Veterans Health Administration

We performed a Monte Carlo study to evaluate the effect of the number of events per variable (EPV) analyzed in logistic regression analysis. The simulations were based on data from a cardiac trial of 673 patients in which 252 deaths occurred and seven variables were cogent predictors of mortality; the number of events per predictive variable was (252/7 =) 36 for the full sample. For the simulations, at values of EPV = 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25, we randomly generated 500 samples of the 673 patients, chosen with replacement, according to a logistic model derived from the full sample. Simulation results for the regression coefficients for each variable in each group of 500 samples were compared for bias, precision, and significance testing against the results of the model fitted to the original sample. For EPV values of 10 or greater, no major problems occurred. For EPV values less than 10, however, the regression coefficients were biased in both positive and negative directions; the large sample variance estimates from the logistic model both overestimated and underestimated the sample variance of the regression coefficients; the 90% confidence limits about the estimated values did not have proper coverage; the Wald statistic was conservative under the null hypothesis; and paradoxical associations (significance in the wrong direction) were increased. Although other factors (such as the total number of events, or sample size) may influence the validity of the logistic model, our findings indicate that low EPV can lead to major problems.

In the context of the development of prototypic assessment instruments in the areas of cognition, personality, and adaptive functioning, the issues of standardization, norming procedures, and the important psychometrics of test reliability and validity are evaluated critically. Criteria, guidelines, and simple rules of thumb are provided to assist the clinician faced with the challenge of choosing an appropriate test instrument for a given psychological assessment. Clinicians are often faced with the critical challenge of choosing the most appropriate available test instrument for a given psychological assessment of a child, adolescent, or adult of a particular age, gender, and class of disability. It is the purpose of this report to provide some criteria, guidelines, or simple rules of thumb to aid in this complex scientific decision. As such, it draws upon my experience with issues of test development, standardization, norming procedures, and important psychometrics, namely, test reliability and validity. As I and my colleagues noted in an earlier publication, the major areas of psychological functioning, in the normal development of infants, children, adolescents, adults, and elderly people, include cognitive, academic, personality, and adaptive behaviors (Sparrow, Fletcher, & Cicchetti, 1985). As such, the major examples or applications discussed in this article derive primarily, although not exclusively, from these several areas of human functioning.

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

BACKGROUND: The current practice of removing adenomatous polyps of the colon and rectum is based on the belief that this will prevent colorectal cancer. To address the hypothesis that colonoscopic polypectomy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer, we analyzed the results of the National Polyp Study with reference to other published results. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 1418 patients who had a complete colonoscopy during which one or more adenomas of the colon or rectum were removed. The patients subsequently underwent periodic colonoscopy during an average follow-up of 5.9 years, and the incidence of colorectal cancer was ascertained. The incidence rate of colorectal cancer was compared with that in three reference groups, including two cohorts in which colonic polyps were not removed and one general-population registry, after adjustment for sex, age, and polyp size. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of the patients were followed clinically for a total of 8401 person-years, and 80 percent returned for one or more of their scheduled colonoscopies. Five asymptomatic early-stage colorectal cancers (malignant polyps) were detected by colonoscopy (three at three years, one at six years, and one at seven years). No symptomatic cancers were detected. The numbers of colorectal cancers expected on the basis of the rates in the three reference groups were 48.3, 43.4, and 20.7, for reductions in the incidence of colorectal cancer of 90, 88, and 76 percent, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopic polypectomy resulted in a lower-than-expected incidence of colorectal cancer. These results support the view that colorectal adenomas progress to adenocarcinomas, as well as the current practice of searching for and removing adenomatous polyps to prevent colorectal cancer.

Saturation is a core guiding principle to determine sample sizes in qualitative research, yet little methodological research exists on parameters that influence saturation. Our study compared two approaches to assessing saturation: code saturation and meaning saturation. We examined sample sizes needed to reach saturation in each approach, what saturation meant, and how to assess saturation. Examining 25 in-depth interviews, we found that code saturation was reached at nine interviews, whereby the range of thematic issues was identified. However, 16 to 24 interviews were needed to reach meaning saturation where we developed a richly textured understanding of issues. Thus, code saturation may indicate when researchers have "heard it all," but meaning saturation is needed to "understand it all." We used our results to develop parameters that influence saturation, which may be used to estimate sample sizes for qualitative research proposals or to document in publications the grounds on which saturation was achieved.

