Lower femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) in elderly women not on statins.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and osteoporosis, the two most frequently occurring chronic diseases of aging populations, share many risk factors including lack of estrogen, smoking, and low physical activity. CAD and low bone mineral density (BMD) are strongly associated. Statins, (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A [HMG-CoA] reductase inhibitors), are used to prevent and treat CAD and have been associated with high BMD. This cross-sectional study examined associations of BMD with statin use and nonuse in elderly women with or without CAD. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted on 185 women aged ≥60 years who were referred between October 2010 and March 2015 to a geriatric osteoporosis clinic in Houston, Texas, for compromised skeletal health. Compared to the control group (without CAD and without statin use), patients with CAD and no statin use were more likely to have lower femoral neck BMD (ß: -0.46, 95% confidence interval: -0.75 to -0.18). The BMD of patients taking statins, regardless of presence of CAD, was similar to that of the control group. Statins may be protective in preventing bone loss in elderly women suffering from CAD. Prospective trials are warranted to determine if continued use of statins in them would help prevent both CAD and bone loss.

Factors Considered by Interprofessional Team for Treatment Decision in Hip Fracture with Dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with dementia are at high risk for hip fractures and often have poor outcomes when a fracture is sustained. Despite this poor prognosis, little data are available on what factors should be prioritized to guide surgical decision making in these cases. We aimed to understand the decision-making process for older dementia patients hospitalized after hip fractures. DESIGN: We performed a qualitative analysis of in-depth elite interviews conducted with a clinical care team involved in management of patients with dementia after hospitalization for hip fractures. SETTING: Interviews were conducted with an interprofessional team involved in the care of patients with dementia after being hospitalized for hip fractures. PARTICIPANTS: Interviewees included nine orthopaedic surgeons, three hospitalists, three geriatricians, five nurses, three occupational therapists, three physical therapists, and two clinical ethicists. MEASUREMENTS: Verbatim transcripts of the interviews were analyzed and coded using QSR International's NVivo 10 qualitative database management software. RESULTS: The three main themes that most interviewees discussed were pain control, functional status, and medical comorbidities. Interviewees brought up many factors related to restoring functional status including baseline functional status, rehabilitation potential, social support, and the importance of mobility. Dementia and its impact on rehabilitation potential were mentioned by all geriatricians. CONCLUSION: Although frailty, prognosis, and life expectancy were largely absent from the responses, the emphasis on dementia, advanced directives, and involving family or caregivers by the three geriatricians indicates the importance of including geriatricians in the decision-making team for these patients.

Trials of decision aids for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are used to promote informed decision making. This review examines the methods and findings of studies that have evaluated the impact of prostate cancer screening decision aids on patient outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Registry, reference lists, and abstracts from professional meetings were searched through December 2006. Search terms included prostate cancer screening and decision making. Studies were included if a patient education intervention for prostate cancer screening had been evaluated against a control condition. RESULTS: Eighteen eligible trials, involving 6221 participants, were identified. Sixteen studies enrolled primary care patients, while the remaining two studies were community-based. All the prostate cancer screening decision aids were in English, with varied reading levels. Consistent with previous reviews, the patient decision aids improved patient knowledge and made patients more confident about their decisions. The aids appeared to decrease interest in prostate-specific antigen testing and screening behavior among patients seeking routine care (relative risk [RR]=0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.81-0.97, p=0.008); the aids had no impact on the screening behavior of patients seeking screening services. Additionally, patients who received patient decision aids were more likely to prefer watchful waiting as a treatment option if they were found to have prostate cancer than were controls (RR=1.53, 95% CI=1.31-1.77, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer screening decision aids enhance patient knowledge, decrease decisional conflict, and promote greater involvement in decision making. The absence of outcome measures that reflect all elements of informed decision making continues to limit the field.

Hepatotoxicity with Vismodegib: An MD Anderson Cancer Center and Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports Project.

BACKGROUND: On 30 January 2012, the US FDA approved vismodegib (Erivedge®, Genentech, CA, USA) for the management of both metastatic and locally advanced basal cell carcinoma. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify evidence of hepatotoxicity with vismodegib in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in treated patients in two National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Centers. METHODS: FAERS was searched for reports dated 1 January 2009 through 31 December 2015 using terms including hedgehog pathway and vismodegib and hepatic-related terms such as liver, jaundice, and hepatitis, among others. Disproportionality analyses with estimates of proportional reporting ratio and empirical Bayesian geometric mean were conducted. A comprehensive literature review was conducted, and the clinical databases at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University were searched. RESULTS: Two cases of severe liver dysfunction were published (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] class III), and 94 reports of adverse events (AEs) were detected in FAERS, 35 of which were serious AEs. Safety notifications related to hepatotoxicity have not been issued by the manufacturer or the FDA, although vismodegib is listed in LiverTox and the European Medicines Agency website. CONCLUSION: We identified a detectable safety signal for hepatotoxicity for vismodegib within 4 years of FDA approval. Vismodegib should be used in patients with severe liver disease only after careful consideration, and concomitant hepatotoxic medications should be avoided. Rapid dissemination of such safety concerns is expected to result in fewer serious hepatotoxic AEs and more optimal outcomes for patients with cancer receiving vismodegib.

Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Decision aids prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.

Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of two search methods in identifying studies that used the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), a health care decision-making instrument commonly used in clinical settings. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched the literature using two methods: (1) keyword searching using variations of "Control Preferences Scale" and (2) cited reference searching using two seminal CPS publications. We searched three bibliographic databases [PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS)] and one full-text database (Google Scholar). We report precision and sensitivity as measures of effectiveness. RESULTS: Keyword searches in bibliographic databases yielded high average precision (90%) but low average sensitivity (16%). PubMed was the most precise, followed closely by Scopus and WOS. The Google Scholar keyword search had low precision (54%) but provided the highest sensitivity (70%). Cited reference searches in all databases yielded moderate sensitivity (45-54%), but precision ranged from 35% to 75% with Scopus being the most precise. CONCLUSION: Cited reference searches were more sensitive than keyword searches, making it a more comprehensive strategy to identify all studies that use a particular instrument. Keyword searches provide a quick way of finding some but not all relevant articles. Goals, time, and resources should dictate the combination of which methods and databases are used.