Characteristics of outdoor falls among older people: A qualitative study

Background Falls are a major threat to older people’s health and wellbeing. Approximately half of falls occur in outdoor environments but little is known about the circumstances in which they occur. We conducted a qualitative study to explore older people’s experiences of outdoor falls to develop understanding of how they may be prevented. Methods We conducted nine focus groups across the UK (England, Wales, and Scotland). Our sample was from urban and rural settings and different environmental landscapes. Participants were aged 65+ and had at least one outdoor fall in the past year. We analysed the data using framework and content analyses. Results Forty-four adults aged 65 – 92 took part and reported their experience of 88 outdoor falls. Outdoor falls occurred in a variety of contexts, though reports suggested the following scenarios may have been more frequent: when crossing a road, in a familiar area, when bystanders were around, and with an unreported or unknown attribution. Most frequently, falls resulted in either minor or moderate injury, feeling embarrassed at the time of the fall, and anxiety about falling again. Ten falls resulted in fracture, but no strong pattern emerged in regard to the contexts of these falls. Anxiety about falling again appeared more prevalent among those that fell in urban settings and who made more visits into their neighbourhood in a typical week. Conclusions This exploratory study has highlighted several aspects of the outdoor environment that may represent risk factors for outdoor falls and associated fear of falling. Health professionals are recommended to consider outdoor environments as well as the home setting when working to prevent falls and increase mobility among older people

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia – Prospective study to evaluate the Use of Low doses of the Statins Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin (PULSAR)

BACKGROUND: Many patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease do not achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. This study compared the efficacy and safety of low doses of rosuvastatin (10 mg) and atorvastatin (20 mg) in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: A total of 996 patients with hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C ≥ 3.4 and < 5.7 mmol/L [130 and 220 mg/dL]) and coronary heart disease (CHD), atherosclerosis, or a CHD-risk equivalent were randomized to once-daily rosuvastatin 10 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in LDL-C levels at 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints included LDL-C goal achievement (National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III [NCEP ATP III] goal < 100 mg/dL; 2003 European goal < 2.5 mmol/L for patients with atherosclerotic disease, type 2 diabetes, or at high risk of cardiovascular events, as assessed by a Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk ≥ 5% or 3.0 mmol/L for all other patients), changes in other lipids and lipoproteins, cost-effectiveness, and safety. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin 10 mg reduced LDL-C levels significantly more than atorvastatin 20 mg at week 6 (44.6% vs. 42.7%, p < 0.05). Significantly more patients achieved NCEP ATP III and 2003 European LDL-C goals with rosuvastatin 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 20 mg (68.8% vs. 62.5%, p < 0.05; 68.0% vs. 63.3%, p < 0.05, respectively). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol was increased significantly with rosuvastatin 10 mg versus atorvastatin 20 mg (6.4% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.001). Lipid ratios and levels of apolipoprotein A-I also improved more with rosuvastatin 10 mg than with atorvastatin 20 mg. The use of rosuvastatin 10 mg was also cost-effective compared with atorvastatin 20 mg in both a US and a UK setting. Both treatments were well tolerated, with a similar incidence of adverse events (rosuvastatin 10 mg, 27.5%; atorvastatin 20 mg, 26.1%). No cases of rhabdomyolysis, liver, or renal insufficiency were recorded. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia, rosuvastatin 10 mg was more efficacious than atorvastatin 20 mg at reducing LDL-C, enabling LDL-C goal achievement and improving other lipid parameters. Both treatments were well tolerated

The effect of provider- and workflow-focused strategies for guideline implementation on provider acceptance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The effective implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) depends critically on the extent to which the strategies that are deployed for implementing the guidelines promote provider acceptance of CPGs. Such implementation strategies can be classified into two types based on whether they primarily target providers (<it>e.g.</it>, academic detailing, grand rounds presentations) or the work context (<it>e.g.</it>, computer reminders, modifications to forms). This study investigated the independent and joint effects of these two types of implementation strategies on provider acceptance of CPGs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Surveys were mailed to a national sample of providers (primary care physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and nurse practitioners) and quality managers selected from Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs). A total of 2,438 providers and 242 quality managers from 123 VAMCs participated. Survey items measured implementation strategies and provider acceptance (<it>e.g.</it>, guideline-related knowledge, attitudes, and adherence) for three sets of CPGs--chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure, and major depressive disorder. The relationships between implementation strategy types and provider acceptance were tested using multi-level analytic models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For all three CPGs, provider acceptance increased with the number of implementation strategies of either type. Moreover, the number of workflow-focused strategies compensated (contributing more strongly to provider acceptance) when few provider-focused strategies were used.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Provider acceptance of CPGs depends on the type of implementation strategies used. Implementation effectiveness can be improved by using both workflow-focused as well as provider-focused strategies.</p

