85 research outputs found

    Prognostic Value of Routinely Measured Inflammatory Biomarkers in Older Cancer Patients: Pooled Analysis of Three Cohorts

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The prognostic assessment of older cancer patients is complicated by their heterogeneity. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of routine inflammatory biomarkers. METHODS: A pooled analysis of prospective multicenter cohorts of cancer patients aged >/=70 was performed. We measured CRP and albumin, and calculated Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and CRP/albumin ratio. The GPS has three levels (0 = CRP /= 35 g/L, i.e., normal values; 1 = one abnormal value; 2 = two abnormal values). One-year mortality was assessed using Cox models. Discriminative power was assessed using Harrell's C index (C) and net reclassification improvement (NRI). RESULTS: Overall, 1800 patients were analyzed (mean age: 79 +/- 6; males: 62%; metastases: 38%). The GPS and CRP/albumin ratio were independently associated with mortality in patients not at risk of frailty (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 4.48 [2.03-9.89] for GPS1, 11.64 [4.54-29.81] for GPS2, and 7.15 [3.22-15.90] for CRP/albumin ratio > 0.215) and in patients at risk of frailty (2.45 [1.79-3.34] for GPS1, 3.97 [2.93-5.37] for GPS2, and 2.81 [2.17-3.65] for CRP/albumin ratio > 0.215). The discriminative power of the baseline clinical model (C = 0.82 [0.80-0.83]) was increased by adding GPS (C = 0.84 [0.82-0.85]; NRI events (NRI+) = 10% [2-16]) and CRP/albumin ratio (C = 0.83 [0.82-0.85]; NRI+ = 14% [2-17]). CONCLUSIONS: Routine inflammatory biomarkers add prognostic value to clinical factors in older cancer patients

    Impact of STROBE Statement Publication on Quality of Observational Study Reporting: Interrupted Time Series versus Before-After Analysis

    Get PDF
    Background:In uncontrolled before-after studies, CONSORT was shown to improve the reporting of randomised trials. Before-after studies ignore underlying secular trends and may overestimate the impact of interventions. Our aim was to assess the impact of the 2007 STROBE statement publication on the quality of observational study reporting, using both uncontrolled before-after analyses and interrupted time series.Methods:For this quasi-experimental study, original articles reporting cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies published between 2004 and 2010 in the four dermatological journals having the highest 5-year impact factors (≥4) were selected. We compared the proportions of STROBE items (STROBE score) adequately reported in each article during three periods, two pre STROBE period (2004-2005 and 2006-2007) and one post STROBE period (2008-2010). Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series was also performed.Results:Of the 456 included articles, 187 (41%) reported cohort studies, 166 (36.4%) cross-sectional studies, and 103 (22.6%) case-control studies. The median STROBE score was 57% (range, 18%-98%). Before-after analysis evidenced significant STROBE score increases between the two pre-STROBE periods and between the earliest pre-STROBE period and the post-STROBE period (median score2004-0548% versus median score2008-1058%, p<0.001) but not between the immediate pre-STROBE period and the post-STROBE period (median score2006-0758% versus median score2008-1058%, p = 0.42). In the pre STROBE period, the six-monthly mean STROBE score increased significantly, by 1.19% per six-month period (absolute increase 95%CI, 0.26% to 2.11%, p = 0.016). By segmented analysis, no significant changes in STROBE score trends occurred (-0.40%; 95%CI, -2.20 to 1.41; p = 0.64) in the post STROBE statement publication.Interpretation:The quality of reports increased over time but was not affected by STROBE. Our findings raise concerns about the relevance of uncontrolled before-after analysis for estimating the impact of guidelines

    Etiologie différentielle de l'angor stable d'effort et du syndrome coronaire aigu en population : étude PRIME

    No full text
    LE KREMLIN-B.- PARIS 11-BU Méd (940432101) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

    Excess deaths during the August 2003 heat wave in Paris, France.: 2003 heat wave excess death risk

