Clinical practice guidelines for the foot and ankle in rheumatoid arthritis: a critical appraisal

Background: Clinical practice guidelines are recommendations systematically developed to assist clinical decision-making and inform healthcare. In current rheumatoid arthritis (RA) guidelines, management of the foot and ankle is under-represented and the quality of recommendation is uncertain. This study aimed to identify and critically appraise clinical practice guidelines for foot and ankle management in RA. Methods: Guidelines were identified electronically and through hand searching. Search terms 'rheumatoid arthritis', 'clinical practice guidelines' and related synonyms were used. Critical appraisal and quality rating were conducted using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Results: Twenty-four guidelines were included. Five guidelines were high quality and recommended for use. Five high quality and seven low quality guidelines were recommended for use with modifications. Seven guidelines were low quality and not recommended for use. Five early and twelve established RA guidelines were recommended for use. Only two guidelines were foot and ankle specific. Five recommendation domains were identified in both early and established RA guidelines. These were multidisciplinary team care, foot healthcare access, foot health assessment/review, orthoses/insoles/splints, and therapeutic footwear. Established RA guidelines also had an 'other foot care treatments' domain. Conclusions: Foot and ankle management for RA features in many clinical practice guidelines recommended for use. Unfortunately, supporting evidence in the guidelines is low quality. Agreement levels are predominantly 'expert opinion' or 'good clinical practice'. More research investigating foot and ankle management for RA is needed prior to inclusion in clinical practice guidelines

Bioelectrical impedance phase angle in clinical practice: implications for prognosis in stage IIIB and IV non-small cell lung cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A frequent manifestation of advanced lung cancer is malnutrition, timely identification and treatment of which can lead to improved patient outcomes. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is an easy-to-use and non-invasive technique to evaluate changes in body composition and nutritional status. We investigated the prognostic role of BIA-derived phase angle in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A case series of 165 stages IIIB and IV NSCLC patients treated at our center. The Kaplan Meier method was used to calculate survival. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to evaluate the prognostic effect of phase angle, independent of stage at diagnosis and prior treatment history.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>93 were males and 72 females. 61 had stage IIIB disease at diagnosis while 104 had stage IV. The median phase angle was 5.3 degrees (range = 2.9 – 8). Patients with phase angle <= 5.3 had a median survival of 7.6 months (95% CI: 4.7 to 9.5; n = 81), while those with > 5.3 had 12.4 months (95% CI: 10.5 to 18.7; n = 84); (p = 0.02). After adjusting for age, stage at diagnosis and prior treatment history we found that every one degree increase in phase angle was associated with a relative risk of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.64 to 0.97, P = 0.02).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We found BIA-derived phase angle to be an independent prognostic indicator in patients with stage IIIB and IV NSCLC. Nutritional interventions targeted at improving phase angle could potentially lead to an improved survival in patients with advanced NSCLC.</p

Bioelectrical impedance phase angle as a prognostic indicator in breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is an easy-to-use, non-invasive, and reproducible technique to evaluate changes in body composition and nutritional status. Phase angle, determined by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), detects changes in tissue electrical properties and has been hypothesized to be a marker of malnutrition. Since malnutrition can be found in patients with breast cancer, we investigated the prognostic role of phase angle in breast cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We evaluated a case series of 259 histologically confirmed breast cancer patients treated at Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Kaplan Meier method was used to calculate survival. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to evaluate the prognostic effect of phase angle independent of stage at diagnosis and prior treatment history. Survival was calculated as the time interval between the date of first patient visit to the hospital and the date of death from any cause or date of last contact/last known to be alive.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 259 patients, 81 were newly diagnosed at our hospital while 178 had received prior treatment elsewhere. 56 had stage I disease at diagnosis, 110 had stage II, 46 had stage III and 34 had stage IV. The median age at diagnosis was 49 years (range 25 – 74 years). The median phase angle score was 5.6 (range = 1.5 – 8.9). Patients with phase angle <= 5.6 had a median survival of 23.1 months (95% CI: 14.2 to 31.9; n = 129), while those > 5.6 had 49.9 months (95% CI: 35.6 to 77.8; n = 130); the difference being statistically significant (p = 0.031). Multivariate Cox modeling, after adjusting for stage at diagnosis and prior treatment history found that every one unit increase in phase angle score was associated with a relative risk of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.99, P = 0.041). Stage at diagnosis (p = 0.006) and prior treatment history (p = 0.001) were also predictive of survival independent of each other and phase angle.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study demonstrates that BIA-derived phase angle is an independent prognostic indicator in patients with breast cancer. Nutritional interventions targeted at improving phase angle could potentially lead to an improved survival in patients with breast cancer.</p