Consumption of a soy drink has no effect on cognitive function but may alleviate vasomotor symptoms in post-menopausal women; a randomised trial

Purpose: Cognitive decline is commonly reported during the menopausal transition, with memory and attention being particularly affected. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a commercially available soy drink on cognitive function and menopausal symptoms in post-menopausal women. Methods: 101 post-menopausal women, aged 44–63 years, were randomly assigned to consume a volume of soy drink providing a low (10 mg/day; control group), medium (35 mg/day), or high (60 mg/day) dose of isoflavones for 12 weeks. Cognitive function (spatial working memory, spatial span, pattern recognition memory, 5-choice reaction time, and match to sample visual search) was assessed using CANTAB pre- and post-the 12 week intervention. Menopausal symptoms were assessed using Greene’s Climacteric Scale. Results: No significant differences were observed between the groups for any of the cognitive function outcomes measured. Soy drink consumption had no effect on menopausal symptoms overall; however, when women were stratified according to the severity of vasomotor symptoms (VMS) at baseline, women with more severe symptoms at baseline in the medium group had a significant reduction (P = 0.001) in VMS post-intervention (mean change from baseline score: − 2.15 ± 1.73) in comparison to those with less severe VMS (mean change from baseline score: 0.06 ± 1.21). Conclusions: Soy drink consumption had no effect on cognitive function in post-menopausal women. Consumption of ~ 350 ml/day (35 mg IFs) for 12 weeks significantly reduced VMS in those with more severe symptoms at baseline. This finding is clinically relevant as soy drinks may provide an alternative, natural, treatment for alleviating VMS, highly prevalent among western women

How safe are the biologicals in treating asthma and rhinitis?

A number of biological agents are available or being investigated for the treatment of asthma and rhinitis. The safety profiles of these biologic agents, which may modify allergic and immunological diseases, are still being elucidated. Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy, the oldest biologic agent in current use, has the highest of frequency of the most serious and life-threatening reaction, anaphylaxis. It is also one of the only disease modifying interventions for allergic rhinitis and asthma. Efforts to seek safer and more effective allergen immunotherapy treatment have led to investigations of alternate routes of delivery and modified immunotherapy formulations. Sublingual immunotherapy appears to be associated with a lower, but not zero, risk of anaphylaxis. No fatalities have been reported to date with sublingual immunotherapy. Immunotherapy with modified formulations containing Th1 adjuvants, DNA sequences containing a CpG motif (CpG) and 3-deacylated monophospholipid A, appears to provide the benefits of subcutaneous immunotherapy with a single course of 4 to 6 preseasonal injections. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events or anaphylaxis in the clinical trials of these two immunotherapy adjuvants. Omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody against IgE, has been associated with a small risk of anaphylaxis, affecting 0.09% to 0.2% of patients. It may also be associated with a higher risk of geohelminth infection in patients at high risk for parasitic infections but it does not appear to affect the response to treatment or severity of the infection

Epidemiological and economic burden of metabolic syndrome and its consequences in patients with hypertension in Germany, Spain and Italy; a prevalence-based model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The presence of metabolic syndrome in patients with hypertension significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and mortality. Our aim is to estimate the epidemiological and economic burden to the health service of metabolic syndrome in patients with hypertension in three European countries in 2008 and 2020.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An age, sex and risk group structured prevalence based cost of illness model was developed using the United States Adult Treatment Panel III of the National Cholesterol Education Program criteria to define metabolic syndrome. Data sources included published information and public use databases on disease prevalence, incidence of cardiovascular events, prevalence of type 2 diabetes, treatment patterns and cost of management in Germany, Spain and Italy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The prevalence of hypertension with metabolic syndrome in the general population of Germany, Spain and Italy was 36%, 11% and 10% respectively. In subjects with hypertension 61%, 22% and 21% also had metabolic syndrome. Incident cardiovascular events and attributable mortality were around two fold higher in subjects with metabolic syndrome and prevalence of type 2 diabetes was around six-fold higher. The economic burden to the health service of metabolic syndrome in patients with hypertension was been estimated at €24,427, €1,900 and €4,877 million in Germany, Spain and Italy and forecast to rise by 59%, 179% and 157% respectively by 2020. The largest components of costs included the management of prevalent type 2 diabetes and incident cardiovascular events. Mean annual costs per hypertensive patient were around three-fold higher in subjects with metabolic syndrome compared to those without and rose incrementally with the additional number of metabolic syndrome components present.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The presence of metabolic syndrome in patients with hypertension significantly inflates economic burden and costs are likely to increase in the future due to an aging population and an increase in the prevalence of components of metabolic syndrome.</p