A Validation Study of a Noninvasive Lactate Threshold Device

International Journal of Exercise Science 12(2): 221-232, 2019. The lactate threshold is considered a key marker of endurance exercise performance and identification of this threshold is important in writing an exercise training program. Unfortunately, assessment of the lactate threshold has traditionally required venous or capillary blood samples and a specialized meter to assess blood lactate concentrations. Recently, a consumer grade, non-invasive device was developed to determine muscle oxygenation and estimate the lactate threshold. Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the validity of a noninvasive lactate threshold device (NID) to determine lactate threshold heart rate (LTHR). Methods: Twenty-one recreational athletes (14 females, 39 ± 7 years, 29.1 ± 5.2% fat, 37.8 ± 6.0 ml·kg-1·min-1; 7 males, 42 ± 9 years, 16.8 ± 2.2% fat, 45.9 ± 6.4 ml·kg-1·min-1) completed a personalized graded exercise test on a treadmill. All participants wore the NID and blood lactate samples were taken at the end of 3-minute stages. LTHR was then calculated using two traditional methods (4 mmol/L and \u3e1 mmol/L increase) and compared against the same heart rate values calculated by the NID. Results: No significant differences (p = .87) were found in LTHR between the NID and the traditional lactate methods (NID: 167 ± 9 bpm, 4 mmol/L: 167 ± 12 bpm, \u3e1 mmol/L: 167 ± 12 bpm). Conclusions: This study provides preliminary support for the validity of the NID for estimation of LTHR

The relationship of female physical attractiveness to body fatness

Funding This work was supported by NSFC grant 91431102 from the National Science Foundation of China. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Acknowledgements We are grateful to all the participants from all the countries and all the members of Molecular Energetics Group for their help on the investigation and discussion of the results.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Different impacts of resources on opposite sex ratings of physical attractiveness by males and females

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC grant 91431102) and International Cooperation Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (GJHZ1660). John R. Speakman was supported by the 1000 talents program of the Chinese government and a Wolfson merit award from the Royal Society. Guanlin Wang was awarded by the UCAS-UoA dual degree PhD training Program.Peer reviewedPostprin

Does Type of Tumor Histology Impact Survival among Patients with Stage IIIB/IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with First-Line Doublet Chemotherapy?

Chemotherapy regimens may have differential efficacy by histology in nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We examined the impact of histology on survival of patients (N = 2,644) with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC who received first-line cisplatin/carboplatin plus gemcitabine (C/C+G) and cisplatin/carboplatin plus a taxane (C/C+T) identified retrospectively in the SEER cancer registry (1997–2002). Patients with squamous and nonsquamous cell carcinoma survived 8.5 months and 8.1 months, respectively (P = .018). No statistically significant difference was observed in survival between C/C+G and C/C+T in both histologies. Adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics, the effect of treatment regimen on survival did not differ by histology (P for interaction = .257). There was no statistically significant difference in hazard of death by histology in both groups. These results contrast the predictive role of histology and improved survival outcomes observed for cisplatin-pemetrexed regimens in advanced nonsquamous NSCLC

Experimental designs for phase I and phase I/II dose-finding studies

We review the rationale behind the statistical design of dose-finding studies as used in phase I and phase I/II clinical trials. We underline what the objectives of such dose-finding studies should be and why the widely used standard design fails to meet any of these objectives. The standard design is a ‘memoryless' design and we discuss how this impacts on practical behaviour. Designs introduced over the last two decades can be viewed as designs with memory and we discuss how these designs are superior to memoryless designs. By superior we mean that they require less patients overall, less patients to attain the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and concentrate a higher percentage of patients at and near to the MTD. We reanalyse some recently published studies in order to provide support to our contention that markedly better results could have been achieved had a design with memory been used instead of a memoryless design

Safety and Feasibility of Minimally Invasive Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection in Patients With Melanoma (SAFE-MILND): Report of a Prospective Multi-institutional Trial.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive inguinal lymph node dissection (MILND) is a novel approach to inguinal lymphadenectomy. SAFE-MILND (NCT01500304) is a multicenter, phase I/II clinical trial evaluating the safety and feasibility of MILND for patients with melanoma in a group of surgeons newly adopting the procedure. METHODS: Twelve melanoma surgeons from 10 institutions without any previous MILND experience, enrolled patients into a prospective study after completing specialized training including didactic lectures, participating in a hands-on cadaveric laboratory, and being provided an instructional DVD of the procedure. Complications and adverse postoperative events were graded using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients underwent a MILND. Seventy-seven cases (88.5%) were completed via a minimally invasive approach. The median total inguinal lymph nodes pathologically examined (SLN + MILND) was 12.0 (interquartile range 8.0, 14.0). Overall, 71% of patients suffered an adverse event (AE); the majority of these were grades 1 and 2, with 26% of patients experiencing a grade 3 AE. No grade 4 or 5 AEs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: After a structured training program, high-volume melanoma surgeons adopted a novel surgical technique with a lymph node retrieval rate that met or exceeded current oncologic guidelines and published benchmarks, and a favorable morbidity profile