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: During the August 2003 heat wave in France, almost 15,000 excess deaths were recorded. Paris was severely affected, with an excess death rate of 141%. This study had two aims: to identify individual factors associated with excess deaths during a heat wave in an urban environment and to describe the spatial distribution of deaths within the French capital. METHODS: The study population included all people who died at home between August 1st and 20th, 2003 (N=961). We identified factors associated with excess deaths by comparing the sociodemographic characteristics of the study population with those of people who died at home during the same period in reference years (2000, 2001, 2002) (N=530). Spatial differences were analysed by calculating comparative mortality rates within Paris during August 2003. Mortality ratio was determined to demonstrate temporal variations in mortality between the heat wave period and reference years. RESULTS: The major factors associated with excess death were: age over 75 years (adjusted OR=1.44 (1.10-1.90), being female (adjusted OR=1.43 (1.11-1.83)), not being married (adjusted OR=1.63 (1.23-2.15)), particularly for men. Being a foreigner appeared to be a protective factor for women. Comparative mortality rates by neighbourhood showed a gradient in excess deaths from North-West to South-East. The mortality ratio was 5.44 (5.10-5.79), with very high rates of excess death in the South (12th, 13th, 14th and 15th "arrondissement"). CONCLUSION: The August 2003 heat wave in Paris was associated with both an exceptional increase in mortality rates and changes in the characteristics of those dying and spatial distribution of mortality. Understanding the effects of a heat wave on mortality can probably be improved by an analysis of risk at two levels: individual and contextual

    Leisure and Productivity in Older Adults with Cancer: A Systematic Review

    No full text
    Introduction. Self-care, leisure, and productivity are important occupational domains for older adults’ quality of life, which might be affected by cancer and its treatment. A great number of publications about older adults focus on function or self-care, so we aimed to analyse how cancer and its treatments affect leisure and productivity. Secondary objectives were to identify whether particular clinical and/or sociodemographic factors were associated with occupational disruptions and to assess the impact of rehabilitation approaches on leisure and productivity in this population. Methods. A systematic review of the 2009-2019 literature performed on Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Results. 1471 publications were retrieved: 48 full texts were assessed; seven of these (four cross-sectional studies, two cohort studies, and a case report) were reviewed, including data on 16668 people (12649 healthy controls, 3918 cancer survivors, and 101 ill patients). Older adults with comorbidities and a low level of activity before cancer diagnosis may be more at risk of occupational disruptions. However, studies focused more on physical activity than leisure and productivity. Two studies mentioned occupational therapy. Discussion. As cancer can become a chronic disease, it appears important to also offer occupation-centred assessments and follow-up. Conclusion. An occupation-centred approach could be developed; its effectiveness must be assessed

    Comparison of Mobility Indices for Predicting Early Death in Older Patients With Cancer: The Physical Frailty in Elderly Cancer Cohort Study

    No full text
    International audienceBackground: To assess and compare the ability of five mobility indices to predict 6-month mortality in older patients with cancer. Methods: All consecutive ambulatory older patients with cancer referred for a geriatric assessment before a cancer treatment decision were included in a prospective two-center cohort study (Physical Frailty in Elderly Cancer) between 2013 and 2017. The mobility indices compared were the short physical performance battery, gait speed, hand grip strength, the one-leg stance balance test, and repeated falls. The primary endpoint was 6-month overall mortality. The adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) for each mobility index was estimated using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for sex, the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics, the body mass index, cancer site/extension, and the provision of supportive care alone. The models' predictive performances were assessed in terms of Harrell's C index, net reclassification improvement, and the standardized net benefit. Results: A total of 603 patients included (mean age: 81.2 ± 6.1 years; women: 54%; metastatic cancer: 45%). In multivariate analyses, an impairment in any of the mobility indices (with the exception of repeated falls) was independently associated with 6-month mortality following a geriatric assessment; the adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI] ranged from 2.35 [1.34-4.13] for the one-leg stance balance (C index: 0.74) to 3.03 [1.93-4.76] for the short physical performance battery (C index: 0.77). For each mobility index, inclusion in the multivariate model improved significantly the latter's prediction of 6-month mortality. Conclusions: Among mobility tests, short physical performance battery had the best discriminative value for predicting 6-month mortality in older patients with cancer

    Frailty Parameters, Morbidity and Mortality in Older Adults with Cancer: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach Based on the Fried Phenotype

    No full text
    International audienceBackground: to distinguish direct and indirect pathways to frailty phenotype, and quantify associations between two frailty components (i.e., sarcopenia and cachexia) regarding mortality and morbidity in older adults with cancer. Methods: all consecutive older outpatients with cancer were included in a prospective two-centre cohort study between 2013 and 2017 and had geriatric assessment. We used the frailty phenotype. Sarcopenia and cachexia were built as latent variables by including observed variables related to physical performances and related to nutrition and inflammation respectively. Structural equation modelling was used to distinguish between direct and indirect effects of the frailty parameters on the risk of death (Model 1) and the risk of morbidity (defined by unplanned hospitalization and/or disability and/or a fall; Model 2). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI) were used to assess the model fit. Results: 603 older outpatients were included (mean age: 81.2 ± 6.1; women: 54%; frailty phenotype: 58%). The 6-month mortality and morbidity rates were 18% and 64%, respectively. The fit was good for both models (RMSEA and CFI = 0.029 [0.017–0.039] and 0.99 for Model 1, and 0.028 [0.017–0.039] and 0.99 for Model 2, respectively). Sarcopenia and cachexia were both directly and significantly associated with 6-month mortality (βsarcopenia = 0.18, p = 0.01; βcachexia = 0.52, p < 0.0001) and morbidity (βsarcopenia = 0.37, p < 0.0001; βcachexia = 0.19, p < 0.02). Conclusions: sarcopenia and cachexia had a direct pathway with 6-month mortality and morbidity in older cancer patients