Exercise therapy, manual therapy, or both, for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a factorial randomised controlled trial protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-pharmacological, non-surgical interventions are recommended as the first line of treatment for osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee. There is evidence that exercise therapy is effective for reducing pain and improving function in patients with knee OA, some evidence that exercise therapy is effective for hip OA, and early indications that manual therapy may be efficacious for hip and knee OA. There is little evidence as to which approach is more effective, if benefits endure, or if providing these therapies is cost-effective for the management of this disorder. The MOA Trial (Management of OsteoArthritis) aims to test the effectiveness of two physiotherapy interventions for improving disability and pain in adults with hip or knee OA in New Zealand. Specifically, our primary objectives are to investigate whether:</p> <p>1. Exercise therapy versus no exercise therapy improves disability at 12 months;</p> <p>2. Manual physiotherapy versus no manual therapy improves disability at 12 months;</p> <p>3. Providing physiotherapy programmes in addition to usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone in the management of osteoarthritis at 24 months.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial. We plan to recruit 224 participants with hip or knee OA. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to receive either: (a) a supervised multi-modal exercise therapy programme; (b) an individualised manual therapy programme; (c) both exercise therapy and manual therapy; or, (d) no trial physiotherapy. All participants will continue to receive usual medical care. The outcome assessors, orthopaedic surgeons, general medical practitioners, and statistician will be blind to group allocation until the statistical analysis is completed. The trial is funded by Health Research Council of New Zealand Project Grants (Project numbers 07/199, 07/200).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The MOA Trial will be the first to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing physiotherapy programmes of this kind, for the management of pain and disability in adults with hip or knee OA.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ref: ACTRN12608000130369.</p

EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA); Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for protein

This opinion of the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) deals with the setting of Dietary Reference Values (DRVs) for protein. The Panel concludes that a Population Reference Intake (PRI) can be derived from nitrogen balance studies. Several health outcomes possibly associated with protein intake were also considered but data were found to be insufficient to establish DRVs. For healthy adults of both sexes, the average requirement (AR) is 0.66 g protein/kg body weight per day based on nitrogen balance data. Considering the 97.5th percentile of the distribution of the requirement and assuming an efficiency of utilisation of dietary protein for maintenance of 47 %, the PRI for adults of all ages was estimated to be 0.83 g protein/kg body weight per day and is applicable both to high quality protein and to protein in mixed diets. For children from six months onwards, age-dependent requirements for growth estimated from average daily rates of protein deposition and adjusted by a protein efficiency for growth of 58 % were added to the requirement for maintenance of 0.66 g/kg body weight per day. The PRI was estimated based on the average requirement plus 1.96 SD using a combined SD for growth and maintenance.For pregnancy, an intake of 1, 9 and 28 g/d in the first, second and third trimesters, respectively, is proposed in addition to the PRI for non-pregnant women. For lactation, a protein intake of 19 g/d during the first six months, and of 13 g/d after six months, is proposed in addition to the PRI for non-lactating women. Data are insufficient to establish a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for protein. Intakes up to twice the PRI are regularly consumed from mixed diets by some physically active and healthy adults in Europe and are considered safe