<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_443"
                     title="Evidence-Based Treatment Improves Older Stroke Victims&apos; Chances (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.014"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Strokes/tb/18360?impressionId=1265739316090"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Older stroke patients remain at higher risk for adverse outcomes than younger ones, but the gap has narrowed with wider implementation of evidence-based guidelines, researchers say.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;More than 10% of stroke patients over 80 died in the hospital, compared with 3% of those under age 50, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, of the University of California Los Angeles, and colleagues reported online in &lt;em&gt;Circulation&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But overall use of guideline-recommended therapies improved substantially in older patients from 2003 to 2009, particularly for patients over 90, they said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During that time, several hospitals and stroke centers have adopted &quot;Get with the Guidelines,&quot; an intervention to apply evidence-based guidelines to care. Adopters have seen &quot;substantial improvements ... in performance measures for ischemic stroke patients, including pharmacological and nonpharmacological management in each age group,&quot; the researchers wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before launching the initiative in 2003, studies generally showed lower use of guideline-recommended therapy and worse outcomes in older stroke patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To assess changes since initiative started, the researchers analyzed more than 502,036 ischemic stroke admissions to 1,256 hospitals participating in the guidelines program between 2003 and 2009. Mean patient age was 71, and 52.5% were women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They found that performance on most evidence-based measures was lower in older patients  --  those ages 80 and up  --  compared with younger patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The largest differences were seen in the proportion of eligible patients who received intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) treatments (51.1% for older patients versus 61.6% for those under 50, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Providers were also less likely to treat older stroke patients with lipid-lowering therapies than younger patients (54.2% versus 71.7%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The smallest differences involved antithrombotic therapy within 48 hours of admission and at discharge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In terms of outcomes, older patients had a significantly higher inhospital mortality rate (10.3% versus 3%), and they were less likely to be discharged home. Rather, they were more likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (42.1% versus 5.3%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) or hospice (12% versus 0.5%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With each 10-year age increase, patients with ischemic stroke were 31% less likely to be discharged home and 27% more likely to die in the hospital.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the researchers said that, generally, the use of guideline-recommended therapies improved substantially in older patients from 2003 to 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In those ages 90 and older, use of intravenous tPA increased threefold, from 20.4% in 2003 to 62.4% in 2009. And use of lipid lowering therapy increased from 15.6% in 2003 to 71.7%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers wrote that by 2009, &quot;many of the age-related differences in care had narrowed or were eliminated.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They cautioned, however, that there could be residual confounding by unmeasured factors. For example, physicians may be uncertain about risks versus benefits in treating older patients who are under-represented in RCTs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that their study was limited by its reliance on the accuracy and completeness of medical records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, they noted, the &quot;Get with the Guidelines&quot; program tends to attract larger teaching hospitals, which already have a &quot;strong interest in stroke care and quality improvement,&quot; and thus the findings may not be generalizable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &quot;Get with the Guidelines&quot; program is supported by the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association, as well as grants from Pfizer and the Merck-Schering Plough Partnership.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fonarow reported relationships with Pfizer, Merck/Schering Plough, BMS/Sanofi.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co-authors reported relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Ferrer, CoAxia, Talecris, Concentric Medical, and Cygnis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_455"
                     title="Low Vitamin D Linked to Hip OA (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.013"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Rheumatology/Arthritis/tb/18379?impressionId=1265739316090"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Elderly men with low serum levels of vitamin D are at increased risk for developing hip osteoarthritis, a prospective cohort study found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Men whose levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin (OH)D were between 15.1 to 30 ng/mL had twice the likelihood of prevalent radiographic hip osteoarthritis than those whose levels were normal (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.97), according to R. Krishna Chaganti, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Conversely, after adjusting for age, season at blood draw, and clinic site, higher vitamin D levels were associated with a lower prevalence of hip osteoarthritis (OR 1.39 per 1 SD decrease in 25(OH)D level, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.74), the researchers reported in the February issue of &lt;em&gt;Arthritis &amp;amp; Rheumatism&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the role vitamin D may play in the pathogenesis and progression of osteoarthritis is unclear, Chaganti and colleagues analyzed data from the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study, which enrolled a large cohort of elderly men between 2000 and 2002 from six centers across the U.S.