Pedagosko i psiholosko testiranje i procjenjivanje spadaju među najvažnije doprinose znanosti o ponasanju nasem drustvu i pružaju temeljna i znacajna poboljsanja u odnosu na ranije postupke. Iako se ne može ustvrditi da su svi testovi dovoljno usavrseni niti da su sva testiranja razborita i korisna, postoji velika kolicina informacija koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima. Pravilna upotreba testova može dovesti do boljih odluka o pojedincima i programima nego sto bi to bio slucaj bez njihovog koristenja, a također i ukazati na put za siri i pravedniji pristup obrazovanju i zaposljavanju. Međutim, losa upotreba testova može dovesti do zamjetne stete nanesene ispitanicima i drugim sudionicima u procesu donosenja odluka na temelju testovnih podataka. Cilj Standarda je promoviranje kvalitetne i eticne upotrebe testova te uspostavljanje osnovice za ocjenu kvalitete postupaka testiranja. Svrha objavljivanja Standarda je uspostavljanje kriterija za evaluaciju testova, provedbe testiranja i posljedica upotrebe testova. Iako bi evaluacija prikladnosti testa ili njegove primjene trebala ovisiti prvenstveno o strucnim misljenjima, Standardi pružaju okvir koji osigurava obuhvacanje svih relevantnih pitanja. Bilo bi poželjno da svi autori, sponzori, nakladnici i korisnici profesionalnih testova usvoje Standarde te da poticu druge da ih također prihvate.

Standards for educational and psychological testing

With advances in the effectiveness of treatment and disease management, the contribution of chronic comorbid diseases (comorbidities) found within the Charlson comorbidity index to mortality is likely to have changed since development of the index in 1984. The authors reevaluated the Charlson index and reassigned weights to each condition by identifying and following patients to observe mortality within 1 year after hospital discharge. They applied the updated index and weights to hospital discharge data from 6 countries and tested for their ability to predict in-hospital mortality. Compared with the original Charlson weights, weights generated from the Calgary, Alberta, Canada, data (2004) were 0 for 5 comorbidities, decreased for 3 comorbidities, increased for 4 comorbidities, and did not change for 5 comorbidities. The C statistics for discriminating in-hospital mortality between the new score generated from the 12 comorbidities and the Charlson score were 0.825 (new) and 0.808 (old), respectively, in Australian data (2008), 0.828 and 0.825 in Canadian data (2008), 0.878 and 0.882 in French data (2004), 0.727 and 0.723 in Japanese data (2008), 0.831 and 0.836 in New Zealand data (2008), and 0.869 and 0.876 in Swiss data (2008). The updated index of 12 comorbidities showed good-to-excellent discrimination in predicting in-hospital mortality in data from 6 countries and may be more appropriate for use with more recent administrative data.

/pdf/updating-and-validating-the-charlson-comorbidity-index-and-u1djuhty32.pdf

Updating and Validating the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Score for Risk Adjustment in Hospital Discharge Abstracts Using Data From 6 Countries

Global Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Meta-analysis

This report updates the 2020-21 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69[No. RR-8]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. During the 2021-22 influenza season, the following types of vaccines are expected to be available: inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4).The 2021-22 influenza season is expected to coincide with continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. Recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html, and additional clinical guidance is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 28, 2020; February 25, 2021; and June 24, 2021. Primary updates to this report include the following six items. First, all seasonal influenza vaccines available in the United States for the 2021-22 season are expected to be quadrivalent. Second, the composition of 2021-22 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2) components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture-based and recombinant vaccines), an influenza A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 (H3N2)-like virus, an influenza B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)-like virus, and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Third, the approved age indication for the cell culture-based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), has been expanded from ages ≥4 years to ages ≥2 years. Fourth, discussion of administration of influenza vaccines with other vaccines includes considerations for coadministration of influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. Providers should also consult current ACIP COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and CDC guidance concerning coadministration of these vaccines with influenza vaccines. Vaccines that are given at the same time should be administered in separate anatomic sites. Fifth, guidance concerning timing of influenza vaccination now states that vaccination soon after vaccine becomes available can be considered for pregnant women in the third trimester. As previously recommended, children who need 2 doses (children aged 6 months through 8 years who have never received influenza vaccine or who have not previously received a lifetime total of ≥2 doses) should receive their first dose as soon as possible after vaccine becomes available to allow the second dose (which must be administered ≥4 weeks later) to be received by the end of October. For nonpregnant adults, vaccination in July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that later vaccination might not be possible. Sixth, contraindications and precautions to the use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 have been modified, specifically with regard to persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to an influenza vaccine. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, LAIV, or RIV of any valency is a precaution to use of ccIIV4. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, ccIIV, or LAIV of any valency is a precaution to use of RIV4. Use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 in such instances should occur in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under supervision of a provider who can recognize and manage a severe allergic reaction; providers can also consider consulting with an allergist to help identify the vaccine component responsible for the reaction. For ccIIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any ccIIV of any valency or any component of ccIIV4 is a contraindication to future use of ccIIV4. For RIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any RIV of any valency or any component of RIV4 is a contraindication to future use of RIV4. This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2021-22 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu); vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