BACKGROUND: Currently, no single U.S. surveillance system can provide estimates of the burden of all types of health care-associated infections across acute care patient populations. We conducted a prevalence survey in 10 geographically diverse states to determine the prevalence of health care-associated infections in acute care hospitals and generate updated estimates of the national burden of such infections. METHODS: We defined health care-associated infections with the use of National Healthcare Safety Network criteria. One-day surveys of randomly selected inpatients were performed in participating hospitals. Hospital personnel collected demographic and limited clinical data. Trained data collectors reviewed medical records retrospectively to identify health care-associated infections active at the time of the survey. Survey data and 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample data, stratified according to patient age and length of hospital stay, were used to estimate the total numbers of health care-associated infections and of inpatients with such infections in U.S. acute care hospitals in 2011. RESULTS: Surveys were conducted in 183 hospitals. Of 11,282 patients, 452 had 1 or more health care-associated infections (4.0%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7 to 4.4). Of 504 such infections, the most common types were pneumonia (21.8%), surgical-site infections (21.8%), and gastrointestinal infections (17.1%). Clostridium difficile was the most commonly reported pathogen (causing 12.1% of health care-associated infections). Device-associated infections (i.e., central-catheter-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, and ventilator-associated pneumonia), which have traditionally been the focus of programs to prevent health care-associated infections, accounted for 25.6% of such infections. We estimated that there were 648,000 patients with 721,800 health care-associated infections in U.S. acute care hospitals in 2011. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this multistate prevalence survey of health care-associated infections indicate that public health surveillance and prevention activities should continue to address C. difficile infections. As device- and procedure-associated infections decrease, consideration should be given to expanding surveillance and prevention activities to include other health care-associated infections.

Despite the increasing prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), its pathogenesis and clinical significance remain poorly defined. In this study, we examined and compared the distribution of hepatic triglyceride content (HTGC) in 2,287 subjects from a multiethnic, population-based sample (32.1% white, 48.3% black, and 17.5% Hispanic) using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. HTGC varied over a wide range (0.0%-41.7%; median, 3.6%) in the population. Almost one third of the population had hepatic steatosis, and most subjects with hepatic steatosis had normal levels of serum alanine aminotransferase (79%). The frequency of hepatic steatosis varied significantly with ethnicity (45% in Hispanics; 33% in whites; 24% in blacks) and sex (42% in white men; 24% in white women). The higher prevalence of hepatic steatosis in Hispanics was due to the higher prevalence of obesity and insulin resistance in this ethnic group. However, the lower frequency of hepatic steatosis in blacks was not explained by ethnic differences in body mass index, insulin resistance, ethanol ingestion, or medication use. The prevalence of hepatic steatosis was greater in men than women among whites, but not in blacks or Hispanics. The ethnic differences in the frequency of hepatic steatosis in this study mirror those observed previously for NAFLD-related cirrhosis (Hispanics > whites > blacks). In conclusion, the significant ethnic and sex differences in the prevalence of hepatic steatosis documented in this study may have a profound impact on susceptibility to steatosis-related liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Although it is generally accepted that lowering elevated serum levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients with coronary heart disease is beneficial, there are few data to guide decisions about therapy for patients whose primary lipid abnormality is a low level of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind trial comparing gemfibrozil (1200 mg per day) with placebo in 2531 men with coronary heart disease, an HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.0 mmol per liter) or less, and an LDL cholesterol level of 140 mg per deciliter (3.6 mmol per liter) or less. The primary study outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction or death from coronary causes. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 5.1 years. At one year, the mean HDL cholesterol level was 6 percent higher, the mean triglyceride level was 31 percent lower, and the mean total cholesterol level was 4 percent lower in the gemfibrozil group than in the placebo group. LDL cholesterol levels did not differ significantly between the groups. A primary event occurred in 275 of the 1267 patients assigned to placebo (21.7 percent) and in 219 of the 1264 patients assigned to gemfibrozil (17.3 percent). The overall reduction in the risk of an event was 4.4 percentage points, and the reduction in relative risk was 22 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 7 to 35 percent; P=0.006). We observed a 24 percent reduction in the combined outcome of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke (P< 0.001). There were no significant differences in the rates of coronary revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina, death from any cause, and cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Gemfibrozil therapy resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with coronary disease whose primary lipid abnormality was a low HDL cholesterol level. The findings suggest that the rate of coronary events is reduced by raising HDL cholesterol levels and lowering levels of triglycerides without lowering LDL cholesterol levels.