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A total of 1,104 men whose mean age was 77.2 years had baseline measurements of serum vitamin D, and about 4.5 years later pelvic radiographs were obtained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Radiographs were scored to reflect joint space narrowing, osteophyte formation, cysts, subchondral sclerosis, and femoral head deformity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Vitamin D levels were categorized as deficiency (&amp;#8804;15 ng/mL), insufficiency (15.1 to 30 ng/mL), and sufficiency (&amp;gt;30 ng/mL).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean vitamin D level was 23.38 ng/mL in men who had radiographic hip osteoarthritis, compared with 26.04 ng/mL in men without radiographic abnormalities (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.0002).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Men with hip osteoarthritis had a higher prevalence of both vitamin D insufficiency (77% versus 65%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.002) and deficiency (10.2% versus 7.5%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.012).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, they had slower six-meter walking speed (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.0001) and reported more hip pain (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.0001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Men who were vitamin D deficient also tended to have an increased likelihood of hip osteoarthritis (OR 1.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 4.74), but after adjustment in multivariate models, statistical significance was lost with this level of the vitamin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The association of low 25(OH)D levels with prevalent radiographic hip [osteoarthritis] underscores the potentially important role of vitamin D in the pathogenesis of [osteoarthritis]. Vitamin D metabolites have been found to be associated with the regulation of the Wnt pathway, products of which play important roles in the development and maintenance of bone and cartilage,&quot; the investigators explained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, in vitro studies have suggested that serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; can affect the ratio of RANKL to osteoprotegerin and thereby influence bone deterioration and repair.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Previous investigations have yielded conflicting results. One study found that low levels of vitamin D were not associated with worsening of knee osteoarthritis, as reflected in loss of articular cartilage on MRI.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another study, however, linked knee osteoarthritis with low vitamin D levels, particularly in patients who also had decreased bone mineral density in the lumbar spine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Vitamin D influences the mineralization of bone matrix, and low serum levels of vitamin D may result in poorly mineralized bone that might alter forces across the joint and reduce joint deterioration,&quot; the authors suggested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, low levels may interfere with chondrocyte metabolism and thereby increase degeneration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further studies will be needed to more fully clarify the effects of the vitamin on the development and progression of osteoarthritis, the investigators cautioned.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Strengths of the study include the large cohort of participants, careful classification of radiographic osteoarthritis, and reliance on the gold standard of vitamin D measurement, the 25(OH)D level.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Limitations include the cross-sectional design, precluding the inference of causality, and the gap in time between measurement of serum vitamin D and radiography.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors concluded that therapeutic interventions to increase vitamin D serum levels in the elderly &quot;are warranted,&quot; with the goal of improving skeletal health in this vulnerable age group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Institute on Aging, the National Center for Research Resources, and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The lead author was supported by a grant from the American College of Rheumatology Research and Education Foundation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_449"
                     title="FDA Okays Statin for Primary Prevention"
                     score="0.013"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/PublicHealth/tb/18380?impressionId=1265739316090"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON  --  The FDA has approved rosuvastatin (Crestor) for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, making it the first statin to receive this indication.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The new labeling, recommended by an FDA advisory panel late last year, also marks the first time that a drug label will include an indication based on the biomarker highly-sensitive C-reactive protein, an inflammatory marker.