How well does B-type natriuretic peptide predict death and cardiac events in patients with heart failure: systematic review

Objective To assess how well B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) predicts prognosis in patients with heart failure. Design Systematic review of studies assessing BNP for prognosis m patients with heart failure or asymptomatic patients. Data sources Electronic searches of Medline and Embase from January 1994 to March 2004 and reference lists of included studies. Study selection and data extraction We included all studies that estimated the relation between BNP measurement and the risk of death, cardiac death, sudden death, or cardiovascular event in patients with heart failure or asymptomatic patients, including initial values and changes in values in response to treatment. Multivariable models that included both BNP and left ventricular ejection fraction as predictors were used to compare the prognostic value of each variable. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Data synthesis 19 studies used BNP to estimate the relative risk of death or cardiovascular events in heart failure patients and five studies in asymptomatic patients. In heart failure patients, each 100 pg/ml increase was associated with a 35% increase in the relative risk of death. BNP was used in 35 multivariable models of prognosis. In nine of the models, it was the only variable to reach significance-that is, other variables contained no prognostic information beyond that of BNP. Even allowing for the scale of the variables, it seems to be a strong indicator of risk. Conclusion Although systematic reviews of prognostic studies have inherent difficulties, including die possibility of publication bias, the results of the studies in this review show that BNP is a strong prognostic indicator for both asymptomatic patients mid for patients with heart failure at all stages of disease

A systematic review of associations between environmental exposures and development of asthma in children aged up to 9 years

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The challenge of overdiagnosis begins with its definition

Overdiagnosis means different things to different people. S M Carter and colleagues argue that we should use a broad term such as too much medicine for advocacy and develop precise, case by case definitions of overdiagnosis for research and clinical purposes The implicit social contract underpinning healthcare is that it will reduce illness and preventable death and improve quality of life. But sometimes these promises are not delivered. Sometimes health services take people who don’t need intervention, subject them to tests, label them as sick or at risk, provide unnecessary treatments, tell them to live differently, or insist on monitoring them regularly.1 These interventions don’t improve things for people; they produce complications or illness, reduce quality of life, or even cause premature death. Active health intervention is not always a good thing: it can be “too much medicine,” or produce what is often called overdiagnosis. Although the concept of overdiagnosis has been described in the literature for nearly 50 years in relation to cancer screening,2 3 it was Welch and colleagues’ 2011 book, Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health, that popularised the term.4 Overdiagnosis is now an acknowledged problem for patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers; it is discussed in journals5 6 7 and at specialist conferences8 and addressed through policy and practice initiatives.9 10 11 There is, however, no formal, agreed definition of overdiagnosis. Rather, the word has become a banner under which disparate people with similar general concerns can unite. This vagueness and breadth allows the appearance of unity but does not serve the more exacting demands of research and healthcare. Here we examine the meanings of overdiagnosis more closely and discuss related challenges for healthcare professionals, patients, and researchers. If overdiagnosis is to be understood and mitigated, the broad concept should be subdivided into different problems and its ethical dimensions better acknowledged.NHMR

Clinicians' perspectives on diagnosing polycystic ovary syndrome in Australia: a qualitative study

