Job stress, absenteeism and coronary heart disease European cooperative study (the JACE study): Design of a multicentre prospective study

Background: The motives, objectives and design of a multicentreprospective study on job stress, absenteeism and coronary heartdisease in Europe (the JACE study) is presented in this paper.Some specific gaps in the reviewed literature are explicitlytapped into by the JACE study. Its objectives are i) to comparethe distributions of the Karasek job stress scales for the samebroad categories of occupations in different European countries(in males and females), ii) to study the predictive power ofthe job stress scales and the job strain model for one yearof sickness absence (in males and females) and iii) to studythe predictive power of the job stress scales and the job strainmodel for a three year incidence of coronary heart disease (Inmales only). Methods: In answering these questions, relationsare studied controlling for gender, age, level of education,company size, physical work risks and shift work, as well astraditional risk factors for CHD (i.e serum cholesterol, serumHDL cholesterol, smoking habits and blood pressure). The JACEstudy is a Biomed 1 concerted action. The JACE group consistsof eight participating centres from six countries, i.e. fromBelgium and Sweden (two centres), France, Italy, Spain, Swedenand The Netherlands (each one centre). The coordination of thegroup is in Brussels. The participating centres brought in over15, 000 European workers to test the hypotheses.     

What do we want and what do we get from not-for-profit hospitals?

The tax exemption for not-for-profit hospitals has been subject to many recent challenges, in part related to concerns over whether these hospitals provide sufficient levels of community benefits to merit tax exemption. Computing the value of community benefits for California hospitals as the sum of uncompensated care, education and research, net income, money-losing services, and price discounts from for-profit hospitals reveals that 20 to 80 percent of hospitals would have met various recommended community benefits standards. There is a clear need for hospitals and their communities to establish dialogues on what levels of community benefits are appropriate.     

US pediatric trauma patient unplanned 30-day readmissions

Purpose

We sought to determine readmission rates and risk factors for acutely injured pediatric trauma patients.

Efficacy and safety of memantine treatment for reduction of changes associated with experimental glaucoma in monkey, II: Structural measures

PURPOSE: To determine, using anatomic measurements, whether daily oral dosing with memantine is both safe and effective to reduce the injury associated with experimental glaucoma in primates. METHODS: Argon laser treatment of the anterior chamber angle was used to induce chronic ocular hypertension (COHT) in the right eyes of 18 macaque monkeys. Nine animals were daily orally dosed with 4 mg/kg memantine while the other nine animals received vehicle only. Measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) from both eyes of all animals were made at regular intervals. Appearance of the optic nerve head, retinal vessels, and surrounding retina was documented with stereo fundus photographs obtained at multiple time points throughout the study. Measurements of optic nerve head topography were obtained from confocal laser scans made from animals with the highest IOPs at approximately 3, 5, and 10 months after elevation of IOP. At approximately 16 months after IOP elevation, animals were killed and histologic counts of cells in the retinal ganglion cell (RGC) layer were made. RESULTS: Histologic measurements showed that, for animals with moderate elevation of IOP, memantine treatment was associated with an enhanced survival of RGCs in the inferior retina. Measurements of optic nerve head topography showed less IOP-induced change in memantine-treated animals. This effect was seen in measurements of both the cup and the neuroretinal rim. A comparison of these same histologic and morphologic measurements in normotensive eyes from the two treatment groups showed that memantine treatment was not associated with any significant effects on these eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Histologic measurements of RGC survival as well as tomographic measurements of nerve head topography show that systemic treatment with memantine, a compound which does not lower intraocular pressure, is both safe and effective to reduce changes associated with experimental glaucoma.     

Early changes in scores of chronic damage on transplant kidney protocol biopsies reflect donor characteristics,but not future graft function

The amount of irreversible injury on renal allograft biopsy predicts function, but little is known about the early evolution of this damage. In a single‐center cohort, we examined the relationship between donor‐, recipient‐, and transplantation‐associated factors and change in a morphometric index of chronic damage (ICD) between protocol biopsies performed at implantation and at 2–3 months. We then investigated whether early delta ICD predicted subsequent biochemical outcomes. We found little evidence to support differences between the study group, who had undergone serial biopsies, and a contemporaneous control group, who had not. In allografts with serial biopsies (n = 162), there was an increase in ICD between implantation (median: 2%, IQR:0–8) and 2–3 months post‐transplant (median 8% IQR:4–15; p < 0.0001). Donation from younger or live donors was independently associated with smaller early post‐transplant increases in ICD. There was no evidence for a difference in delta ICD between donation after cardiac death vs. donation after brain death, nor association with length of cold ischemia. After adjustment for GFR at the time of the second biopsy, delta ICD after three months did not predict allograft function at one yr. These findings suggest that graft damage develops shortly after transplantation and reflects donor factors, but does not predict future biochemical outcomes.     