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The new indication would be for men 50 or older and women 60 or older who have fasting LDL of less than 130 mg/dL, a highly-sensitive CRP of 2.0 mg/L or greater, triglycerides of less than 500 mg/dL, and no prior history of heart attack or stroke, or coronary heart disease risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The basis for the new labeling was the JUPITER trial, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 17,802 men and women with a mean age of 66 and no history of atherosclerosis. All participants had LDL of less than 130 mg/dL and a highly-sensitive C-reactive protein concentration of 2 mg/L or higher.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients were randomized to 20 mg of rosuvastatin for 1.9 years, which reduced median LDL cholesterol to 55 mg/dL, down from a median of 108 mg/dL at baseline. The corresponding relative reduction in the rate of MI, stroke, arterial revascularization, or cardiovascular death was 44% (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.00001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The number needed to treat to avoid one cardiovascular event was 25.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Those results, according to Melvyn Rubenfire, MD, of the University of Michigan, were a &quot;home run for JUPITER,&quot; but it is not clear whether the results would be the same with another statin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And there were some risks associated with rosuvastatin, including 13 deaths due to gastrointestinal disorders in the rosuvastatin arm, and 18 patients reported experiencing a &quot;confused state&quot; while taking the drug.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The most troubling adverse event, however, was an uptick in investigator-reported, new onset diabetes mellitus in the treatment arm, 2.8% versus 2.5%, for a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.53, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rosuvastatin in marketed by AstraZeneca, which also sponsored the JUPITER trial.&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_352"
                     title="ICAO: Future Chronic Disease Risk Goes Beyond BMI (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Diabetes/tb/18233?impressionId=1265739316090"
                     
      When it comes to predicting chronic disease, body mass index doesn&apos;t tell the whole story, according to a population-based study that found elevated risk with obesity and other metabolic risk factors independently.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Metabolically-healthy obese people tended toward being at least twice as likely to develop multiple metabolic risk factors and diabetes as healthy, normal weight individuals over the subsequent 3.5 years of a study led by Sarah Appleton, a postgraduate student at the University of Adelaide, Australia.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;However, normal weight individuals with metabolic risk factors  --  a group the researchers called &quot;metabolically obese&quot;  --  were at greater risk, she told attendees at the International Congress on Abdominal Obesity in Hong Kong, a conference sponsored by the International Chair on Cardiometabolic Risk.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Overall, just 4.1% of the 3,743 adults in the population-based, North West Adelaide Health Study were in the normal body mass index range at baseline but had at least two of the following metabolic risk factors:&lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Triglyceride levels of 1.7 mmol/L or greater&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;HDL cholesterol under 1.0mmol/L for men or 1.3 mmol/L for women&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Blood pressure of 130/85 mm Hg or higher&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;A fasting plasma glucose of at least 5.6mmol/L or self-reported diabetes&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Treatment for any of these disorders &lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although free of cardiovascular disease when they entered the study through a random population sample of the northwest region of Adelaide, after a mean of 3.5 years of follow-up, this group was 2.48 times at risk of incident cardiovascular disease or stroke events (95% CI 1.1 to 5.4).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with metabolically-healthy, normal weight individuals, those with metabolic risk factors tended to be&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;3.27 times as likely to develop diabetes (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.07).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Identifying these individuals for prevention efforts may require less emphasis on BMI and increased surveillance of central obesity in primary care, the researchers told the congress.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The problem with BMI is it doesn&apos;t tell you where the fat is,&quot; Appleton added in an interview. &quot;Visceral fat is really bad for you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Obese individuals without multiple metabolic risk factors at baseline comprised a larger group (12.1%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They were more likely to be middle age, live in a disadvantaged neighborhood, have smoked at some point, and get less exercise than their metabolically similar, but slimmer peers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over the subsequent 3.5 years, they were 2.82 times more likely to develop more than one metabolic risk factor than metabolically-healthy, normal weight individuals (95% CI 2.0 to 4.0).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The metabolically-normal obese also tended to be 2.36 times more likely to develop diabetes (95% CI 0.8 to 7.1). On the other hand, their risk of cardiovascular disease wasn&apos;t elevated, &quot;which likely related to the younger age of that group,&quot; Appleton told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Notably, abdominal obesity as determined by a waist circumference of 80 cm and over for men or 95 cm and greater for women was 6.1 times more likely among metabolically healthy individuals if their BMI was in the obese versus normal range.