STUDY QUESTION: What are clinicians' views about the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and how do they handle any complexities and uncertainties in practice?SUMMARY ANSWER: Clinicians have to navigate many areas of complexity and uncertainty regarding the diagnosis of PCOS, related to the diagnostic criteria, limitations in current evidence and misconceptions surrounding diagnosis, and expressed concern about the risk and consequences of both under- and overdiagnosis.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PCOS is a complex, heterogeneous condition with many areas of uncertainty, raising concerns about both underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. Quantitative studies with clinicians have found considerable variation in diagnostic criteria used and care provided, as well as a lack of awareness around the breadth of PCOS features and poor uptake of recommended screening for metabolic complications. Clinicians' views about the uncertainties and complexities of diagnosing PCOS have not been explored.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with clinicians from September 2017 to July 2018 to explore their perceptions about the diagnosis of PCOS, including how they handle any complexities and uncertainties in practice.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A group of 36 clinicians (15 general practitioners, 10 gynaecologists and 11 endocrinologists) currently practicing in Australia, were recruited through advertising via professional organisations, contacting a random sample of endocrine and gynaecology teams across Australia and snowballing. Transcribed audio-recordings were analysed thematically using Framework analysis.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Clinicians expressed a range of uncertainties and complexities regarding the diagnosis of PCOS, which were organised into three areas: (i) establishing diagnosis (e.g. lack of standardisation regarding diagnostic cut-offs, risk of misdiagnosis), (ii) factors influencing the diagnostic process (e.g. awareness of limitations in evidence and consideration of the benefits and harms) and (iii) strategies for handling challenges and uncertainties (e.g. using caution and communication of uncertainties). Clinicians also varied in their concerns regarding under- and overdiagnosis. Overall, most felt the diagnosis was beneficial for women provided that it was the correct diagnosis and time was taken to assess patient expectations and dispel misconceptions, particularly concerning fertility.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There is possible selection bias, as clinicians who are more knowledgeable about PCOS may have been more likely to participate. Clinicians' views may also differ in other countries.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: These findings underscore the vital need to first consider PCOS a diagnosis of exclusion and use caution before giving a diagnosis in order to reduce misdiagnosis, as suggested by clinicians in our study. Until there is greater standardisation of diagnostic criteria, more transparent conversations with women may help them understand the uncertainties surrounding the criteria and limitations in the evidence. Additionally, clinicians emphasised the importance of education and reassurance to minimise the potential harmful impact of the diagnosis and improve patient-centred outcomes

The benefits and harms of receiving a polycystic ovary syndrome diagnosis: a qualitative study of women's experiences

Study Question: What are the benefits and harms of receiving a polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) diagnosis in a community sample of women, including impact on psychosocial wellbeing, lifestyle choices and behaviour? Summary Answer: Although some women benefit considerably from the diagnosis, such as through increased awareness and reassurance, women with minimal symptoms may experience more harm than benefit, including long-lasting anxiety and altered life plans. What Is Known Already: Disease labels can validate symptoms and play a vital role in understanding and coping with illness; however, they can also cause harm by evoking illness schemas about severity and permanence. Regarding PCOS, the diagnostic criteria have expanded over time to include women with milder phenotypes (such as those without signs of androgen excess). This has occurred despite limited investigation of the benefits and harms of the diagnosis and has increased the number of women diagnosed. Study Design, Size, Duration: Semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone with 26 participants from April-July 2018 to explore women's experiences with the diagnosis, including the benefits and harms of receiving the diagnosis and the impact on their life. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods: In total, 26 women in the community self-reporting a diagnosis of PCOS (reporting mild to severe symptoms) made by a medical doctor, aged 18-45 years and living in Australia were recruited through social media. Data were analysed thematically using Framework analysis. Main Results and the Role of Chance: The study identified a range of both positive and negative effects of a PCOS diagnosis in the immediate, short and long-term, which were influenced by symptom severity, expectations and experience. For women with previously unexplained and bothersome symptoms, it was a relief to receive a diagnosis, and this resulted in an increased understanding about the importance of a healthy lifestyle. By contrast, women with milder symptoms often reported feeling shocked and overwhelmed by the diagnosis, consequently experiencing anxiety about the associated long-term risks. The majority of women, regardless of symptom severity, experienced prolonged worry and anxiety about infertility, resulting for some in risk taking with contraception, unintended pregnancies, pressure to conceive early or altered life plans. With time, many women developed positive coping strategies and perceived the diagnosis to be valuable, including those who felt they had experienced minimal benefit or even harm. Limitations, Reasons for Caution: PCOS diagnosis was self-reported and the sample was highly educated. Wider Implications of the Findings: Fear of infertility was salient for many women, underscoring the need for accurate information, counselling and reassurance of fertility potential. Given the risk of significant consequences, health professionals should use a tailored approach to PCOS diagnosis to increase the benefits of appropriate and timely diagnosis for women affected by significant symptoms, while reducing the harms of unnecessarily labelling healthy women for whom the benefits of a diagnosis are small.T. Copp, J. Hersch, D.M. Muscat, K.J. McCaffery, J. Doust, A. Dokras, B.W. Mol, and J. Janse

