02. A requirement to take medication with fatty food had a disutility of −0.04. Adverse events were associated with substantial disutilities: mild anemia, −0.12; severe anemia, −0.32; flu-like symptoms, −0.21; mild rash, −0.13; severe rash, −0.48; depression, −0.47. One-year TTO scores were similar to these 10-year values. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events and greater treatment regimen complexity were associated with lower utility scores, suggesting a perceived decrease in quality of life beyond the impact of hepatitis C. The resulting utilities may be used in models estimating and comparing the value of treatments for hepatitis C. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0649-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia have lower aortic valve area and higher levels of inflammatory biomarkers

Background: Reduction of the aortic valve area (AVA) may lead to aortic valve stenosis with considerable impact on morbidity and mortality if not identified and treated. Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and also inflammatory biomarkers, including platelet derived biomarkers, have been considered risk factor for aortic stenosis; however, the association between Lp(a), inflammatory biomarkers and AVA among patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is not clear. Objective: We aimed to investigate the relation between concentration of Lp(a), measurements of the aortic valve including velocities and valve area and circulating inflammatory biomarkers in adult FH subjects and controls. Methods: In this cross-sectional study aortic valve measures were examined by cardiac ultrasound and inflammatory markers were analyzed in non-fasting blood samples. The study participants were 64 FH subjects with high (n = 29) or low (n = 35) Lp(a), and 14 healthy controls. Results: Aortic valve peak velocity was higher (p = 0.02), and AVA was lower (p = 0.04) in the FH patients compared to controls; however, when performing multivariable linear regression, there were no significant differences. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the high and low FH Lp(a) groups regarding the aortic valve. FH subjects had higher levels of platelet-derived markers CD40L, PF4, NAP2 and RANTES compared to controls (0.003 ≤ P ≤ 0.03). This result persisted after multiple linear regression. Conclusions: Middle-aged, intensively treated FH subjects have higher aortic valve velocity, lower AVA, and higher levels of the platelet-derived markers CD40L, PF4, NAP2 and RANTES compared to healthy control subjects. The aortic valve findings were not significant after multiple linear regression, whereas the higher levels of platelet-derived markers were maintained