BACKGROUND: To characterize further behavioral, cognitive, neuroendocrine, and physiological effects of subanesthetic doses of ketamine hydrochloride in healthy human subjects. Ketamine, a phencyclidine hydrochloride derivative, is a dissociative anesthetic and a noncompetitive antagonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate subtype of excitatory amino acid receptor. METHODS: Nineteen healthy subjects recruited by advertisements from the community participated in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Subjects completed three test days involving the 40-minute intravenous administration of placebo, ketamine hydrochloride (0.1 mg/kg), or ketamine hydrochloride (0.5 mg/kg). Behaviors associated with the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia were assessed by using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Changes in perception and behaviors associated with dissociative states were assessed by the Perceptual Aberration Subscale of the Wisconsin Psychosis Proneness Scale and the Clinician-Administered Dissociative States Scale. Cognitive function was assessed by using the (1) Mini-Mental State Examination; (2) tests sensitive to frontal cortical dysfunction, including a continuous performance vigilance task, a verbal fluency task, and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; and (3) tests of immediate and delayed recall. Plasma levels of cortisol, prolactin, homovanillic acid, and 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenethyleneglycol were measured. RESULTS: Ketamine (1) produced behaviors similar to the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia; (2) elicited alterations in perception; (3) impaired performance on tests of vigilance, verbal fluency, and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; (4) evoked symptoms similar to dissociative states; and (5) preferentially disrupted delayed word recall, sparing immediate recall and postdistraction recall. Ketamine had no significant effect on the Mini-Mental State Examination at the doses studied. Ketamine also had no effect on plasma 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenethyleneglycol levels, although it blunted a test day decline in plasma homovanillic acid levels at the higher dose. It also dose dependently increased plasma cortisol and prolactin levels. Ketamine produced small dose-dependent increases in blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists produce a broad range of symptoms, behaviors, and cognitive deficits that resemble aspects of endogenous psychoses, particularly schizophrenia and dissociative states.

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on noninvasive treatment of low back pain. Methods: Using the ACP grading system, the committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and systematic reviews published through April 2015 on noninvasive pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain. Updated searches were performed through November 2016. Clinical outcomes evaluated included reduction or elimination of low back pain, improvement in back-specific and overall function, improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in work disability and return to work, global improvement, number of back pain episodes or time between episodes, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain. Recommendation 1: Given that most patients with acute or subacute low back pain improve over time regardless of treatment, clinicians and patients should select nonpharmacologic treatment with superficial heat (moderate-quality evidence), massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). If pharmacologic treatment is desired, clinicians and patients should select nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or skeletal muscle relaxants (moderate-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation). Recommendation 2: For patients with chronic low back pain, clinicians and patients should initially select nonpharmacologic treatment with exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction (moderate-quality evidence), tai chi, yoga, motor control exercise, progressive relaxation, electromyography biofeedback, low-level laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation). Recommendation 3: In patients with chronic low back pain who have had an inadequate response to nonpharmacologic therapy, clinicians and patients should consider pharmacologic treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line therapy, or tramadol or duloxetine as second-line therapy. Clinicians should only consider opioids as an option in patients who have failed the aforementioned treatments and only if the potential benefits outweigh the risks for individual patients and after a discussion of known risks and realistic benefits with patients. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

