Novel ways to unravel the mechanism of kinesin

MacKintosh, F.C. [Promotor]Peterman, E.J.G. [Copromotor

Using PEST as a framework for analyzing open mobility dataz

C

Modafinil reduces patient-reported tiredness after sedation/analgesia but does not improve patient psychomotor skills

Background: Early recovery of patients following sedation/analgesia and anesthesia is important in ambulatory practice. The aim of this study was to assess whether modafinil, used for the treatment of narcolepsy, improves recovery following sedation/analgesia. Methods: Patients scheduled for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Two groups received a combination of fentanyl/midazolam with either modafinil or placebo. The remaining groups received remifentanil/propofol with either modafinil or placebo. Modafinil 200 mg was administered to the treatment group patients 1 h before sedation/analgesia. Groups were compared using the digital symbol substitution test (DSST), trail making test (TMT), observer scale of sedation and analgesia (OAA/S) and Aldrete score. Verbal rating scale (VRS) scores for secondary outcome variables e.g. energy, tiredness and dizziness were also recorded before and after treatment. Results: Sixty-seven patients successfully completed the study. Groups received similar doses of sedation and analgesic drugs. No statistically significant difference was found for DSST between groups. No significant adverse effects occurred in relation to modafinil. No statistically significant difference between groups was identified for TMT, OAA/S and Aldrete scores. The mean VRS score for tiredness was lesser in the modafinil/fentanyl/midazolam group [1.3 (2.0)] compared with the placebo group [3.8 (2.5)], P=0.02. Such a difference was not found between the remifentanil/propofol groups [placebo 2.6 (2.2) vs. modafinil 3.1(2.7)], p&gt;0.05. Dizziness was greater in the modafinil/remifentanil/propofol group 1.7 (2.0) vs. placebo 0.0 (0.5), p&lt;0.05. Conclusion: Modafinil reduces patient-reported tiredness after sedation/analgesia but does not improve recovery in terms of objective measures of patient psychomotor skills.</p

Modafinil reduces patient-reported tiredness after sedation/analgesia but does not improve patient psychomotor skills

Background: Early recovery of patients following sedation/analgesia and anesthesia is important in ambulatory practice. The aim of this study was to assess whether modafinil, used for the treatment of narcolepsy, improves recovery following sedation/analgesia. Methods: Patients scheduled for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Two groups received a combination of fentanyl/midazolam with either modafinil or placebo. The remaining groups received remifentanil/propofol with either modafinil or placebo. Modafinil 200 mg was administered to the treatment group patients 1 h before sedation/analgesia. Groups were compared using the digital symbol substitution test (DSST), trail making test (TMT), observer scale of sedation and analgesia (OAA/S) and Aldrete score. Verbal rating scale (VRS) scores for secondary outcome variables e.g. energy, tiredness and dizziness were also recorded before and after treatment. Results: Sixty-seven patients successfully completed the study. Groups received similar doses of sedation and analgesic drugs. No statistically significant difference was found for DSST between groups. No significant adverse effects occurred in relation to modafinil. No statistically significant difference between groups was identified for TMT, OAA/S and Aldrete scores. The mean VRS score for tiredness was lesser in the modafinil/fentanyl/midazolam group [1.3 (2.0)] compared with the placebo group [3.8 (2.5)], P=0.02. Such a difference was not found between the remifentanil/propofol groups [placebo 2.6 (2.2) vs. modafinil 3.1(2.7)], p&gt;0.05. Dizziness was greater in the modafinil/remifentanil/propofol group 1.7 (2.0) vs. placebo 0.0 (0.5), p&lt;0.05. Conclusion: Modafinil reduces patient-reported tiredness after sedation/analgesia but does not improve recovery in terms of objective measures of patient psychomotor skills.</p

A Single-Center Comparison of Extended and Restricted THROMBOPROPHYLAXIS with LMWH after Metabolic Surgery

IntroductionMorbid obesity is an important risk factor for developing a venous thromboembolic events (VTE) after surgery. Fast-track protocols in metabolic surgery can lower the risk of VTE in the postoperative period by reducing the immobilization period. Administration of thromboprophylaxis can be a burden for patients. This study aims to compare extended to restricted thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for patients undergoing metabolic surgery.MethodsIn this single center retrospective cohort study, data was collected from patients undergoing a primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between 2014 and 2018. Patients operated in 2014-2017 received thromboprophylaxis for two weeks. In 2018, patients only received thromboprophylaxis during hospital admission. Patients already using anticoagulants were analyzed as a separate subgroup. The primary outcome measure was the rate of clinically significant VTEs within three months. Secondary outcome measures were postoperative hemorrhage and reoperations for hemorrhage.Results3666 Patients underwent a primary RYGB or SG following the fast-track protocol. In total, two patients in the 2014-2017 cohort were diagnosed with VTE versus zero patients in the 2018 cohort. In the historic group, 34/2599 (1.3%) hemorrhages occurred and in the recent cohort 8/720 (1.1%). Postoperative hemorrhage rates did not differ between the two cohorts (multivariable analysis, p=0.475). In the subgroup of patients using anticoagulants, 21/347(6.1%) patients developed a postoperative hemorrhage. Anticoagulant use was a significant predictor of postoperative hemorrhage (

Warfarin Genotyping Reduces Hospitalization Rates Results From the MM-WES (Medco-Mayo Warfarin Effectiveness Study)

ObjectivesThis study was designed to determine whether genotype testing for patients initiating warfarin treatment will reduce the incidence of hospitalizations, including those due to bleeding or thromboembolism.BackgroundGenotypic variations in CYP2C9and VKORC1have been shown to predict warfarin dosing, but no large-scale studies have prospectively evaluated the clinical effectiveness of genotyping in naturalistic settings across the U.S.MethodsThis national, prospective, comparative effectiveness study compared the 6-month incidence of hospitalization in patients receiving warfarin genotyping (n = 896) versus a matched historical control group (n = 2,688). To evaluate for temporal changes in the outcomes of warfarin treatment, a secondary analysis compared outcomes for 2 external control groups drawn from the same 2 time periods.ResultsCompared with the historical control group, the genotyped cohort had 31% fewer hospitalizations overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 0.82, p < 0.001) and 28% fewer hospitalizations for bleeding or thromboembolism (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.97, p = 0.029) during the 6-month follow-up period. Findings from a per-protocol analysis were even stronger: 33% lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.81, p < 0.001) and 43% lower risk of hospitalization for bleeding or thromboembolism (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.83, p = 0.003) in patients who were genotyped. During the same period, there was no difference in outcomes between the 2 external control groups.ConclusionsWarfarin genotyping reduced the risk of hospitalization in outpatients initiating warfarin. (The Clinical and Economic Impact of Pharmacogenomic Testing of Warfarin Therapy in Typical Community Practice Settings [MHSMayoWarf1]; NCT00830570

Measuring quality of life in rheumatic conditions

Musculoskeletal disorders often have associated pain, functional impairment and work disability, and, not surprisingly, are the most common reasons for utilizing healthcare resources. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and fibromyalgia (FM) are causes of musculoskeletal pain and disability. Research indicates that there is a widespread impact of RA and FM on physical, psychological and social factors in affected individuals, and thus, outcome measures that encompass multiple aspects of quality of life are needed. Generic measures of quality of life identify associations between physical conditions and mental health and highlight the need to address psychological functioning to ultimately improve the individuals’ quality of life