Neurological Features and Enzyme Therapy in Patients With Endocrine and Exocrine Pancreas Dysfunction Due to CEL Mutations

OBJECTIVE—To further define clinical features associated with the syndrome of diabetes and pancreatic exocrine dysfunction due to mutations in the carboxyl-ester lipase (CEL) gene and to assess the effects of pancreatic enzyme substitution therapy

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Urea for ruminants

Urea supplementation to feed for ruminants provides non-protein nitrogen for microbial protein synthesis in the rumen and thus in part replaces other dietary protein sources. Urea supplementation of feed for ruminants at doses up to 1 % of complete feed DM (corresponding to 0.3 g/kg bw/day) is considered safe when given to animals with a well adapted ruminal microbiota and fed diets rich in easily digestible carbohydrates. Based on the metabolic fate of urea in ruminants, the use of urea in ruminant nutrition does not raise any concern for consumers\u2019 safety. Urea is considered to be non irritant to skin and eyes and its topical use suggests that it is not a dermal sensitiser. The risk of exposure by inhalation would be low. The substitution of protein by urea in well balanced feed for ruminants would not result in an increased environmental nitrogen load. Urea is an effective source of non-protein nitrogen substituting for dietary protein in ruminants

Responsibility for managing musculoskeletal disorders – A cross-sectional postal survey of attitudes

Background: Musculoskeletal disorders are a major burden on individuals, health systems and social care systems and rehabilitation efforts in these disorders are considerable. Self-care is often considered a cost effective treatment alternative owing to limited health care resources. But what are the expectations and attitudes in this question in the general population? The purpose of this study was to describe general attitudes to responsibility for the management of musculoskeletal disorders and to explore associations between attitudes and background variables. Methods: A cross-sectional, postal questionnaire survey was carried out with a random sample of a general adult Swedish population of 1770 persons. Sixty-one percent (n = 1082) responded to the questionnaire and was included for the description of general attitudes towards responsibility for the management of musculoskeletal disorders. For the further analyses of associations to background variables 683–693 individuals could be included. Attitudes were measured by the "Attitudes regarding Responsibility for Musculoskeletal disorders" (ARM) instrument, where responsibility is attributed on four dimensions; to myself, as being out of my hands, to employers or to (medical) professionals. Multiple logistic regression was used to explore associations between attitudes to musculoskeletal disorders and the background variables age, sex, education, physical activity, presence of musculoskeletal disorders, sick leave and whether the person had visited a care provider. Results: A majority of participants had internal views, i.e. showed an attitude of taking personal responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders, and did not place responsibility for the management out of their own hands or to employers. However, attributing shared responsibility between self and medical professionals was also found.The main associations found between attitude towards responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders and investigated background variables were that physical inactivity (OR 2.92–9.20), musculoskeletal disorder related sick leave (OR 2.31–3.07) and no education beyond the compulsory level (OR 3.12–4.76) increased the odds of attributing responsibility externally, i.e placing responsibility on someone or something else.Conclusion: Respondents in this study mainly saw themselves as responsible for managing musculoskeletal disorders. The associated background variables refined this finding and one conclusion is that, to optimise outcome when planning the prevention, treatment and management of these disorders, people's attitudes should be taken into account

How primary health care physicians make sick listing decisions: The impact of medical factors and functioning

Abstract Background The decision to issue sickness certification in Sweden for a patient should be based on the physician's assessment of the reduction of the patient's work capacity due to a disease or injury, not on psychosocial factors, in spite of the fact that they are known as risk factors for sickness absence. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of medical factors and functioning on sick listing probability. Methods Four hundred and seventy-four patient-physician consultations, where sick listing could be an option, in general practice in Örebro county, central Sweden, were documented using physician and patient questionnaires. Information sought was the physicians' assessments of causes and consequences of the patients' complaints, potential to recover, diagnoses and prescriptions on sick leave, and the patients' view of their family and work situation and functioning as well as data on the patients' former and present health situation. The outcome measure was whether or not a sickness certificate was issued. Multivariate analyses were performed. Results Complaints entirely or mainly somatic as assessed by the physician decreased the risk of sick listing, and complaints resulting in severe limitation of occupational work capacity, as assessed by the patient as well as the physician, increased the risk of sick listing, as did appointments for locomotor complaints. The results for patients with infectious diseases or musculoskeletal diseases were partly similar to those for all diseases. Conclusion The strongest predictors for sickness certification were patient's and GP's assessment of reduced work capacity, with a striking concordance between physician and patient on this assessment. When patient's complaints were judged to be non-somatic the risk of sickness certification was enhanced.</p

Designing a workplace return-to-work program for occupational low back pain: an intervention mapping approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite over 2 decades of research, the ability to prevent work-related low back pain (LBP) and disability remains elusive. Recent research suggests that interventions that are focused at the workplace and incorporate the principals of <it>participatory ergonomics </it>and return-to-work (RTW) coordination can improve RTW and reduce disability following a work-related back injury. Workplace interventions or programs to improve RTW are difficult to design and implement given the various individuals and environments involved, each with their own unique circumstances. Intervention mapping provides a framework for designing and implementing complex interventions or programs. The objective of this study is to design a best evidence RTW program for occupational LBP tailored to the Ontario setting using an intervention mapping approach.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used a qualitative synthesis based on the intervention mapping methodology. Best evidence from systematic reviews, practice guidelines and key articles on the prognosis and management of LBP and improving RTW was combined with theoretical models for managing LBP and changing behaviour. This was then systematically operationalized into a RTW program using consensus among experts and stakeholders. The RTW Program was further refined following feedback from nine focus groups with various stakeholders.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A detailed five step RTW program was developed. The key features of the program include; having trained personnel coordinate the RTW process, identifying and ranking barriers and solutions to RTW from the perspective of all important stakeholders, mediating practical solutions at the workplace and, empowering the injured worker in RTW decision-making.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Intervention mapping provided a useful framework to develop a comprehensive RTW program tailored to the Ontario setting.</p

