A population-based study of testicular cancer risk among children and young adults from Norway and Utah,USA

Similar family-based cancer and genealogy data from Norway and Utah allowed comparisons of the incidence of testicular cancer (TC), and exploration of the role of Scandinavian ancestry and family history of TC in TC risk. Our study utilizes data from the Utah Population Database and Norwegian Population Registers. All males born during 1951–2015 were followed for TC until the age of 29 years. A total of 1,974,287 and 832,836 males were born in Norway and Utah, respectively, of whom 2,686 individuals were diagnosed with TC in Norway and 531 in Utah. The incidence per year of TC in Norway (10.6) was twice that observed in Utah (5.1) for males born in the last period (1980–1984). The incidence rates of TC in Utah did not differ according to the presence or absence of Scandinavian ancestry (p = 0.669). Having a brother diagnosed with TC was a strong risk factor for TC among children born in Norway and Utah, with HR = 9.87 (95% CI 5.68–17.16) and 6.02 (95% CI 4.80–7.55), respectively; with even higher HR observed among the subset of children in Utah with Scandinavian ancestry (HR = 12.30, 95% CI 6.78–22.31). A clear difference in TC incidence among individuals born in Norway and descendants of Scandinavian people born in Utah was observed. These differences in TC rates point to the possibility of environmental influence. Family history of TC is a strong risk factor for developing TC in both populations.     

Are Medicare's Nursing Home Compare Ratings Accurate Predictors of 90-Day Complications,Readmission, and Bundle Cost for Patients Undergoing Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty?

Background

Nursing Home Compare (NHC) ratings, created and maintained by Medicare, are used by both hospitals and consumers to aid in the skilled nursing facility (SNF) selection process. To date, no studies have linked NHC ratings to actual episode-based outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether NHC ratings are valid predictors of 90-day complications, readmission, and bundle costs for patients discharged to an SNF after primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.     

Mechanisms of vascular dysfunction in the interleukin-10–deficient murine model of preeclampsia indicate nitric oxide dysregulation

1. Download : Download high-res image (380KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Male Partner Involvement and Development of HIV-exposed Infants in Rural South Africa

AIDS and Behavior - Male partner involvement (MPI) during the prenatal and postnatal periods has been proven to have a beneficial effect on infant development. Infants born to HIV seropositive...     

Is there a reduction in risk of revision when 36-mm heads instead of 32 mm are used in total hip arthroplasty for patients with proximal femur fractures?: A matched analysis of 5,030 patients with a median of 2.5 years’ follow-up between 2006 and 2016 in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association

Background and purpose — 32-mm heads are widely used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Scandinavia, while the proportion of 36-mm heads is increasing as they are expected to increase THA stability. We investigated whether the use of 36-mm heads in THA after proximal femur fracture (PFF) is associated with a lower risk of revision compared with 32-mm heads.Patients and methods — We included 5,030 patients operated with THA due to PFF with 32- or 36-mm heads from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database. Each patient with a 36-mm head was matched with a patient with a 32-mm head, using propensity score. The patients were operated between 2006 and 2016, with a metal or ceramic head on a polyethylene bearing. Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for revision for any reason and revision due to dislocation for 36-mm heads compared with 32-mm heads.Results — 36-mm heads had an HR of 0.9 (CI 0.7–1.2) for revision for any reason and 0.8 (CI 0.5–1.3) for revision due to dislocation compared with 32-mm heads at a median follow-up of 2.5 years (interquartile range 1–4.4).Interpretation — We were not able to demonstrate any clinically relevant reduction of the risk of THA revision for any reason or due to dislocation when 36-mm heads were used versus 32-mm. Residual confounding due to lack of data on patient comorbidities and body mass index could bias our results.

During the past years total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become the preferred treatment option for displaced femoral neck fractures in even younger (55–64 years) patients (Rogmark et al. 2017). Previous studies have shown an increased risk of revision, especially due to dislocation, in patients receiving THA after proximal femur fracture (PFF) compared with patients operated due to primary osteoarthritis (OA) (Conroy et al. 2008, Hailer et al. 2012). The risk of THA dislocation in fracture patients varies widely from as low as 5% (Tabori-Jensen et al. 2019), especially when dual mobility cups (DMCs) are used, up to 6–18% (Burgers et al. 2012, Johansson 2014, Noticewala et al. 2018) with conventional cups. The risk of THA revision due to dislocation has been reported as even lower, ranging from 0.5 to 0.7% in national register studies (Conroy et al. 2008, Hailer et al. 2012), as not all unstable THAs are revised. According to the above-mentioned studies, increased age, male sex, the use of a posterior approach, and smaller head sizes are associated with increased risk of revision due to dislocation. To counteract the risk of dislocation, bigger head sizes have been used as they increase the impingement-free range of motion (Burroughs et al. 2005, Tsuda et al. 2016) and jumping distance of THA (Sariali et al. 2009). During the past years, the use of larger heads in THA has increased with 28-mm continuously declining and 32- and 36-mm increasing (Tsikandylakis et al. 2018b). However, register studies performed on patients with displaced femoral neck fracture (Jameson et al. 2012, Cebatorius et al. 2015) have not demonstrated any superiority of larger heads over smaller ones regarding risk of revision, especially due to dislocation. This effect has only been demonstrated in studies performed on a case mix of hip diagnoses that have reported an increased risk of revision due to dislocation when 28-mm or smaller heads are used compared with 32-mm or larger heads (Hailer et al. 2012, Kostensalo et al. 2013).Most of the above-mentioned register studies have used 28-mm heads as reference, which are rarely used nowadays (Tsikandylakis et al. 2018b). Patients receiving THA after PFF have a higher risk for revision than patients with OA and should preferably be studied separately, setting 32 mm as contemporary standard of reference. We therefore investigated if increasing head size from 32 to 36 mm is associated with a decreased risk of revision, especially due to dislocation, in patients with PFF in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database. We hypothesized that the risk is lower when 36-mm heads are used.