Cost of antipsychotic polypharmacy in the treatment of schizophrenia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study compared the costs of antipsychotic polypharmacy for patients who initiated on 1 of the 3 most commonly prescribed atypical antipsychotics – olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were drawn from a large, prospective, naturalistic, multi-site, nonrandomized study of treatment for schizophrenia in the United States conducted between July 1997 and September 2003. Participants who were initiated on olanzapine (N = 405), quetiapine (N = 115), or risperidone (N = 276) were followed for 1 year post initiation and compared on: (a) average daily cost of the index antipsychotic while on the index antipsychotic, (b) average daily cost of the coprescribed antipsychotics while on the index antipsychotic, (c) average daily cost of the index antipsychotic and the coprescribed antipsychotics while on the index antipsychotic, (d) total annual cost of antipsychotic medications prescribed in the year following initiation on the index antipsychotic, using propensity score-adjusted bootstrap resampling method. Average daily antipsychotic costs and total annual antipsychotic costs were also estimated using more recent (2004) antipsychotic drug prices.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>During the 1 year following initiation on the index antipsychotic, the total average daily cost of the index antipsychotic was higher for quetiapine ($15.33) than olanzapine ($13.90, p < .05) and risperidone ($11.04, p < .01), although the average daily cost of the index antipsychotic was higher for olanzapine ($10.08) than risperidone ($6.74, p < .01) or quetiapine ($6.63, p < .01). Lower total average daily costs were observed in risperidone than olanzapine or quetiapine. Significantly lower average daily cost of concomitant antipsychotic medications for olanzapine ($3.82) compared to quetiapine ($8.70, p < .01) or risperidone-initiated patients ($4.30, p < .01) contributed to the lower average daily cost of all antipsychotic medication for olanzapine-initiated patients. Each dollar spent on the index antipsychotic was accompanied by spending an additional$1.31 on concomitant antipsychotics for quetiapine compared to $0.64 for risperidone and$0.38 for olanzapine-initiated patients. A separate intent-to-treat analysis of the total annual antipsychotic cost found a significantly higher total annual antipsychotic cost for quetiapine-initiated patients ($5320) compared to olanzapine ($4536, p < .01) or risperidone ($3813, p < .01).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Prevalent antipsychotic polypharmacy adds substantial cost to the treatment of schizophrenia. Comparison of medication costs need to address the costs of all antipsychotics. A better understanding of concomitant antipsychotic costs provides a more accurate portrayal of antipsychotic medication costs in the treatment of schizophrenia.</p

Time to discontinuation of atypical versus typical antipsychotics in the naturalistic treatment of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate over whether atypical antipsychotics are more effective than typical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. This naturalistic study compares atypical and typical antipsychotics on time to all-cause medication discontinuation, a recognized index of medication effectiveness in the treatment of schizophrenia. METHODS: We used data from a large, 3-year, observational, non-randomized, multisite study of schizophrenia, conducted in the U.S. between 7/1997 and 9/2003. Patients who were initiated on oral atypical antipsychotics (clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or ziprasidone) or oral typical antipsychotics (low, medium, or high potency) were compared on time to all-cause medication discontinuation for 1 year following initiation. Treatment group comparisons were based on treatment episodes using 3 statistical approaches (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox Proportional Hazards regression model, and propensity score-adjusted bootstrap resampling methods). To further assess the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analyses were performed, including the use of (a) only 1 medication episode for each patient, the one with which the patient was treated first, and (b) all medication episodes, including those simultaneously initiated on more than 1 antipsychotic. RESULTS: Mean time to all-cause medication discontinuation was longer on atypical (N = 1132, 256.3 days) compared to typical antipsychotics (N = 534, 197.2 days; p < .01), and longer on atypicals compared to typicals of high potency (N = 320, 187.5 days; p < .01), medium potency (N = 140, 213.5 days; p < .01), and low potency (N = 74, 208.7 days; p < .01). Among the atypicals, only clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone had significantly longer time to all-cause medication discontinuation compared to typicals, regardless of potency level, and compared to haloperidol with prophylactic anticholinergic treatment. When compared to perphenazine, a medium-potency typical antipsychotic, only clozapine and olanzapine had a consistently and significantly longer time to all-cause medication discontinuation. Results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In the usual care of schizophrenia patients, time to medication discontinuation for any cause appears significantly longer for atypical than typical antipsychotics regardless of the typical antipsychotic potency level. Findings were primarily driven by clozapine and olanzapine, and to a lesser extent by risperidone. Furthermore, only clozapine and olanzapine therapy showed consistently and significantly longer treatment duration compared to perphenazine, a medium-potency typical antipsychotic