The reliability of postural balance measures in single and dual tasking in elderly fallers and non-fallers

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of a forceplate postural balance protocol in a group of elderly fallers and non-fallers. The measurements were tested in single and dual-task conditions, with and without vision. METHODS: 37 elderly (mean age 73 +/- 6 years) community-dwellers were included in this study. All were tested in a single (two-legged stance) and in a dual-task (two-legged stance while counting backwards aloud in steps of 7's) condition, with and without vision. A forceplate was used for registering postural variables: the maximal and the root-mean-square amplitude in medio-lateral (Max-ML, RMS-ML) and antero-posterior (Max-AP, RMS-AP) direction, mean velocity (MV), and the area of the 95% confidence ellipse (AoE). Reliability of the test protocol was expressed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), with 95% limits of agreement (LoA), and with the smallest detectable difference (SDD). RESULTS: The ICCs for inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability of the balance variables were r = 0.70-0.89. For the variables Max-AP and RMS-AP the ICCs were r = 0.52-0.74. The SDD values were for variable Max-ML and Max-AP between 0.37 cm and 0.83 cm, for MV between 0.48 cm/s and 1.2 cm/s and for AoE between 1.48 cm2 and 3.75 cm2. The LoA analysis by Bland-Altman plots showed no systematic differences between test-retest measurements. CONCLUSION: The study showed good reliability results for group assessment and no systematic errors of the measurement protocol in measuring postural balance in the elderly in a single-task and dual-task condition

Comparing static and dynamic emotion recognition tests: Performance of healthy participants

Facial expressions have a communicatory function and the ability to read them is a prerequisite for understanding feelings and thoughts of other individuals. Impairments in recognition of facial emotional expressions are frequently found in patients with neurological conditions (e.g. stroke, traumatic brain injury, frontotemporal dementia). Hence, a standard neuropsychological assessment should include measurement of emotion recognition. However, there is debate regarding which tests are most suitable. The current study evaluates and compares three different emotion recognition tests. 84 healthy participants were included and assessed with three tests, in varying order: a. Ekman 60 Faces Test (FEEST) b. Emotion Recognition Task (ERT) c. Emotion Evaluation Test (EET). The tests differ in type of stimuli from static photographs (FEEST) to more dynamic stimuli in the form of morphed photographs (ERT) to videos (EET). Comparing performances on the three tests, the lowest total scores (67.3% correct answers) were found for the ERT. Significant, but moderate correlations were found between the total scores of the three tests, but nearly all correlations between the same emotions across different tests were not significant. Furthermore, we found cross-over effects of the FEEST and EET to the ERT; participants attained higher total scores on the ERT when another emotion recognition test had been administered beforehand. Moreover, the ERT proved to be sensitive to the effects of age and education. The present findings indicate that despite some overlap, each emotion recognition test measures a unique part of the construct. The ERT seemed to be the most difficult test: performances were lowest and influenced by differences in age and education and it was the only test that showed a learning effect after practice with other tests. This highlights the importance of appropriate norms

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor levels matter in treating chronic GVHD

Item does not contain fulltex

Pharmacokinetic Optimization of Everolimus Dosing in Oncology : A Randomized Crossover Trial

BACKGROUND: The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus is used in the treatment of breast cancer, neuroendocrine tumors, and renal cancer. The approved 10 mg once-daily dose is associated with considerable adverse effects and it has been suggested that these are associated with the maximum concentration (Cmax) of everolimus. Twice-daily dosing might be an alternative strategy with improved tolerability; however, a direct pharmacokinetic comparison of 10 mg once-daily with 5 mg twice-daily dosing is lacking. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, pharmacokinetic, crossover trial comparing everolimus 10 mg once daily with 5 mg twice daily. Patients received the first dose schedule for 2 weeks and then switched to the alternative regimen for 2 weeks. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on days 14 and 28. RESULTS: Eleven patients were included in the study, of whom 10 were evaluable for pharmacokinetic analysis. On the 10 mg once-daily schedule, Cmax, minimum concentration (Cmin), and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h (AUC24) were 61.5 ng/mL [mean percentage coefficient of variation (CV%) 29.6], 9.6 ng/mL (CV% 35.0), and 435 ng h/mL (CV% 28.1), respectively. Switching to the 5 mg twice-daily schedule resulted in a reduction of Cmaxto 40.3 ng/mL (CV% 46.6) (p = 0.013), while maintaining AUC24at 436 ng h/mL (CV% 34.8) (p = 0.952). Cminincreased to 13.7 ng/mL (CV% 53.9) (p = 0.018). The overall reduction in Cmaxwas 21.2 ng/mL, or 32.7%. The Cmax/Cminratio was reduced from 6.44 (CV% 36.2) to 3.18 (CV% 35.5) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that switching from a once-daily to a twice-daily everolimus dose schedule reduces Cmaxwithout negatively impacting Cminor AUC24. These results merit further investigation of the twice-daily schedule in an effort to reduce everolimus toxicity while maintaining treatment efficacy. REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the EurdaCT database (2014-004833-25) and the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR4908)