BACKGROUND: In the National Polyp Study (NPS), colorectal cancer was prevented by colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps. We evaluated the long-term effect of colonoscopic polypectomy in a study on mortality from colorectal cancer. METHODS: We included in this analysis all patients prospectively referred for initial colonoscopy (between 1980 and 1990) at NPS clinical centers who had polyps (adenomas and nonadenomas). The National Death Index was used to identify deaths and to determine the cause of death; follow-up time was as long as 23 years. Mortality from colorectal cancer among patients with adenomas removed was compared with the expected incidence-based mortality from colorectal cancer in the general population, as estimated from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, and with the observed mortality from colorectal cancer among patients with nonadenomatous polyps (internal control group). RESULTS: Among 2602 patients who had adenomas removed during participation in the study, after a median of 15.8 years, 1246 patients had died from any cause and 12 had died from colorectal cancer. Given an estimated 25.4 expected deaths from colorectal cancer in the general population, the standardized incidence-based mortality ratio was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.80) with colonoscopic polypectomy, suggesting a 53% reduction in mortality. Mortality from colorectal cancer was similar among patients with adenomas and those with nonadenomatous polyps during the first 10 years after polypectomy (relative risk, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.1 to 10.6). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the hypothesis that colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps prevents death from colorectal cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.).

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Clinical observations have suggested that the number of cases of hepatocellular carcinoma has increased in the United States. We analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data base to determine the age-adjusted incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma from 1976 to 1995, data from the U.S. vital-statistics data base to determine age-adjusted mortality rates from 1981 to 1995, and data from the Department of Veterans Affairs to determine age-adjusted rates of hospitalization for the disease from 1983 to 1997. RESULTS: The incidence of histologically proved hepatocellular carcinoma increased from 1.4 per 100,000 population (95 percent confidence interval, 1.3 to 1.4) for the period from 1976 to 1980 to 2.4 per 100,000 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.3 to 2.4) for the period from 1991 to 1995. Among black men, the incidence was 6.1 per 100,000 for the period from 1991 to 1995, and among white men, it was 2.8 per 100,000. There was a 41 percent increase in the mortality rate from primary liver cancer and a 46 percent increase in the proportion of hospitalizations attributable to this disease during the periods studied. The incidence increased significantly among younger persons (40 to 60 years old) during the period from 1991 to 1995 as compared with earlier periods. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in the number of cases of hepatocellular carcinoma has occurred in the United States over the past two decades. The age-specific incidence of this cancer has progressively shifted toward younger people.

BACKGROUND: The preferred initial treatment for patients with stable coronary artery disease is the best available medical therapy. We hypothesized that in patients with functionally significant stenoses, as determined by measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus the best available medical therapy would be superior to the best available medical therapy alone. METHODS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease for whom PCI was being considered, we assessed all stenoses by measuring FFR. Patients in whom at least one stenosis was functionally significant (FFR, ≤0.80) were randomly assigned to FFR-guided PCI plus the best available medical therapy (PCI group) or the best available medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group). Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 were entered into a registry and received the best available medical therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization. RESULTS: Recruitment was halted prematurely after enrollment of 1220 patients (888 who underwent randomization and 332 enrolled in the registry) because of a significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients who had a primary end-point event: 4.3% in the PCI group and 12.7% in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio with PCI, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.53; P<0.001). The difference was driven by a lower rate of urgent revascularization in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (1.6% vs. 11.1%; hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30; P<0.001); in particular, in the PCI group, fewer urgent revascularizations were triggered by a myocardial infarction or evidence of ischemia on electrocardiography (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.43; P<0.001). Among patients in the registry, 3.0% had a primary end-point event. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease and functionally significant stenoses, FFR-guided PCI plus the best available medical therapy, as compared with the best available medical therapy alone, decreased the need for urgent revascularization. In patients without ischemia, the outcome appeared to be favorable with the best available medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495.).

Aspergillus species have emerged as an important cause of life-threatening infections in immunocompromised patients. This expanding population is composed of patients with prolonged neutropenia, advanced HIV infection, and inherited immunodeficiency and patients who have undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and/or lung transplantation. This document constitutes the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America for treatment of aspergillosis and replaces the practice guidelines for Aspergillus published in 2000 The objective of these