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But those who were in the normal BMI range were 2.2-fold more likely to be overweight or obese according to waist circumference if they had metabolic risk factors, which was statistically significant as well and likely contributed to the health risks they faced over the short-term future, Appleton said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Maintenance of metabolic health in the obese population was more likely for younger individuals (OR 2.83 for age 40 or younger, 95% CI 1.1 to 7.6) and those who were at least moderately physically active (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Appleton noted that these findings generally fit with data from the U.S. National Health Assessment Survey and Examination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regardless of whether patients have abdominal obesity, BMI obesity, or other metabolic risk factors, the solution is likely similar  --  improved diet and exercise, she said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Department of Health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Appleton reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_346"
                     title="Daytime Sleepiness More Common in Young (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.009"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/SleepDisorders/tb/18221?impressionId=1265739316090"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Compared with 20-somethings and seniors, middle-age adults are less likely to suffer daytime sleepiness when they don&apos;t get a good night&apos;s sleep, according to a small study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When three groups of healthy adults  --  young (20 to 30 years old), middle-age (40 to 55) and older (66 to 83)  --  were studied over four nights, slow wave sleep decreased and the number of nocturnal awakenings progressively increased with age, wrote Derk-Jan Dijk, PhD, of the Surrey Sleep Center at the University of Surrey in Guildford, England, and colleagues in the Feb. 1 issue of &lt;em&gt;Sleep.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As the likelihood for eight hours of uninterrupted deep sleep decreased with age, there was no increase in the likelihood of daytime sleepiness, which led Dijk and colleagues to conclude that as people age there may be a change in the &quot;sleep (duration and depth) required to maintain alertness.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on that observation, the authors wrote that it could be argued that &quot;an eight-hour episode rich in [slow wave sleep] is insufficient for young adults but that an eight-hour sleep episode with less [slow wave sleep] is sufficient for older adults.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result, middle-age and older adults are less likely to build up &quot;sleep debt&quot; during the daylight hours, so they manage with less time in deep sleep at night, less homeostatic sleep pressure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors hypothesized that this apparent need for less sleep may be a factor in age-related insomnia.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If older adults are unaware of the need for less sleep, &quot;their self-selected time in bed, which provides an input to the sleep homeostat, may become maladaptive and lead to reduced sleep consolidation and associated complaints.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Dijk and colleagues recruited 44 young adults, 35 middle-age adults, and 31 older adults for their study. All were healthy at baseline and all were initially assessed for an eight-hour nocturnal sleep episode.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They were then randomized to two nights of either selective short wave sleep interruption by acoustic stimuli or sleep without disruption, followed by one night of recovery sleep.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two standardized measurement tools, the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) and the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS), were used to assess objective and subjective sleep propensity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Total sleep time per eight hour time in bed decreased significantly and progressively across the age groups such that older adults slept approximately 20 minutes less than middle-aged, who slept 23 minutes less than young adults,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The reduction in total sleep time &quot;was primarily related to an increase in the number of awakenings and the duration of wakefulness after sleep onset, rather than an increase in latency to sleep onset.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result, sleep efficiency decreased significantly from 92.1% for the youngest group, to 82% for the older group (effect of age, &lt;em&gt;P&amp;lt;&lt;/em&gt;0.0001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The subjective sleep propensity tests revealed that &quot;young people were significantly sleepier than the middle-age people, who were the least sleepy of the three groups.&quot; Daytime sleepiness for the oldest group &quot;fell in between the other two groups [and] was not significantly different from either.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All three groups, regardless of age, demonstrated increased daytime sleepiness following a night of experimental disruption of slow wave sleep, but when the participants had an uninterrupted eight hours of deep sleep, it was only the youngest group that was drowsy during the daytime hours.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that although there was less daytime sleepiness among middle-age and older adults in this study, sleep propensity was not measured during the evening hours, so it was possible that the age-related difference might diminish at twilight.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was sponsored by H. Lundbeck A/S.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dijk reported receiving research support from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, GlaxoSmithKline, H. Lundbeck A/S, Merck, Pfizer, Philips Lighting, sanofi-aventis, and Takeda.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>