An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy

PURPOSE: We evaluated expectant management of prostate cancer with definitive treatment deferred until evidence of cancer progression in men with low risk, localized cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively entered data base records. Patients with low risk cancer who were eligible for definitive therapy but chose deferred management between 1984 and 2001 composed the cohort. Followup included regular evaluations to detect progression by prostate specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound and prostate biopsy. Objective progression was defined by a point scale of changes in prognostic factors. Definitive treatment was recommended in patients with objective progression. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 88 patients with clinical stages T1-2, NX0, M0 prostate cancer, a mean age of 65.3 years and a mean initial PSA of 5.9 ng/ml. Systematic biopsy, which was repeated after the initial diagnostic biopsy, showed no cancer in 61% of cases. During a median followup of 44 months 22 patients had progression. Factors that predicted progression were repeat biopsy showing cancer (p = 0.004) and initial PSA (p = 0.014). Actuarial 5 and 10-year progression-free probabilities were 67% and 55%, respectively. Of the 31 patients treated 17 underwent radical prostatectomy, 13 received radiation therapy and 1 received androgen ablation. Seven men who did not show objective progression were treated because of anxiety. Only 1 patient, who was treated with radiation therapy, had biochemical recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Deferred therapy may be a feasible alternative to curative treatment in select patients with favorable, localized prostate cancer. About half of these patients remain free of progression at 10 years and definitive treatment appeared effective in those with progression. Absent cancer on repeat needle biopsy identified cases highly unlikely to progress.     

Poison Center Data for Public Health Surveillance: Poison Center and Public Health Perspectives

Objective

To describe the use of poison center data for public health surveillance from the poison center, local, state, and federal public health perspectives and to generate meaningful discussion on how to address the challenges to collaboration.

Introduction

Since 2008, poisoning has become the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States (US); since 1980, the poisoning-related fatality rate in the US has almost tripled.1 Many poison-related injuries and deaths are reported to regional poison centers (PCs) which receive about 2.4 million reports of human chemical and poison exposures annually.2 Federal, state, and local public health (PH) agencies often collaborate with poison centers and use PC data for public health surveillance of poisoning-related health issues. Many state and local PH agencies have partnerships with regional PCs for direct access to local PC data which help them perform this function. At the national level, CDC conducts public health surveillance for exposures and illnesses of public health significance using the National Poison Data System (NPDS), the national PC reporting database.Though most PC and PH officials agree that PC data play an important role in PH practice and surveillance, collaboration between PH agencies and PCs has been hindered by numerous challenges. To address these challenges and bolster collaboration, the Poison Center and Public Health Collaborations Community of Practice (CoP) was created in 2010 by CDC as a means to share experiences, identify best practices, and facilitate relationships among federal, state and local public health agencies and PCs. To date, the Poison Center and Public Health Collaborations CoP includes over 200 members from state and local public health, regional PCs, CDC, the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A leadership team was created with representatives of the many stakeholders of the community to drive its direction and oversee activities.

Methods

The panel will consist of 4 presenters and 1 moderator, who are members of the Poison Center and Public Health Collaborations CoP leadership team. Each presenter will bring a unique perspective of the use of PC data for PH practice and surveillance: CDC, state department of health, a local department of health, and a PC. Royal Law from the CDC National Center for Environmental Health will present on using PC data for identification of exposures and illnesses of public health significance identified from NPDS data collected from all 57 PCs. Dr. Jay Schauben from the Florida/USVI Poison Information Center - Jacksonville will discuss PC participation in surveillance and use of PC data for tracking and mitigation of PH events in Florida. Dr. Prakash Mulay from the Florida Department of Health will discuss utilization of PC data to enhance ESSENCE-based chemical-associated exposure and illness surveillance in Florida. Katherine Wheeler from the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene will discuss NYC’s use of PC data in surveillance of potential emerging issues, from energy drinks to synthetic marijuana. Each presenter will discuss the use of PC data for PH practice and surveillance in his or her organization and jurisdiction, the successes of using PC data, and their challenges.

Results

The moderator will engage the audience by facilitating discussion of the successes and challenges to using PC data for PH practice and surveillance with the audience.Sample questions:What are your current capacities and collaborative activities between your state/local health department and your poison center?What non-funding related barriers hinder the collaboration between your state/local health department and poison center?If more funding were available, how would you use this funding to increase the level of interactivity with the poison center and state/local health department?