14 research outputs found

    Patients de plus de 65 ans à risque de sarcopénie en médecine générale (protocole de l'étude PRESAME, une étude épidémiologique en Auvergne)

    No full text
    La sarcopénie est une pathologie fréquente, souvent sous-évaluée, et source d'une surmorbidité (chute, fracture) avec un important retentissement médico-économique (complications de décubitus, perte d'autonomie, hospitalisation, institutionnalisation...). Il n'existe pas de donnée dans la littérature concernant la prévalence de la sarcopénie en médecine générale. L'objectif de cette étude est d'évaluer le risque de sarcopénie chez les patients de plus de 65 ans en médecine générale. L'étude PRESAME (Patients à RisquE de SArcopénie en Médecine GénéralE), est une étude multicentrique, transversale dans un premier temps puis prospective de suivi de cohorte à un an. Les patients de plus de 65 ans seront recrutés à l'occasion d'une consultation. Neuf cent soixante patients seront inclus après tirage au sort dans 40 cabinets de médecins généralistes (MG), Maître de stage des universités (MSU) d'Auvergne. Le critère d'évaluation principal est le risque de sarcopénie (moyen ou élevé) défini par The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Les critères secondaires sont la force de préhension déterminée à l'aide d'un dynamomètre (Jamar) au cours de la première visite puis à 1 an ainsi que la recherche d'un profil type de patients à risque. Après formation des MG et de leurs internes investigateurs, la phase d'inclusion se déroulera sur 3 mois avec réalisation des tests (SPPB et Jamar) et remplissage d'un questionnaire médical. Les tests fonctionnels et un questionnaire d'évaluation du devenir des patients seront faits au 12e mois. Les tests simples doivent permettre d'évaluer le risque de sarcopénie en médecine générale chez les plus de 65 ans afin de sensibiliser les praticiens libéraux au dépistage et d'en améliorer la prévention et la prise en charge.CLERMONT FD-BCIU-Santé (631132104) / SudocSudocFranceF

    Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections in infants and children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    No full text
    International audiencePurpose: Acute upper respiratory tract infections are the most common infections in infants and children. Saline nasal irrigation (SNI) is widely prescribed and recommended. We conducted a systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of SNI in infants and children with acute rhinopharyngitis.Methods: We searched CENTRAL, Medline, Embase and clinicalTrials.gov. Two authors selected randomized control trials (RCTs), including infants ≥3 months and children ≤12 years, comparing the use of isotonic saline solutions, whatever their mode of administration, with one therapeutic abstention, or a therapy deemed less important for nasal lavage. Trial quality was assessed independently by two authors, who, with a third author, extracted and analysed data. Statistical analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. The standard difference in means (SMD) between groups and its 95% confidence interval were estimated.Results: Four RCTs (569 participants) were included. The analysis showed a benefit of SNI for certain clinical rhinological symptoms (SMD = -0.29 [-0.45; -0.13]) but no significant improvement of respiratory symptoms (SMD = -0.19 [-0.70; 1.08]) or health status (SMD = -0.30 [-0.68; 0.07]). Its use appeared to limit the prescription of other treatments, whether local or systemic, and particularly antibiotics. Long-term use led to a decrease in the incidence of acute rhinosinusitis and its complications. SNI appeared to be a safe treatment.Conclusions: SNI is beneficial for rhinological symptoms but not respiratory symptoms. Further research is needed to address the full benefits/risks of this treatment

    Trends of influenza vaccination coverage in pregnant women: a ten-year analysis from a French healthcare database

    No full text
    International audienceAbstract Pregnant women have a high risk of severe influenza, associated with obstetrical complications. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended influenza vaccination for all pregnant women since 2012. The vaccination coverage remains low worldwide, and in Europe, due to a lack of proposition from the health care providers, and a high refusal rate from the women. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the influenza vaccination coverage (IVC) in a population of pregnant women in France, and to analyse its evolution from 2009 to 2018. The secondary objective was to describe the vaccinated population and to find determinants associated with the vaccination. This retrospective cohort study is based on the EGB French health care database, a representative sample of the French population containing data from the health insurance system. All pregnant women who delivered medically or spontaneously over the 2009–2018 period were included. In the 2009–2018 period, only 1.2% pregnant women were vaccinated against influenza (n = 875/72,207; 95% CI 1.14–1.30). The IVC slightly increased after the 2012 WHO recommendation, from 0.33 to 1.79% (p < 0.001) but remained extremely low (4.1% in 2018). Women younger than 25 years old had a low coverage (0.6%) whereas women over 35 years old were more likely to get the influenza vaccine (1.7%; OR: 2.82, 95% CI 2.14–3.71). The vaccination behavior was not influenced by multifetal pregnancy or parity, but socio-economically deprived women were less likely to be vaccinated (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67–0.98). Women with pre-existing medical conditions had an overall higher vaccination rate (2.5%; OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.94–2.77). The vaccine was mainly prescribed by family physicians (58%). Influenza vaccination in pregnant women in France remains very low, particularly in younger, healthy women, and measures such as information campaigns towards pregnant women and studies of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the health care professionals need to be undertaken to improve the coverage

    Identification of Responders to Balneotherapy among Adults over 60 Years of Age with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study with Trajectory Model Analysis

