Simeprevir added to peginterferon and ribavirin lessens time with fatigue,depressive symptoms and functional limitations in patients with chronic hepatitis C compared with peginterferon and ribavirin: results from 1161 patients in the QUEST‐1, QUEST‐2 and PROMISE studies

The value of adding simeprevir (SMV) vs placebo (PBO) to peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection was examined using patient‐reported outcomes (PROs); further, concordance of PROs with virology endpoints and adverse events (AEs) was explored. Patients (n = 768 SMV/PR, n = 393 PBO/PR) rated fatigue (FSS), depressive symptoms (CES‐D) and functional impairment (WPAI: Hepatitis C Productivity, Daily Activity and Absenteeism) at baseline and throughout treatment in three randomised, double‐blind trials comparing the addition of SMV or PBO during initial 12 weeks of PR. PR was administered for 48 weeks (PBO group) and 24/48 weeks (SMV group) using a response‐guided therapy (RGT) approach. Mean PRO scores (except Absenteeism) worsened from baseline to Week 4 to the same extent in both groups but reverted after Week 24 for SMV/PR and only after Week 48 for PBO/PR. Accordingly, there was a significantly lower area under the curve (baseline–Week 60, AUC₆₀) and fewer weeks with clinically important worsening of scores in the SMV/PR group at any time point. Incidences of patients with fatigue and anaemia AEs were similar in both groups, but FSS scores showed that clinically important increases in fatigue lasted a mean of 6.9 weeks longer with PBO/PR (P < 0.001). PRO score subgroup analysis indicated better outcomes for patients who met the criteria for RGT or achieved sustained virological response 12 weeks post‐treatment (SVR12); differences in mean PRO scores associated with fibrosis level were only observed with PBO/PR. Greater efficacy of SMV/PR enabled reduced treatment duration and reduced time with PR‐related AEs without adding to AE severity.     

Vestibular Function Measurement Devices

Vestibular function laboratories utilize a multitude of diagnostic instruments to evaluate a dizzy patient. Caloric irrigators, oculomotor stimuli, and rotational chairs produce a stimulus whose accuracy is required for the patient response to be accurate. Careful attention to everything from cleanliness of equipment to threshold adjustments determine on a daily basis if patient data are going to be correct and useful. Instrumentation specifications that change with time such as speed and temperature must periodically be checked using calibrated instruments.     

Symptoms During or Shortly After Isolated Carpal Tunnel Release and Problems Within 24?hours After Surgery

This study used the National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery (NSAS) database to measure the incidence of and risk factors for symptoms in the ambulatory surgery center and problems within 24 h after isolated carpal tunnel release (CTR). The NSAS contained records on 400,000 adult patients with carpal tunnel syndrome who were treated with CTR in 2006, based on ICD-9 codes. The type of anesthesia used and factors associated with symptoms and problems were sought in bivariate and multivariable statistical analyses. The mean duration of the procedure was 16 ± 8.8 min. Only 5 % were performed under local anesthesia without sedation, 45 % with IV sedation, 28 % regional anesthesia, and 19 % general anesthesia. Symptoms in the ambulatory surgery center or a problem within 24 h after discharge were recorded in 10 % of patients, all of them minor and transient, including difficulties with pain and its treatment. The strongest risk factors were male sex, age of 45 years and older, and participation of an anesthesiologist. Local anesthesia and regional anesthesia were associated with more perioperative symptoms and postoperative problems. Most CTR are performed with some sedation in the United States. CTR is a safe procedure: one in 10 patients will experience a minor issue in the perioperative or immediate postoperative period.     

Population Genetics Identifies Challenges in Analyzing Rare Variants

Geneticists have, for years, understood the nature of genome‐wide association studies using common genomic variants. Recently, however, focus has shifted to the analysis of rare variants. This presents potential problems for researchers, as rare variants do not always behave in the same way common variants do, sometimes rendering decades of solid intuition moot. In this paper, we present examples of the differences between common and rare variants. We show why one must be significantly more careful about the origin of rare variants, and how failing to do so can lead to highly inflated type I error. We then explain how to best avoid such concerns with careful understanding and study design. Additionally, we demonstrate that a seemingly low error rate in next‐generation sequencing can dramatically impact the false‐positive rate for rare variants. This is due to the fact that rare variants are, by definition, seen infrequently, making it hard to distinguish between errors and real variants. Compounding this problem is the fact that the proportion of errors is likely to get worse, not better, with increasing sample size. One cannot simply scale their way up in order to solve this problem. Understanding these potential pitfalls is a key step in successfully identifying true associations between rare variants and diseases.