Principal component analysis of the relationship between pelvic inclination and lumbar lordosis

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to describe the relationship between pelvic inclination (PI) and lumbar lordosis (LL). Pelvic inclination and pelvic tilt are two different names for the same metric. The geometrical parameters of the spine and pelvis were measured using surface topography scanning, and the data was explored for any physical relationships using principal component analysis. Once widely assumed to be a direct correlation, research in the 1980s first cast doubt upon the PI to LL relationship. And yet, other studies have suggested a relationship does exist. Decades later, the rehabilitation professionals often still rely on this supposed correlation when making decisions about rehabilitation treatment interventions. This theoretical relationship requires further clarification, which is explored herein. Methods Surface topography imaging is a technology that has proven to be a radiation-free way to produce accurate, reliable skeletal alignment measures. Patient data from one physical rehabilitation clinic was collected at the time of initial assessment. Patients presented with a wide range of musculoskeletal complaints. Surface topography scans were performed on 107 patients at the commencement and completion of their therapy. Principal component analysis was performed on the collected data to determine how these spine and pelvic alignment parameters changed between the two points in time and what trends and/or relationships exist between the parameters. Our analysis evaluated eight spinal and pelvic measurements as input and focused on LL and PI as the two principal components at time points of beginning and completion of treatment. Results Pelvic inclination and lumbar lordosis changed during treatment but were not correlated. Conclusion Our data demonstrates that pelvic inclination and lumbar lordosis do not have a predictable relationship as previously assumed

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Alternative Antiviral Strategies for the Treatment of HBeAg-Positive and HBeAg-Negative Chronic Hepatitis B in the United Kingdom

AbstractBackgroundSeven drugs are licensed for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in the United Kingdom. Which initial treatment, secondary therapy, and whether antivirals should be given alone or in combination are questions of considerable uncertainty.ObjectiveThe aim of this model was to undertake a comprehensive economic evaluation of all antiviral treatments for CHB to recommend the most cost-effective therapeutic sequence.MethodsWe developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of all clinically relevant antiviral treatment sequences for nucleos(t)ide-naive adults with hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative CHB. Relative rates of HBeAg seroconversion and viral suppression were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Data on mortality, antiviral drug resistance, durability of response, adverse events, and costs were obtained from published literature. Results are reported in terms of lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and expected net benefit.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, pegylated interferon alpha-2a (peg-IFN α-2a) followed by tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was most effective and cost-effective in HBeAg-positive patients, with a cost of £7488 per QALY gained compared with no treatment. In HBeAg-negative patients, peg-IFN α-2a followed by entecavir was most effective and cost-effective, with a cost of £6981 per QALY gained. The model was robust to a wide range of sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsPeg-IFN α-2a followed by tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or entecavir is the most effective antiviral treatment strategy for people with both variants of CHB. At a cost of less than £10,000 per QALY gained, these sequences are considered cost-effective in England and Wales. The results of this analysis were used to inform 2013 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline recommendations