The Biomolecular Interaction Network Database and related tools 2005 update

The Biomolecular Interaction Network Database (BIND) (http://bind.ca) archives biomolecular interaction, reaction, complex and pathway information. Our aim is to curate the details about molecular interactions that arise from published experimental research and to provide this information, as well as tools to enable data analysis, freely to researchers worldwide. BIND data are curated into a comprehensive machine-readable archive of computable information and provides users with methods to discover interactions and molecular mechanisms. BIND has worked to develop new methods for visualization that amplify the underlying annotation of genes and proteins to facilitate the study of molecular interaction networks. BIND has maintained an open database policy since its inception in 1999. Data growth has proceeded at a tremendous rate, approaching over 100 000 records. New services provided include a new BIND Query and Submission interface, a Standard Object Access Protocol service and the Small Molecule Interaction Database (http://smid.blueprint.org) that allows users to determine probable small molecule binding sites of new sequences and examine conserved binding residues

Subacute and chronic, non-specific back and neck pain: cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation versus primary care. A randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the industrial world, non-specific back and neck pain (BNP) is the largest diagnostic group underlying sick-listing. For patients with subacute and chronic (= full-time sick-listed for 43 – 84 and 85 – 730 days, respectively) BNP, cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation was compared with primary care. The specific aim was to answer the question: within an 18-month follow-up, will the outcomes differ in respect of sick-listing and number of health-care visits?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>After stratification by age (≤ 44/≥ 45 years) and subacute/chronic BNP, 125 Swedish primary-care patients were randomly allocated to cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation (rehabilitation group) or continued primary care (primary-care group). Outcome measures were <it>Return-to-work share </it>(percentage) and <it>Return-to-work chance </it>(hazard ratios) over 18 months, <it>Net days </it>(crude sick-listing days × degree), and the number of <it>Visits </it>(to physicians, physiotherapists etc.) over 18 months and the three component six-month periods. Descriptive statistics, Cox regression and mixed-linear models were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All patients: <it>Return-to-work share </it>and <it>Return-to-work chance </it>were equivalent between the groups. <it>Net days </it>and <it>Visits </it>were equivalent over 18 months but decreased significantly more rapidly for the rehabilitation group over the six-month periods (<it>p </it>< .05). Subacute patients: <it>Return-to-work share </it>was equivalent. <it>Return-to-work chance </it>was significantly greater for the rehabilitation group (hazard ratio 3.5 [95%CI1.001 – 12.2]). <it>Net days </it>were equivalent over 18 months but decreased significantly more rapidly for the rehabilitation group over the six-month periods and there were 31 days fewer in the third period. <it>Visits </it>showed similar though non-significant differences and there were half as many in the third period. Chronic patients: <it>Return-to-work share, Return-to-work chance </it>and <it>Net days </it>were equivalent. <it>Visits </it>were equivalent over 18 months but tended to decrease more rapidly for the rehabilitation group and there were half as many in the third period (non-significant).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results were equivalent over 18 months. However, there were indications that cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation in the longer run might be superior to primary care. For subacute BNP, it might be superior in terms of sick-listing and health-care visits; for chronic BNP, in terms of health-care visits only. More conclusive results concerning this possible long-term effect might require a longer follow-up.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00488735.</p

Individualized chiropractic and integrative care for low back pain: the design of a randomized clinical trial using a mixed-methods approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition in the United States. Evidence suggests there is no one treatment which is best for all patients, but instead several viable treatment options. Additionally, multidisciplinary management of LBP may be more effective than monodisciplinary care. An integrative model that includes both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional therapies, while also incorporating patient choice, has yet to be tested for chronic LBP.</p> <p>The primary aim of this study is to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) monodisciplinary chiropractic care and 2) multidisciplinary integrative care in 200 adults with non-acute LBP, in both the short-term (after 12 weeks) and long-term (after 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure is patient-rated back pain. Secondary aims compare the treatment approaches in terms of frequency of symptoms, low back disability, fear avoidance, self-efficacy, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, work loss, medication use, lumbar dynamic motion, and torso muscle endurance. Patients' and providers' perceptions of treatment will be described using qualitative methods, and cost-effectiveness and cost utility will be assessed.</p> <p>Methods and Design</p> <p>This paper describes the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), with cost-effectiveness and qualitative studies conducted alongside the RCT. Two hundred participants ages 18 and older are being recruited and randomized to one of two 12-week treatment interventions. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline, and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcome measures are assessed at baseline and 12 weeks by examiners blinded to treatment assignment. Health care cost data is collected by self-report questionnaires and treatment records during the intervention phase and by monthly phone interviews thereafter. Qualitative interviews, using a semi-structured format, are conducted with patients at the end of the 12-week treatment period and also with providers at the end of the trial.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This mixed-methods randomized clinical trial assesses clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' and providers' perceptions of care, in treating non-acute LBP through evidence-based individualized care delivered by monodisciplinary or multidisciplinary care teams.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567333</p