George Luta

Bio: George Luta is an academic researcher from Georgetown University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Breast cancer & Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 32, co-authored 124 publications receiving 2748 citations. Previous affiliations of George Luta include Georgetown University Medical Center & Copenhagen University Hospital.

A randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial of diclofenac plus misoprostol versus acetaminophen in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

Abstract: Objective To perform a randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial of diclofenac + misoprostol versus acetaminophen in ambulatory patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Methods Patients in 12 ambulatory care settings were eligible if they were age >40 years and if they had Kellgren/Lawrence radiographic grade 2–4 osteoarthritis of the knee or hip and a score of ≥30 mm on a 100-mm visual analog pain scale. Patients were randomized to one of two groups, 75 mg diclofenac + 200 μg misoprostol twice daily or 1,000 mg acetaminophen 4 times daily (each for 6 weeks), and were then crossed over to the other treatment for 6 weeks. A placebo was included in each treatment regimen to enable double blinding. The primary outcome measures were the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the visual analog pain scale of the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire. Safety was assessed using a standard form to review adverse events. Results We enrolled 227 patients, of whom 218 provided data for the first treatment period and 181 provided data for both treatment periods. Significantly higher levels of improvement in the primary outcomes were seen for diclofenac + misoprostol than for acetaminophen (P < 0.001). Adverse events were more common when patients took diclofenac + misoprostol (P = 0.046). Diclofenac + misoprostol was rated as “better” or “much better” by 57% of the 174 patients who provided such ratings for both treatment periods, while acetaminophen was rated as “better” or “much better” by 20% of these patients, and 22% reported no difference (P < 0.001). Differences favoring diclofenac + misoprostol over acetaminophen were greater in patients with more severe osteoarthritis according to baseline pain scores, radiographs, or number of involved joints. Conclusion Patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee had significantly greater improvements in pain scores over 6 weeks with diclofenac + misoprostol than with acetaminophen, although patients with mild osteoarthritis had similar improvements with both drugs. Acetaminophen was associated with fewer adverse events.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Versus In-Person Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Abstract: Purpose Although guidelines recommend in-person counseling before BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing, genetic counseling is increasingly offered by telephone. As genomic testing becomes more common, evaluating alternative delivery approaches becomes increasingly salient. We tested whether telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling was noninferior to in-person delivery. Patients and Methods Participants (women age 21 to 85 years who did not have newly diagnosed or metastatic cancer and lived within a study site catchment area) were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; n = 334) or telephone counseling (TC; n = 335). UC participants received in-person pre- and post-test counseling; TC participants completed all counseling by telephone. Primary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, decision conflict, distress, and quality of life; secondary outcomes were equivalence of BRCA1/2 test uptake and costs of delivering TC versus UC. Results TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. At 2 weeks after pretest coun...

Parental smoking exposure and adolescent smoking trajectories

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: In a multigenerational study of smoking risk, the objective was to investigate the intergenerational transmission of smoking by examining if exposure to parental smoking and nicotine dependence predicts prospective smoking trajectories among adolescent offspring. METHODS: Adolescents ( n = 406) ages 12 to 17 and a parent completed baseline interviews (2001–2004), and adolescents completed up to 2 follow-up interviews 1 and 5 years later. Baseline interviews gathered detailed information on parental smoking history, including timing and duration, current smoking, and nicotine dependence. Adolescent smoking and nicotine dependence were assessed at each time point. Latent Class Growth Analysis identified prospective smoking trajectory classes from adolescence into young adulthood. Logistic regression was used to examine relationships between parental smoking and adolescent smoking trajectories. RESULTS: Four adolescent smoking trajectory classes were identified: early regular smokers (6%), early experimenters (23%), late experimenters (41%), and nonsmokers (30%). Adolescents with parents who were nicotine-dependent smokers at baseline were more likely to be early regular smokers (odds ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.05–1.33) and early experimenters (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 1.04–1.25) with each additional year of previous exposure to parental smoking. Parents’ current non-nicotine–dependent and former smoking were not associated with adolescent smoking trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to parental nicotine dependence is a critical factor influencing intergenerational transmission of smoking. Adolescents with nicotine-dependent parents are susceptible to more intense smoking patterns and this risk increases with longer duration of exposure. Research is needed to optimize interventions to help nicotine-dependent parents quit smoking early in their children’s lifetime to reduce these risks.

