Player Load in Elite Netball: Match, Training, and Positional Comparisons.

CONTEXT: The activity profile of competition and training in elite netball has not been comprehensively reported in the literature. PURPOSE: To measure and analyze player load in elite netballers during matches and training sessions. The primary research question was, How does player load vary between playing positions in a match and between matches and training sessions? METHODS: Various measures of player load were recorded in 12 elite professional netballers with a mean ± SD age of 26 ± 4.9 y and height of 183.2 ± 8.7 cm. Player load was assessed using a published method that uses accelerometry. Load was represented as total load in arbitrary units (au), playing intensity (au/min), and relative time spent in each of 4 playing intensity zones (low, low to moderate, moderate, and high). Data from 15 games and up to 17 training sessions were analyzed for each player. RESULTS: Player load in matches for the goal-based positions (goal shooter, goal keeper, and goal defense) tended to be lower than the attacking and wing-based positions (goal attack, wing attack, wing defense, and center). The difference was largely due to the amount of time spent in low-intensity activity. Playing intensity of matches was greater than in training sessions; however, the total time spent in moderate- to high-intensity activities was not practically different. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometry is a valuable method of measuring player load in netball, and the present results provide new information about the activity profile of different playing positions.

Vandetanib with docetaxel as second-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase II study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this Phase II study was to assess the efficacy and safety of vandetanib in combination with docetaxel in patients with pretreated advanced breast cancer. METHODS: The primary study objective was to compare the number of progression events in patients receiving once-daily oral vandetanib (100 mg) in combination with docetaxel (100 mg/m(2) iv every 21 days) versus placebo plus docetaxel. Sixty-four patients were randomized to receive study treatment (n = 35, vandetanib; n = 29, placebo). RESULTS: A slightly greater number of patients had experienced a progression event by the data cut-off in the vandetanib group (24 [69%]) compared with the placebo group (18 [62%]); HR = 1.19, two-sided 80% CI: 0.79-1.81; two-sided P = 0.59), suggesting that the addition of vandetanib to docetaxel did not affect the risk of disease progression compared with placebo plus docetaxel. The safety and tolerability profile of the combination therapy reflected those of both drugs as monotherapy agents. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced breast cancer, vandetanib plus docetaxel was generally well tolerated. Clinical benefit was not different to that observed with placebo plus docetaxel. However, due to the small patient number it was not possible to yield robust results, further research is required to identify predictive factors for patient selection.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of vandetanib plus docetaxel/prednisolone in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Vandetanib (ZACTIMA) is a once-daily oral anticancer drug that selectively inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor, and rearranged during transfection signaling. This randomized (1:1), double-blind study evaluated vandetanib (100 mg/day) or placebo in combination with docetaxel (D; 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks) and prednisolone (P; 2 x 5 mg/day) in 86 patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC). The primary assessment was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (confirmed reduction of >or=50% from baseline) and a greater number of patients showed a PSA response with placebo + DP (67%) versus vandetanib + DP (40%); hazard ratio = 2.23 (one-sided 80% confidence limit = 2.90; one-sided p = 0.99). More patients experienced progression events (disease progression or death from any cause) with vandetanib + DP (65%) versus placebo + DP (60%); hazard ratio = 1.13 (one-sided 80% confidence limit = 1.44; one-sided p = 0.67). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups, although more patients experienced adverse events, leading to permanent discontinuation with vandetanib + DP (28%) versus placebo + DP (12%). However, the safety and tolerability profile for vandetanib was similar to that previously reported; adverse events that occurred more frequently in the vandetanib + DP arm were hypertension (14% vs. 2%), erythematous rash (14% vs. 2%), and exfoliative rash (12% vs. 2%). In this study of patients with mHRPC, vandetanib + DP did not demonstrate any efficacy benefit, compared with placebo + DP.

Caffeine and performance in clay target shooting.

Controversy surrounds the influence that caffeine has on accuracy and cognitive performance in precision activities such as shooting and archery. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of two doses of caffeine on shooting performance, reaction time, and target tracking times in the sport of clay target shooting. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design was undertaken by seven elite male shooters from the double-trap discipline. Three intervention trials (2 mg caffeine . kg(-1) body mass (BM); 4 mg caffeine . kg(-1) BM; placebo) were undertaken, in which shooters completed four rounds per trial of 50 targets per round. Performance accuracy (score) and digital video footage (for determination of reaction time and target tracking times) were gathered during competition. Data were analysed using repeated-measures analysis of variance. No differences in shooting accuracy, reaction time or target tracking times among the three intervention trials or across the four rounds within each intervention were observed (P > 0.05). The results indicate that ingestion of < or =4 mg caffeine . kg(-1) BM does not provide performance benefits to elite performers of clay target shooting in the double-trap discipline.