    No full text
    Balneotherapy may be a relevant treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP) in individuals > 60 years old. This pilot study aimed to determine the effectiveness of balneotherapy for chronic LBP in people > 60 years old and to determine profiles of responders with trajectory model analysis. This was a pilot prospective open cohort study, with repeated measurements using validated questionnaires; participants were their own controls. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with a change in pain intensity between the start of treatment and 3 months after treatment assessed with a numeric scale (NS) from 0 to 100 mm, with an effect size (ES) > 0.5. The assessments involved questionnaires that were self-administered on days (D) 1 and 21 and at months 3 and 6. The secondary objective was to determine the profile of responders to balneotherapy. We included 78 patients (69.2% women), mean age 68.3 ± 5.3 years. The mean pain score on the NS was 48.8 ± 19.9 at D1 and 39.1 ± 20.5 at 3 months (p 0.5; 23% (18/78) had a moderate ES (0 to 0.5); and 41% (32/78) had an ES of zero (14/78) or < 0 (18/78), corresponding to increased pain intensity. The pain trajectory model showed that the change in pain between D1 and D21 for trajectory A (larger reduction in pain intensity) was −50% [95% CI −60 to −27], and for trajectory B (smaller reduction in pain intensity), it was −13% [−33 to 0] (p < 0.001). Between Day 1 and month 3, the change for trajectory A was −33% [−54; 0] and for trajectory B was −13% [−40 to 0] (p = 0.14). Finally, between D1 and month 6, the change for trajectory A was −50% [−60 to 0] and for trajectory B was −6% [−33 to 17] (p = 0.007). The patients in trajectory A reported performing more physical activity than those in trajectory B (p = 0.04). They were also less disabled, with a mean Oswestry Disability Index of 40.4 versus 45.7 for those in trajectory A and B, respectively, (p = 0.03) and had a higher total Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale score. This real-life study of the effectiveness of balneotherapy on chronic LBP identified distinct pain trajectories and predictive variables for responders. These criteria could be used in decision-making regarding the prescription of balneotherapy, to ensure personalized management of chronic LBP

    Identification of Responders to Balneotherapy among Adults over 60 Years of Age with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study with Trajectory Model Analysis

    No full text
    Balneotherapy may be a relevant treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP) in individuals &gt; 60 years old. This pilot study aimed to determine the effectiveness of balneotherapy for chronic LBP in people &gt; 60 years old and to determine profiles of responders with trajectory model analysis. This was a pilot prospective open cohort study, with repeated measurements using validated questionnaires; participants were their own controls. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with a change in pain intensity between the start of treatment and 3 months after treatment assessed with a numeric scale (NS) from 0 to 100 mm, with an effect size (ES) &gt; 0.5. The assessments involved questionnaires that were self-administered on days (D) 1 and 21 and at months 3 and 6. The secondary objective was to determine the profile of responders to balneotherapy. We included 78 patients (69.2% women), mean age 68.3 &plusmn; 5.3 years. The mean pain score on the NS was 48.8 &plusmn; 19.9 at D1 and 39.1 &plusmn; 20.5 at 3 months (p &lt; 0.001). The ES was 0.47 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 0.69] for the whole sample; 36% (28/78) had an ES &gt; 0.5; 23% (18/78) had a moderate ES (0 to 0.5); and 41% (32/78) had an ES of zero (14/78) or &lt; 0 (18/78), corresponding to increased pain intensity. The pain trajectory model showed that the change in pain between D1 and D21 for trajectory A (larger reduction in pain intensity) was &minus;50% [95% CI &minus;60 to &minus;27], and for trajectory B (smaller reduction in pain intensity), it was &minus;13% [&minus;33 to 0] (p &lt; 0.001). Between Day 1 and month 3, the change for trajectory A was &minus;33% [&minus;54; 0] and for trajectory B was &minus;13% [&minus;40 to 0] (p = 0.14). Finally, between D1 and month 6, the change for trajectory A was &minus;50% [&minus;60 to 0] and for trajectory B was &minus;6% [&minus;33 to 17] (p = 0.007). The patients in trajectory A reported performing more physical activity than those in trajectory B (p = 0.04). They were also less disabled, with a mean Oswestry Disability Index of 40.4 versus 45.7 for those in trajectory A and B, respectively, (p = 0.03) and had a higher total Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale score. This real-life study of the effectiveness of balneotherapy on chronic LBP identified distinct pain trajectories and predictive variables for responders. These criteria could be used in decision-making regarding the prescription of balneotherapy, to ensure personalized management of chronic LBP

    Cannabis and young users- a brief intervention to reduce their consumption (CANABIC): a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care.

    No full text
    PURPOSE: Brief intervention to reduce cannabis is a promising technique that could be adapted for use in primary care, but it has not been well studied in this setting. We tested the efficacy of a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners among cannabis users aged 15 to 25 years. METHODS: We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with 77 general practitioners in France. The intervention consisted of an interview designed according to the FRAMES (feedback, responsibility, advice, menu, empathy, self-efficacy) model, while the control condition consisted of routine care. RESULTS: The general practitioners screened and followed up 261 young cannabis users. After 1 year, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the median number of joints smoked per month among all users (17.5 vs 17.5; P = .13), but there was a difference in favor of the intervention among nondaily users (3 vs 10; P = .01). After 6 months, the intervention was associated with a more favorable change from baseline in the number of joints smoked (-33.3% vs 0%, P = .01) and, among users younger than age of 18, smoking of fewer joints per month (12.5 vs 20, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners with French young cannabis users does not affect use overall. They do, however, strongly support use of brief intervention for younger users and for moderate users
    corecore