<h3>Importance</h3> Cancer and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are now widely recognized as a threat to global development. The latest United Nations high-level meeting on NCDs reaffirmed this observation and also highlighted the slow progress in meeting the 2011 Political Declaration on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases and the third Sustainable Development Goal. Lack of situational analyses, priority setting, and budgeting have been identified as major obstacles in achieving these goals. All of these have in common that they require information on the local cancer epidemiology. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is uniquely poised to provide these crucial data. <h3>Objective</h3> To describe cancer burden for 29 cancer groups in 195 countries from 1990 through 2017 to provide data needed for cancer control planning. <h3>Evidence Review</h3> We used the GBD study estimation methods to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Results are presented at the national level as well as by Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income, educational attainment, and total fertility rate. We also analyzed the influence of the epidemiological vs the demographic transition on cancer incidence. <h3>Findings</h3> In 2017, there were 24.5 million incident cancer cases worldwide (16.8 million without nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) and 9.6 million cancer deaths. The majority of cancer DALYs came from years of life lost (97%), and only 3% came from years lived with disability. The odds of developing cancer were the lowest in the low SDI quintile (1 in 7) and the highest in the high SDI quintile (1 in 2) for both sexes. In 2017, the most common incident cancers in men were NMSC (4.3 million incident cases); tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer (1.5 million incident cases); and prostate cancer (1.3 million incident cases). The most common causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for men were TBL cancer (1.3 million deaths and 28.4 million DALYs), liver cancer (572 000 deaths and 15.2 million DALYs), and stomach cancer (542 000 deaths and 12.2 million DALYs). For women in 2017, the most common incident cancers were NMSC (3.3 million incident cases), breast cancer (1.9 million incident cases), and colorectal cancer (819 000 incident cases). The leading causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for women were breast cancer (601 000 deaths and 17.4 million DALYs), TBL cancer (596 000 deaths and 12.6 million DALYs), and colorectal cancer (414 000 deaths and 8.3 million DALYs). <h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3> The national epidemiological profiles of cancer burden in the GBD study show large heterogeneities, which are a reflection of different exposures to risk factors, economic settings, lifestyles, and access to care and screening. The GBD study can be used by policy makers and other stakeholders to develop and improve national and local cancer control in order to achieve the global targets and improve equity in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: The magnitude and scope of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States continue to evolve. METHODS: In 2011, we performed active population- and laboratory-based surveillance across 10 geographic areas in the United States to identify cases of C. difficile infection (stool specimens positive for C. difficile on either toxin or molecular assay in residents ≥ 1 year of age). Cases were classified as community-associated or health care-associated. In a sample of cases of C. difficile infection, specimens were cultured and isolates underwent molecular typing. We used regression models to calculate estimates of national incidence and total number of infections, first recurrences, and deaths within 30 days after the diagnosis of C. difficile infection. RESULTS: A total of 15,461 cases of C. difficile infection were identified in the 10 geographic areas; 65.8% were health care-associated, but only 24.2% had onset during hospitalization. After adjustment for predictors of disease incidence, the estimated number of incident C. difficile infections in the United States was 453,000 (95% confidence interval [CI], 397,100 to 508,500). The incidence was estimated to be higher among females (rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.27), whites (rate ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.56 to 2.0), and persons 65 years of age or older (rate ratio, 8.65; 95% CI, 8.16 to 9.31). The estimated number of first recurrences of C. difficile infection was 83,000 (95% CI, 57,000 to 108,900), and the estimated number of deaths was 29,300 (95% CI, 16,500 to 42,100). The North American pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type 1 (NAP1) strain was more prevalent among health care-associated infections than among community-associated infections (30.7% vs. 18.8%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: C. difficile was responsible for almost half a million infections and was associated with approximately 29,000 deaths in 2011. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

