Search

Background and purposeUrinary incontinence is one of the most serious complications of prostate cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) compared to Adjustable Continence Therapy (proACT) for male stress urinary incotinence according to literature findings.Material and methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis on adjustable devices ATOMS and ProACT is presented. Studies on female or neurogenic incontinence were excluded. Differences between ATOMS and proACT in primary objective: dryness status (no-pad or one safety pad/day) after initial device adjustment, and in secondary objectives: improvement, satisfaction, complications and device durability, were estimated using random-effect model. Statistical heterogeneity among studies included in the meta-analysis was assessed using tau2, Higgins´s I2 statistics and Cochran´s Q test.ResultsCombined data of 41 observational studies with 3059 patients showed higher dryness (68 vs. 55%; p = .01) and improvement (91 vs. 80%; p = .007) rate for ATOMS than ProACT. Mean pad-count (-4 vs. -2.5 pads/day; p = .005) and pad-test decrease (-425.7 vs. -211.4 cc; p < .0001) were also significantly lower. Satisfaction was higher for ATOMS (87 vs. 56%; p = .002) and explant rate was higher for proACT (5 vs. 24%; p < .0001). Complication rate for ProACT was also higher, but not statistically significant (17 vs. 26%; p = .07). Mean follow-up was 25.7 months, lower for ATOMS than ProACT (20.8 vs. 30.6 months; p = .02). The rate of working devices favoured ATOMS at 1-year (92 vs. 76; p < .0001), 2-years (85 vs. 61%; p = .0008) and 3-years (81 vs. 58%; p = .0001). Significant heterogeneity was evidenced, due to variable incontinence severity baseline, difficulties for a common reporting of complications, different number of adjustments and time of follow-up and absence of randomized studies.ConclusionsDespite the limitations that studies available are exclusively descriptive and the follow-up is limited, literature findings confirm ATOMS is more efficacious, with higher patient satisfaction and better durability than ProACT to treat male stress incontinence.

BackgroundHeart failure (HF) is the leading cause of hospitalization in people over age 65. Predictive hospital admission models have been developed to help reduce the number of these patients.AimTo develop and internally validate a model to predict hospital admission in one-year for any non-programmed cause in heart failure patients receiving primary care treatment.Design and settingCohort study, prospective. Patients treated in family medicine clinics.MethodsLogistic regression analysis was used to estimate the association between the predictors and the outcome, i.e. unplanned hospitalization over a 12-month period. The predictive model was built in several steps. The initial examination included a set of 31 predictors. Bootstrapping was used for internal validation.ResultsThe study included 251 patients, 64 (25.5%) of whom were admitted to hospital for some unplanned cause over the 12 months following their date of inclusion in the study. Four predictive variables of hospitalization were identified: NYHA class III-IV, OR (95% CI) 2.46 (1.23-4.91); diabetes OR (95% CI) 1.94 (1.05-3.58); COPD OR (95% CI) 3.17 (1.45-6.94); MLHFQ Emotional OR (95% CI) 1.07 (1.02-1.12). AUC 0.723; R2N 0.17; Hosmer-Lemeshow 0.815. Internal validation AUC 0.706.; R2N 0.134.ConclusionThis is a simple model to predict hospitalization over a 12-month period based on four variables: NYHA functional class, diabetes, COPD and the emotional dimension of the MLHFQ scale. It has an acceptable discriminative capacity enabling the identification of patients at risk of hospitalization.

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is defined by simultaneous presence of vascular clinical events and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). The aPL considered as diagnostics are lupus anticoagulant and antibodies anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-ß2 glycoprotein-I (aB2GP1). During recent years, IgA aB2GP1 antibodies have been associated with thrombotic events both in patients positive, and mainly negative for other aPL, however its value as a pro-thrombotic risk-factor in asymptomatic patients has not been well defined.To test the role of IgA anti B2GP1 as a risk factor for the development of APS-events (thrombosis or pregnancy morbidity) in asymptomatic population with a 5-year follow-up.244 patients isolated positive for anti-beta2-glycoprotein I IgA (Group-1 study) and 221 negative patients (Group-2 control) were studied. All the patients were negative for IgG and IgM aCL.During the follow-up, 45 patients (9.7%) had APS-events, 38 positive for IgA-aB2GP1 and 7 negative (15.6% vs 3.2%, p

IntroductionHealthcare management is oriented toward single diseases, yet multimorbidity is nevertheless the rule and there is a tendency for certain diseases to occur in clusters. This study sought to identify comorbidity patterns in patients with chronic diseases, by reference to number of comorbidities, age and sex, in a population receiving medical care from 129 general practitioners in Spain, in 2007.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in a health-area setting of the Madrid Autonomous Region (Comunidad Autónoma), covering a population of 198,670 individuals aged over 14 years. Multiple correspondences were analyzed to identify the clustering patterns of the conditions targeted.ResultsForty-two percent (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.8-42.2) of the registered population had at least one chronic condition. In all, 24.5% (95% CI: 24.3-24.6) of the population presented with multimorbidity. In the correspondence analysis, 98.3% of the total information was accounted for by three dimensions. The following four, age- and sex-related comorbidity patterns were identified: pattern B, showing a high comorbidity rate; pattern C, showing a low comorbidity rate; and two patterns, A and D, showing intermediate comorbidity rates.ConclusionsFour comorbidity patterns could be identified which grouped diseases as follows: one showing diseases with a high comorbidity burden; one showing diseases with a low comorbidity burden; and two showing diseases with an intermediate comorbidity burden.