Search

ObjectiveThis study was designed to evaluate the determinants of patient and physician global assessments (PtGA and MDGA, respectively) of disease activity, their discordance and change over 2 years in Hispanics with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We further examined the impact of discordance and its persistence on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and work productivity on final visit.MethodsWe studied 536 Hispanics with established RA from a single centre. PtGA and MDGA were measured annually on 10 cm visual analogue scales and discordance was defined as absolute difference between them ≥3 cm. Associations between predictors and outcomes of interest were evaluated using multivariable regression and analysis of covariance for cross-sectional and longitudinal data, respectively.ResultsIndependent predictors of baseline PtGA were pain, fatigue, depression, general health perceptions and tender joint count. MDGA was predicted by swollen joint count, tender joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, fatigue and depression. Both PtGA and MDGA improved over time (all p

Imputation methods for missing data may not always be applicable, namely, when the data were completely missing for the whole sample. To estimate the missing data, we compared three missing item substitution methods: (1) mean substitution; (2) last observation carried forward (LOCF); and (3) regression-predicted values. A total of 384 parents reported their 8- to 18-year-old children's anxiety level using the 9-item Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders at baseline (Time 1) and two later time points, drawing from a larger longitudinal study (Ontario COVID-19 and Kids' Mental Health Study). We predicted a survey item measured one month after baseline (Time 2) using: (1) the mean value of the rest of the test items; (2) the value of the same item measured at baseline; and (3) the predicted value from the linear regression with all other test items as predictors. Within-Subjects ANOVA results showed a main effect of substitution methods on total score at Time 2. Post-hoc analysis indicated that mean substitution was significantly different from the actual data. Regression-predicted values overestimated the median compared to the actual values, while the LOCF estimation produced comparable means and identical medians. Similar results were found while using other indicators and extending the analysis to a larger 4-month time interval (Time 3), suggesting LOCF is more accurate and reliable than mean substitution or regression-prediction. This study proposes when advanced substitution methods are not applicable, a systematic comparison of alternative methods may help researchers to arrive at a more informed decision in data processing. • Imputation methods like multiple imputations (MI) are typically preferred to handle missing data. • Empirical comparisons can provide reliable estimates when these MI methods are not applicable. • LOCF yielded better mean, median scores, and smaller errors for SCARED scores vs. mean substitution and regression. • This approach may guide researchers facing similar challenges in missing time-sensitive mental health measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study addresses energy poverty, a situation where households are unable to afford the minimum energy services required to meet their basic needs, a problem with profound implications for the well-being of vulnerable populations. To identify the most affected areas, a geospatial analysis of energy poverty distribution in the Valencian Community (Spain) was conducted using a correlation study between the global vulnerability index and the energy poverty index, calculated from residential energy certificates. The results highlight areas of significant social, economic, demographic, and residential vulnerability, as well as regions with very high or very low energy consumption. Specifically, regions with high energy poverty and vulnerability indices were identified, enabling targeted interventions. The study concludes that interventions in these identified areas are essential to mitigate the adverse effects of energy poverty and improve living conditions for affected populations. This research offers a novel methodology for mapping regional energy poverty, surpassing previous studies in precision for identifying and addressing vulnerable areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with 2–4 prior lines of therapy. Methods: Matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAICs) were performed using individual patient-level data (IPD) for cilta-cel from CARTITUDE-1 and CARTITUDE-4 and published aggregated data for ide-cel from KarMMa-3. Cilta-cel patients who met inclusion criteria from KarMMa-3 were selected, and outcomes were compared against data for ide-cel using simulated IPD derived from aggregate-level data from KarMMa-3. Patient characteristics were adjusted by reweighting cilta-cel IPD to match the distribution of prognostic factors in KarMMa-3. Comparative efficacy was estimated for response outcomes using a weighted logistic regression analysis and for progression-free survival using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Patients treated with cilta-cel were 1.2 times more likely to achieve overall response (relative response ratio [RR]: 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 1.03–1.34]; p = 0.04), 1.3 times more likely to achieve very good partial response or better (RR: 1.34 [1.15–1.57]; p = 0.003), and 1.9 times more likely to achieve complete response or better (RR: 1.91 [1.54–2.37]; p < 0.0001) versus ide-cel patients from KarMMa-3. Cilta-cel was associated with a significant 49% reduction in risk of disease progression or death versus ide-cel (hazard ratio: 0.51 [95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.84]; p = 0.0078). Conclusion: For patients with triple-class exposed RRMM treated with 2–4 prior lines of treatment, cilta-cel was found to provide superior clinical benefit over ide-cel in terms of response and progression-free survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to systematically review the current literature on blood flow restriction (BFR) as a post-exercise recovery strategy. Experimental studies investigating the effect of BFR on recovery after exercise were included. Only studies meeting the following inclusion criteria were selected: (a) studies investigating about BFR as a post-exercise recovery strategy in athletes and healthy individuals; (b) the full text being available in English; (c) experimental research study design. Studies that exclusively analyzed BFR as a recovery strategy during the exercise (e.g., recovery strategy between bouts of exercise) were excluded. A literature review was conducted on the PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science electronic databases up until May 7th, 2023. The main findings were that (i) 9 studies investigated passive BFR as a post-exercise recovery strategy, which shows a significant lack of research in both team and individual sports (especially in female populations), and only 2 studies used active BFR protocols; (ii) although a high quality range of studies was observed, there were methodological limitations such as BFR interventions that were usually conducted after fatiguing protocols or fitness tests, which may not represent the real exercise (e.g., a sprint session of 6 sets of 50 m may induce muscle damage but it does not represent the demands of a team sport like rugby or soccer); (iii) there is a lack of consistency in BFR protocols (e.g., number of cycles or duration of the occlusion-reperfusion periods) for recovery; (iv) some studies showed beneficial effects while others found no positive or detrimental effects of BFR as a post-exercise recovery strategy in comparison with the control/SHAM group. In conclusion, only 11 studies investigated BFR as a post-exercise recovery strategy and there is not any significant amount of evidence in team or individual sports (especially in female populations). BFR could be a potential post-exercise recovery strategy, but practitioners should use caution when applying this method of recovery for their athletes and clients. In addition, it would be of interest for high performance-related practitioners to have a better understanding of the benefits of BFR interventions combined with either active or passive forms of exercise as a post-exercise recovery strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]