Post-license education for novice drivers: evaluation of a training programme implemented in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the implementation of a second phase training program for novice drivers in Spain, which puts the primary focus of the training on the higher hierarchical levels of driver behavior. METHOD: Two hundred and sixty-three participants took part throughout the study, which was implemented as an experimental design with the test and control groups assessed before and after the one day safety training. Measurement of the impact of the training program focused on the participants' self-evaluation and self-reporting of some driving behavior indicators related to accident risk. RESULTS: Data analysis showed a change in the expected direction in the scale related to the skills for careful driving, but not for the other four scales considered. A feedback survey about the training course offered some important input for evaluating the organization, contents, tuition, and results of the three parts of the training program (discussion group, on-road and track training) as reported by the participants in the test group. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: The results of the experiment show that using a one day driver safety course, it is possible to change some of the drivers' evaluations connected to safe driving style into safe direction. The follow-up period was exceptionally long (9 months) and the design (randomly divided experimental and control groups with before and after measurements) was reliable. More effort should be devoted to improving the on-road part of the training, which was often perceived as a typical driving lesson rather than a feedback drive. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The findings suggest consideration of a mandatory 2nd phase driver training programme as a means to raise awareness of the full range of risks encountered by novice drivers, and as already introduced in 5 EU countries: Austria, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Lack of correlation between exercise and sibenadet-induced changes in heart rate corrected measurement of the QT interval.

AIMS: We sought to investigate subject specific QT interval correction factors (SSCF) determined at rest and after exercise and to determine the validity of these factors after the administration of a probe drug known to increase heart rate without directly affecting cardiac repolarization. METHODS: Thirty-two healthy volunteers underwent graded exercise, multiple recordings of electrocardiogram during rest over a day and a treatment phase administering inhaled placebo or sibenadet (a beta(2)-adrenoceptor/dopamine D(2)-receptor agonist) at 250, 500 or one of 750 or 1000 microg. SSCF were determined from linear regression of plots of log RR interval vs. log QT after exercise (QTcX), rest (QTcR), and combined data (QTcC). The SSCFs along with Bazett & Fridericia corrections were applied to the ECGs after inhalation of sibenadet. RESULTS: SSCFs obtained from the combination of the exercise and resting day (mean QTcC = 0.41) and exercise alone (mean QTcX = 0.40) were similar with a good fit to the data (mean r(2) = 0.92 and 0.93, respectively) while data at rest resulted in a less pronounced slope (mean QTcR = 0.27) and poorer fit (mean r(2) = 0.52). After the administration of sibenadet, none of the SSCFs, Bazett or Fridericia corrections adequately corrected QT for heart rate induced changes. CONCLUSIONS: Neither a SSCF from exercise, Bazett's or Fridericia's correction factors, adequately corrected the QT interval after the administration of a sympathomimetic agonist drug to increase heart rate in healthy volunteers demonstrating the potential need for QT/RR correction factors to be tailored for each drug studied.

Comparison of the COX-inhibiting nitric oxide donator AZD3582 and rofecoxib in treating the signs and symptoms of Osteoarthritis of the knee.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AZD3582 with that of rofecoxib, naproxen, and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, and to define the dosage of AZD3582 (125 mg, 375 mg, and 750 mg twice a day) that is noninferior in efficacy to rofecoxib. METHODS: A double-blind study of 672 patients with OA of the knee was conducted. Patients who experienced increased pain on withdrawal of analgesia were randomized to receive AZD3582 125 mg, 375 mg, or 750 mg twice a day; rofecoxib 25 mg once a day; naproxen 500 mg twice a day; or placebo for 6 weeks. Efficacy, tolerability, and safety were monitored throughout the study. The primary variable was the change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale from baseline to the mean of weeks 4 and 6, comparing AZD3582 with placebo for superiority and with rofecoxib for noninferiority using a predefined margin of 10 mm. RESULTS: For the primary variable, AZD3582 375 mg and 750 mg were superior to placebo (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval] -12 mm [-18, -6], P < 0.001 and -13 mm [-19, -7], P < 0.001, respectively) and were noninferior to rofecoxib (-2 mm [-8, 4], P < 0.001 and -3 mm [-9, 3], P < 0.001, respectively). AZD3582 125 mg was not significantly different from placebo for the primary variable. CONCLUSION: AZD3582 375 mg and 750 mg twice a day were superior to placebo and as effective as rofecoxib 25 mg/day in treating the signs and symptoms of OA of the knee. AZD3582 125 mg twice a day was not statistically different from placebo.