Legacy effects of statins on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Objectives To assess evidence for 'legacy' (post-trial) effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and all-cause mortality among adult participants of placebocontrolled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of statins. Design Meta-analysis of aggregate data. Setting/Participants Placebo-controlled statin RCTS for primary and secondary CVD prevention. Methods Data sources: PubMed, Embase from inception and forward citations of Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaborators RCTs to 16 June 2016. Study selection: Two independent reviewers identified all statin RCT follow-up reports including ≥1000 participants, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Main outcomes: Post-trial CVD and all-cause mortality. Results We included eight trials, with mean post-trial follow-up ranging from 1.6 to 15.1 years, and including 13 781 post-trial deaths (6685 CVD). Direct effects of statins within trials were greater than legacy effects posttrials. The pooled data from all eight studies showed no evidence overall of legacy effects on CVD mortality, but some evidence of legacy effects on all-cause mortality (p=0.01). Exploratory subgroup analysis found possible differences in legacy effect for primary prevention trials compared with secondary prevention trials for both CVD mortality (p=0.15) and all-cause mortality (p=0.02). Pooled post-trial HR for the three primary prevention studies demonstrated possible post-trial legacy effects on CVD mortality (HR=0.87; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95) and on all-cause mortality (HR=0.90; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96). Conclusions Possible post-trial statin legacy effects on all-cause mortality appear to be driven by the primary prevention studies. Although these relative benefits were smaller than those observed within the trial, the absolute benefits may be similar for the two time periods. Analysis of individual patient data from follow-up studies after placebo-controlled statin RCTs in lower-risk populations may provide more definitive evidence on whether early treatment of subclinical atherosclerosis is likely to be beneficial

On the Quantization of the Chern-Simons Fields Theory on Curved Space-Times: the Coulomb Gauge Approach

We consider here the Chern-Simons field theory with gauge group SU(N) in the presence of a gravitational background that describes a two-dimensional expanding ``universe". Two special cases are treated here in detail: the spatially flat {\it Robertson-Walker} space-time and the conformally static space-times having a general closed and orientable Riemann surface as spatial section. The propagator and the vertices are explicitely computed at the lowest order in perturbation theory imposing the Coulomb gauge fixing.Comment: 15 pp., Preprint LMU-TPW 93-5, (Plain TeX + Harvmac

Early invasive versus conservative strategies for unstable angina & non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era (Review)

BACKGROUND: In patients with unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) two strategies are possible: a routine invasive strategy where all patients undergo coronary angiography shortly after admission and, if indicated, coronary revascularization; or a conservative strategy where medical therapy alone is used initially with selection of patients for angiography based on clinical symptoms or investigational evidence of persistent myocardial ischemia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits of an invasive compared to a conservative strategy for treating UA/NSTEMI in the stent era. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 3 2005), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1996 to September 2005 with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies were prospective trials comparing invasive with conservative strategies in UA/NSTEMI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 5 studies (7818 participants). Using intention-to-treat analysis with random effects models, summary estimates of relative risk (95% confidence interval [CI]) were determined for primary end-points of all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction; all-cause death or non-fatal myocardial infarction; and refractory angina. Further analysis of included studies was undertaken based on whether glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists were used routinely. Heterogeneity was assessed using chi-square and variance (I(2)) methods. MAIN RESULTS: In the all-study analysis, mortality during initial hospitalization showed a trend to hazard with an invasive strategy; relative risk 1.59 (95% CI 0.96 to 2.64). Mortality and myocardial infarction assessed at 2-5 years in two trials were significantly decreased by an invasive strategy with relative risk of 0.75 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.92) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.91) respectively. The composite end-point of death or non-fatal myocardial infarction was significantly decreased by an invasive strategy at several time points after initial hospitalization. The incidence of early

A comparison of males and females' temporal patterning to short-and long-term heat acclimation

The current study assessed sex differences in thermoregulatory and physiological adaptation to short-term (STHA) and long-term heat acclimation (LTHA). Sixteen (eight males; eight females) participants performed three running heat tolerance test