A candidate gene for the chromosome 1 Alzheimer's disease (AD) locus was identified (STM2). The predicted amino acid sequence for STM2 is homologous to that of the recently cloned chromosome 14 AD gene (S182). A point mutation in STM2, resulting in the substitution of an isoleucine for an asparagine (N141l), was identified in affected people from Volga German AD kindreds. This N141l mutation occurs at an amino acid residue that is conserved in human S182 and in the mouse S182 homolog. The presence of missense mutations in AD subjects in two highly similar genes strongly supports the hypothesis that mutations in both are pathogenic.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sphincterotomy is commonly used to remove bile-duct stones and to treat other problems. We prospectively investigated risk factors for complications of this procedure and their outcomes. METHODS: We studied complications that occurred within 30 days of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy in consecutive patients treated at 17 institutions in the United States and Canada from 1992 through 1994. RESULTS: Of 2347 patients, 229 (9.8 percent) had a complication, including pancreatitis in 127 (5.4 percent) and hemorrhage in 48 (2.0 Percent). There were 55 deaths from all causes within 30 days; death was directly or indirectly related to the procedure in 10 cases. Of five significant risk factors for complications identified in a multivariate analysis, two were characteristics of the patients (suspected dysfunction of the sphincter of Oddi as an indication for the procedure and the presence of cirrhosis) and three were related to the endoscopic technique (difficulty in cannulating the bile duct achievement of access to the bile duct by "precut" sphincterotomy, and use of a combined percutaneous-endoscopic procedure). The overall risk of complications was not related to the patient's age, the number of coexisting illnesses, or the diameter of the bile duct. The rate of complications was highest when the indication for the procedure was suspected dysfunction of the sphincter of Oddi (21.7 percent) and lowest when the indication was removal of bile-duct stones within 30 days of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4.9 percent). As compared with those who performed fewer procedures, endoscopists who performed more than one sphincterotomy per week had lower rates of all complications (8.4 percent vs. 11.1 percent, P=0.03) and severe complications (0.9 percent vs. 2.3 percent, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of complications after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy can vary widely in different circumstances and is primarily related to the indication for the procedure and to endoscopic technique, rather than to the age or general medical condition of the patients.

CONTEXT: A clear understanding of what patients, families, and health care practitioners view as important at the end of life is integral to the success of improving care of dying patients. Empirical evidence defining such factors, however, is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors considered important at the end of life by patients, their families, physicians, and other care providers. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional, stratified random national survey conducted in March-August 1999. PARTICIPANTS: Seriously ill patients (n = 340), recently bereaved family (n = 332), physicians (n = 361), and other care providers (nurses, social workers, chaplains, and hospice volunteers; n = 429). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Importance of 44 attributes of quality at the end of life (5-point scale) and rankings of 9 major attributes, compared in the 4 groups. RESULTS: Twenty-six items consistently were rated as being important (>70% responding that item is important) across all 4 groups, including pain and symptom management, preparation for death, achieving a sense of completion, decisions about treatment preferences, and being treated as a "whole person." Eight items received strong importance ratings from patients but less from physicians (P<.001), including being mentally aware, having funeral arrangements planned, not being a burden, helping others, and coming to peace with God. Ten items had broad variation within as well as among the 4 groups, including decisions about life-sustaining treatments, dying at home, and talking about the meaning of death. Participants ranked freedom from pain most important and dying at home least important among 9 major attributes. CONCLUSIONS: Although pain and symptom management, communication with one's physician, preparation for death, and the opportunity to achieve a sense of completion are important to most, other factors important to quality at the end of life differ by role and by individual. Efforts to evaluate and improve patients' and families' experiences at the end of life must account for diverse perceptions of quality. JAMA. 2000;284:2476-2482.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine is valuable to the extent that the evidence base is complete and unbiased. Selective publication of clinical trials--and the outcomes within those trials--can lead to unrealistic estimates of drug effectiveness and alter the apparent risk-benefit ratio. METHODS: We obtained reviews from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for studies of 12 antidepressant agents involving 12,564 patients. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify matching publications. For trials that were reported in the literature, we compared the published outcomes with the FDA outcomes. We also compared the effect size derived from the published reports with the effect size derived from the entire FDA data set. RESULTS: Among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published. Whether and how the studies were published were associated with the study outcome. A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 study viewed as positive was not published. Studies viewed by the FDA as having negative or questionable results were, with 3 exceptions, either not published (22 studies) or published in a way that, in our opinion, conveyed a positive outcome (11 studies). According to the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive. Separate meta-analyses of the FDA and journal data sets showed that the increase in effect size ranged from 11 to 69% for individual drugs and was 32% overall. CONCLUSIONS: We cannot determine whether the bias observed resulted from a failure to submit manuscripts on the part of authors and sponsors, from decisions by journal editors and reviewers not to publish, or both. Selective reporting of clinical trial results may have adverse consequences for researchers, study participants, health care professionals, and patients.