/pdf/prevention-and-control-of-seasonal-influenza-with-vaccines-1dg9rw8cby.pdf

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2020-21 Influenza Season.

This user’s guide is intended to support the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, and quality evaluation of registries created to increase understanding of patient outcomes. For the purposes of this guide, a patient registry is an organized system that uses observational study methods to collect uniform data (clinical and other) to evaluate specified outcomes for a population defined by a particular disease, condition, or exposure, and that serves one or more predetermined scientific, clinical, or policy purposes. A registry database is a file (or files) derived from the registry. Although registries can serve many purposes, this guide focuses on registries created for one or more of the following purposes: to describe the natural history of disease, to determine clinical effectiveness or costeffectiveness of health care products and services, to measure or monitor safety and harm, and/or to measure quality of care.

Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User's Guide

Summary: Purpose: The present study was conducted to determine the rate of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP) in a well-defined cohort of patients included in the lamotrigine (LTG) clinical development database.



Methods: A panel of scientists experienced in the area of SUDEP was assembled and provided with case summaries on all deaths (n = 45) reported during the initial clinical development of LTG. The panel developed a set of criteria for classifying cases as SUDEP (definite or highly probable), possible SUDEP, or non-SUDEP. This classification algorithm was then applied to the LTG cases, and SUDEP rates were calculated using patient-years of exposure as the denominator.



Results: At the time of the study, 4,700 patients (5,747 patient-years of exposure) were included in the worldwide LTG clinical trials database. In this cohort, 45 deaths were reported. Eighteen were judged by the panel to be SUDEP, 6 were defined as possible SUDEP, 20 were judged to be due to other causes (non-SUDEP), and 1 lacked sufficient data from which to make a classification. The overall SUDEP rate (definite/highly probable SUDEP and possible SUDEP combined) was calculated to be 3.5 in 1,000 patient-years of exposure to LTG.



Conclusions: The rate of SUDEP in this cohort of patients was comparable to the rate that would be expected in young adults with severe epilepsy (the subgroup of patients believed to be at highest risk of SUDEP). The data suggest that the rate of SUDEP in the LTG clinical development program is a function of the clinical trial population and is unrelated to drug treatment.

Sudden Unexplained Death in Epilepsy: Observations from a Large Clinical Development Program

Clinical and epidemiologic evidence suggest serious cutaneous reactions to antiepileptic drugs are more likely to occur during the first few months of use. However, studies have quantified risk for these reactions by including all users and their entire duration of use in denominator estimates possibly underestimating the risk. The objective of this study was to measure risk of serious cutaneous reactions in new users of phenytoin, carbamazepine, or valproic acid. We identified serious cutaneous reactions that included hospitalization and occurred within 60 days of the first or second prescription for new users of each study drug in the Saskatchewan Health data files. To classify outcome diagnoses, a dermatologist reviewed hospital discharge summaries. In 8,888 new phenytoin users there were eight serious cutaneous reactions. These included two probable and two possible cases of hypersensitivity syndrome, yielding a risk of 2.3 to 4.5 per 10,000 for this syndrome. There were six serious cutaneous reactions in 9,738 new carbamazepine users. These included one probable case and four possible cases of hypersensitivity syndrome, yielding a risk of 1 to 4.1 per 10,000 for this syndrome. There were no confirmed serious cutaneous diagnoses in 1,504 new valproate users. During the first few weeks of initiating therapy with phenytoin or carbamazepine, the clinician should be aware of the uncommon but not rare possibility that a cutaneous eruption could evolve into a significantly more serious reaction.