    Knowledge and use of evidence-based medicine in daily practice by health professionals: a cross-sectional survey

    No full text
    International audienceOBJECTIVES: Healthcare professionals are expected to firmly ground their practice in sound evidence. That implies that they know and use evidence-based medicine (EBM). In this study, our aim was to know how often health professionals actually made use of EBM in their daily practice.DESIGN: A questionnaire survey of healthcare professionals.PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals who attended six university postgraduate courses. 226 answered the questionnaire (144 physicians, 64 nurses and 24 pharmacists; response rate 63.3%).SETTING: 56.5% of respondents worked in hospitals (mostly non-teaching), 25.0% in nursing homes and 10.2% in primary care. All participants were French-speaking and lived in France or Switzerland.MEASURES: Declared degree of knowledge and use of EBM, use of EBM-related information sources.RESULTS: Overall, 14.2% of respondents declared to use EBM regularly in their daily practice and 15.6% declared to use EBM only occasionally. The remaining respondents declared they: knew about EBM but did not use it (33.1%), had just heard about EBM (31.9%) or did not know what EBM is (4.0%). Concerning the use of EBM-related information sources, 83.4% declared to use at least monthly (or more often) clinical guidelines, 47.1% PubMed, 21.3% the Cochrane Library and 6.4% other medical databases.Fewer pharmacists (12%) declared to use EBM in their practice than nurses (22%) or doctors (36%). No difference appeared when analysed by gender, work setting or years after graduation. The most frequent obstacles perceived for the practice of EBM were: lack of general knowledge about EBM, lack of skills for critical appraisal and lack of time.CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of health professionals-with differences between physicians, nurses and pharmacists-declare to regularly use EBM in their professional practice. A larger proportion appears to be interested in EBM but seems to be deterred by their lack of knowledge, skills and personal time

    Effect of Cholinesterase Inhibitors on Mortality in Patients With Dementia: A Systematic Review of Randomized and Nonrandomized Trials

    No full text
    International audienceBackground and objectives: Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) have cardiovascular effects in addition to their neurological activity and might alter mortality. We wanted to know if treatment with ChEIs modifies mortality in patients with dementia. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICRTP, from their inception to November 2021, and screened bibliographies of reviews, guidelines and included studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies at lower risk of bias comparing ChEI treatment with placebo or usual treatment, for 6 months or longer, in patients with dementia of any type. Two investigators independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data, using predefined forms. Any discordance between investigators was solved by discussion and consensus. Data on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, measured as either crude death rates or multivariate adjusted hazard ratios (HR), was pooled using a random-effect model. Information size achieved was assessed using trial sequential analysis (TSA). We followed PRISMA guidelines. Results: 24 studies (12 RCTs, 12 cohorts, mean follow-up 6 to 120 months), cumulating 79 153 patients with Alzheimer’s (13 studies), Parkinson’s (1), vascular (1) or any type (9) dementia, fulfilled inclusion criteria. Pooled all-cause mortality in control patients was 15.1 per 100 person-years. Treatment with ChEIs was associated with lower all-cause mortality (unadjusted RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.66 – 0.84; adjusted HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.70 – 0.84, moderate to high quality evidence). This result was consistent between randomized and non-randomized studies and in several sensitivity analyses. No difference appeared between subgroups by type of dementia, age, individual drug or dementia severity. Less data was available for cardiovascular mortality (3 RCTs, 2 cohorts, 9 182 patients, low to moderate quality evidence), which was also lower in patients treated with ChEIs (unadjusted RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.40 – 0.93, adjusted HR 0.47, 95%CI 0.32 – 0.68). In TSA analysis, results for all-cause mortality were conclusive, but not those for cardiovascular mortality. Discussion: There is moderate to high quality evidence of a consistent association between long-term treatment with ChEIs and a reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with dementia. These findings may influence decisions to prescribe ChEIs in those patients. Trial Registration Information: This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews with the number CRD42021254458 (11/06/2021)
    corecore