United States Population-Based Estimates of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Symptom and Functional Status Reference Values for Individuals With Cancer

Abstract: Purpose To estimate cancer population-based reference values in the United States for eight PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) domains by age and stage of disease. Patients and Methods For the Measuring Your Health (MY-Health) study, persons newly diagnosed with cancer (prostate, colorectal, non-small-cell lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, breast, uterine, or cervical) from 2010 to 2012 (N = 5,284) were recruited through the National Cancer Institute's SEER Program. Participants were mailed surveys 6 to 13 months after diagnosis. Raking by race/ethnicity, age, and stage generated weighted average PROMIS scores for pain interference, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, physical function, ability to participate in social roles, and cognitive function. PROMIS measures are standardized to a T-score metric, with a score of 50 representing the general US population mean. Clinically meaningful differences were defined as a 3-point difference in scores. Results Several reference values (means) for patients with cancer were worse than the general United States population norms of 50. These include pain interference (52.4), fatigue (52.2), and physical function (44.1). Reference values were highest (ie, showed greatest symptom burden) in lung cancer (pain interference, 55.5; fatigue, 57.3; depression, 51.4) and cervical cancer (anxiety, 53.2; sleep disturbance, 53.4). Reference values for patients age 65 to 84 years reported lower sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression, and better cognitive function than younger patients. Cancer reference values were poorer among those with advanced disease compared with patients with limited or no evidence of disease, specifically physical function (41.1 v 46.6, respectively), fatigue (55.8 v 50.2, respectively), and pain interference (55.2 v 50.9, respectively). Conclusion In a large, population-based sample of patients with recently diagnosed cancer, we observed symptom severity and functional deficits by age, stage, and cancer type consistent with the expected impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment. These United States cancer reference values can help facilitate interpretation of the PROMIS domain scores in research studies or in clinical applications that measure and evaluate the symptom and functional burden patients with cancer experience after initial treatment.

I and i

Abstract: There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one. I remember first hearing about it at school. It seemed an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality. Usually familiarity dulls this sense of the bizarre, but in the case of i it was the reverse: over the years the sense of its surreal nature intensified. It seemed that it was impossible to write mathematics that described the real world in …

Using Multivariate Statistics

Abstract: Thank you for downloading using multivariate statistics. As you may know, people have look hundreds times for their favorite novels like this using multivariate statistics, but end up in infectious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they juggled with some harmful bugs inside their laptop. using multivariate statistics is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly. Our books collection saves in multiple locations, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Merely said, the using multivariate statistics is universally compatible with any devices to read.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016.

Abstract: The number of cancer survivors continues to increase because of both advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the population. For the public health community to better serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate to estimate the number of current and future cancer survivors using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries. In addition, current treatment patterns for the most prevalent cancer types are presented based on information in the National Cancer Data Base and treatment-related side effects are briefly described. More than 15.5 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2016, and this number is projected to reach more than 20 million by January 1, 2026. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,306,760), colon and rectum (724,690), and melanoma (614,460) among males and breast (3,560,570), uterine corpus (757,190), and colon and rectum (727,350) among females. More than one-half (56%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and almost one-half (47%) are aged 70 years or older. People with a history of cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs that require proactive assessment and management by primary care providers. Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based resources are needed to optimize care. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:271-289. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia the official statement of the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Disease Society of America (特集 救急診療ガイドライン) -- (海外のガイドライン)

Abstract: Executive Summary Introduction Methodology Used to Prepare the Guideline Epidemiology Incidence Etiology Major Epidemiologic Points Pathogenesis Major Points for Pathogenesis Modifiable Risk Factors Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation Aspiration, Body Position, and Enteral Feeding Modulation of Colonization: Oral Antiseptics and Antibiotics Stress Bleeding Prophylaxis, Transfusion, and Glucose Control Major Points and Recommendations for Modifiable Risk Factors Diagnostic Testing Major Points and Recommendations for Diagnosis Diagnostic Strategies and Approaches Clinical Strategy Bacteriologic Strategy Recommended Diagnostic Strategy Major Points and Recommendations for Comparing Diagnostic Strategies Antibiotic Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia General Approach Initial Empiric Antibiotic Therapy Appropriate Antibiotic Selection and Adequate Dosing Local Instillation and Aerosolized Antibiotics Combination versus Monotherapy Duration of Therapy Major Points and Recommendations for Optimal Antibiotic Therapy Specific Antibiotic Regimens Antibiotic Heterogeneity and Antibiotic Cycling Response to Therapy Modification of Empiric Antibiotic Regimens Defining the Normal Pattern of Resolution Reasons for Deterioration or Nonresolution Evaluation of the Nonresponding Patient Major Points and Recommendations for Assessing Response to Therapy Suggested Performance Indicators