Risk of serious cutaneous disorders after initiation of use of phenytoin, carbamazepine, or sodium valproate: A record linkage study

Summary: To measure the incidence of sudden unexplained death in treated persons with epilepsy (SUDEP) and to identify risk factors for SUDEP, a cohort of 6,044 persons aged 15–49 years with more than four prescriptions for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was identified from the Saskatchewan Health prescription drug file. To exclude subjects whose sudden deaths (SUDs) might be misattributed to another chronic underlying disease, subjects with hospitalizations for cancer or heart problems were excluded. To exclude subjects without epilepsy, subjects with >2-year AED treatment followed by AED-free time and subjects receiving < 1 U/day were excluded. The final cohort consisted of 3,688 subjects. Follow-up was started at the first AED prescription listed in the prescription drug file and ended at the earliest of the following: age 50 years, death, or last registration in the Saskatchewan Health. For 153 of 163 deaths occurring in the cohort, copies of anonymized death certificates were obtained and copies of anonymized autopsy reports of potential SUDEP cases were examined. There were 18 definite/probable SUDs and 21 possible SUDEPs, yielding a minimum incidence of 0.54 SUDEP per 1,000 person-years and a maximum of 1.35 SUDEP per 1,000 person-years. SUDEP incidence increased with male sex, number of AEDs ever prescribed, and prescription of psychotropic drugs and was highest in males with a history of treatment with three or more AEDs and four or more psychotropic drug prescriptions. Poisson regression showed a 1.7-fold increase in risk of SUDEP for each increment in maximum number of AEDs administered, a likely surrogate for severity and persistence of seizures.

Cohort study of incidence of sudden unexplained death in persons with seizure disorder treated with antiepileptic drugs in Saskatchewan, Canada

The article regarding lamotrigine and the risk for pregnancy malformations by Cunnington et al. provides encouraging information for women with epilepsy and their families1 but their conclusion that “the risk of all major birth defects after first trimester exposure to lamotrigine monotherapy (2.9%) was similar to that in the general population” may be exaggerated.

Population comparisons for these estimates are problematic. The authors use as a population comparison data from the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program (MACDP) between 1991 and 1995.2 This population-based registry uses active case identification from multiple sources, undertakes direct chart review of potential cases, and includes all malformations identified through age 5. MACDP reports a malformation prevalence of 3.2%. To provide a better comparison with registry data such as that provided in the report of Cunningham et al., MACDP provides a prevalence of “early diagnoses” of malformations (presumably those readily identifiable at or shortly after birth) of 2.2%. Both of these prevalence rates include children with chromosomal and genetic anomalies—a group appropriately excluded from the Lamotrigine Registry data.1

A more appropriate comparison for birth prevalence of malformations may be that …

Lamotrigine and the risk of malformations in pregnancy

Summary


Background : Irritable bowel syndrome is a common gastrointestinal disorder, and its prevalence and demographics have been evaluated by different methodologies with varying results.



Aim : To evaluate irritable bowel syndrome demographic and prevalence characteristics utilizing a web-enabled panel.



Methods : From an existing 150 000-member panel, 31 829 individuals were randomly selected and sent screening questionnaires to evaluate irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Individuals who agreed to participate and completed the screening questionnaire received a second questionnaire related to a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome, a more detailed symptom description, and additional burden of illness data.



Results : Irritable bowel syndrome prevalence was 7%. Prevalence was higher in women vs. men, unmarried individuals vs. married individuals and unemployed individuals vs. employed individuals. Of those completing the second questionnaire, 51% had seen their physicians for irritable bowel syndrome symptoms in the past year and most had an episode within the past 3 months. During the past year, approximately half of the participants had used a prescription medication, and over 90% had used an over-the-counter medication for irritable bowel syndrome. Participants with irritable bowel syndrome demonstrated quality-of-life reductions relative to norms of the United States population.



Conclusions : Web-enabled data collection represents a novel tool for rapidly surveying a large population of individuals with irritable bowel syndrome symptoms.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02671.x

Patricia Tennis

Papers

Sudden Unexplained Death in Epilepsy: Observations from a Large Clinical Development Program

Risk of serious cutaneous disorders after initiation of use of phenytoin, carbamazepine, or sodium valproate: A record linkage study

Cohort study of incidence of sudden unexplained death in persons with seizure disorder treated with antiepileptic drugs in Saskatchewan, Canada

Lamotrigine and the risk of malformations in pregnancy

Prevalence and demographics of irritable bowel syndrome: results from a large web-based survey.