“Physical well-being is our top priority”: Healthcare professionals' challenges in supporting psychosocial well-being in stroke services

Background Following stroke, a sense of well-being is critical for quality of life. However, people living with stroke, and health professionals, suggest well-being is not sufficiently addressed within stroke services, contributing to persistent unmet needs. Knowing that systems and structures shape clinical practice, this study sought to understand how health professionals address well-being, and to examine how the practice context influences care practice. Methods Underpinned by Interpretive Description methodology, we interviewed 28 health professionals across multiple disciplines working in stroke services (acute and rehabilitation) throughout New Zealand. Data were analysed using Applied Tensions Analysis. Results Health professionals are managing multiple lines of work in stroke care: biomedical work of investigation, intervention and prevention; clinical work of assessment, monitoring and treatment; and moving people through service. While participants reported working to support well-being, this could be deprioritised amidst the time-oriented pressures of the other lines of work that were privileged within services, rendering it unsupported and invisible. Conclusion Stroke care is shaped by biomedical and organisational imperatives which privilege physical recovery and patient throughput. Health professionals are not provided with the knowledge, skills, time or culture of care that enable them to privilege well-being within their work. This has implications for the well-being of people with stroke, and the well-being of health professionals. In making these discourses and culture visible, and tracing how these impact on clinical practice, we hope to provide insight into why well-being work remains other to the ‘core’ work of stroke, and what needs to be considered if stroke services are to better support people’s well-being. Patient or public contributions People with stroke, family members, and people who provide support to people with stroke, and health professionals set priorities for this research. They advised on study conduct and have provided feedback on wider findings from the research

Improved quality control processing of peptide-centric LC-MS proteomics data

Motivation: In the analysis of differential peptide peak intensities (i.e. abundance measures), LC-MS analyses with poor quality peptide abundance data can bias downstream statistical analyses and hence the biological interpretation for an otherwise high-quality dataset. Although considerable effort has been placed on assuring the quality of the peptide identification with respect to spectral processing, to date quality assessment of the subsequent peptide abundance data matrix has been limited to a subjective visual inspection of run-by-run correlation or individual peptide components. Identifying statistical outliers is a critical step in the processing of proteomics data as many of the downstream statistical analyses [e.g. analysis of variance (ANOVA)] rely upon accurate estimates of sample variance, and their results are influenced by extreme values

Asymmetries and visual field summaries as predictors of glaucoma in the ocular hypertension treatment study

PURPOSE. To evaluate whether baseline visual field data and asymmetries between eyes predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) participants. METHODS. A new index, mean prognosis (MP), was designed for optimal combination of visual field thresholds, to discriminate between eyes that developed POAG from eyes that did not. Baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) in fellow eyes was used to construct measures of IOP asymmetry. Age-adjusted baseline thresholds were used to develop indicators of visual field asymmetry and summary measures of visual field defects. Marginal multivariate failure time models were constructed that relate the new index MP, IOP asymmetry, and visual field asymmetry to POAG onset for OHTS participants. RESULTS. The marginal multivariate failure time analysis showed that the MP index is significantly related to POAG onset (P &lt; 0.0001) and appears to be a more highly significant predictor of POAG onset than either mean deviation (MD; P = 0.17) or pattern standard deviation (PSD; P = 0.046). A 1-mm Hg increase in IOP asymmetry between fellow eyes is associated with a 17% increase in risk for development of POAG. When threshold asymmetry between eyes existed, the eye with lower thresholds was at a 37% greater risk of development of POAG, and this feature was more predictive of POAG onset than the visual field index MD, though not as strong a predictor as PSD. CONCLUSIONS. The MP index, IOP asymmetry, and binocular test point asymmetry can assist in clinical evaluation of eyes at risk of development of POAG.</p

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)