HIT-6 and EQ-5D-5L in patients with migraine: assessment of common latent constructs and development of a mapping algorithm

The European Journal of Health Economics - The aims of this study were to assess whether there is a conceptual overlap between the questionnaires HIT-6 and EQ-5D and to develop a mapping algorithm...     

Risikokommunikation zum Schutz vor Gefahrstoffen am Arbeitsplatz

Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz - Gefahrstoffe sind in der Arbeitswelt allgegenwärtig. Beschäftigte aus allen Branchen sind bei ihrer Arbeit mit...     

Current therapeutical strategies for allergic rhinitis

Introduction: Allergic rhinitis is a common condition with increasing prevalence and is associated with several comorbid disorders such as bronchial asthma and atopic dermatitis. If allergen avoidance is not possible, allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causal treatment option.

Areas covered: This review focuses on current treatments and the future outlook for allergic rhinitis. Pharmacotherapy includes mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, glucocorticosteroids (GCSs), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and nasal decongestants. Nasal GCSs are currently regarded as the most effective treatment and are considered first-line therapy together with non-sedating antihistamines. The new formulation MP29-02 combines the nasal GCS fluticasone propionate with azelastine in one single spray and has achieved greater improvements than those under monotherapy with modern GCSs or antihistamines. Furthermore, this review discusses allergen immunotherapy alone and in combination with modern monoclonal antibodies.

Expert opinion: Despite the variety of medications for allergic rhinitis, ranging from general symptomatic agents like GCSs or decongestants, to more specific ones like histamine receptor or leukotriene blockers, to causal therapy like immunotherapy, many patients still experience treatment failures or unsatisfactory results. The ultimate goal may be to endotype every downstream pathway separately in order to offer patients individualized, targeted therapy with specific antibodies against the respective pathway.     

EEG dipole analysis of motor-priming foreperiod activity reveals separate sources for motor and spatial attention components

OBJECTIVE: This study employed EEG source localisation procedures to study the contribution of motor preparatory and attentional processing to foreperiod activity in an S1-S2 motor priming task. METHODS: Behavioural and high-density event-related potential (ERP) data were recorded in an S1-S2 priming task where participants responded to S2 with a left or right-hand button press. S1 either provided information about response hand (informative) or ambiguous information (uninformative). RESULTS: Responses were significantly faster in informative trials compared with uninformative trials. Dipole source analysis of foreperiod lateralized ERPs revealed sources of motor preparatory activity in the dorsolateral premotor cortex (PMd) in line with previous work. In addition, two spatial attention components (ADAN, LDAP) were identified with generators in the PMd and occipitotemporal visual areas in the middle temporal (MT) region, respectively. Separation of motor-related and attentional PMd source locations was reliable along the rostral-caudal axis. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of attentional components in a motor priming paradigm supports the premotor theory of attention which suggests a close link between attention and motor preparatory processes. Separation of components in the premotor cortex is in accord with a functional division of PMd into rostral (higher-order processing) and caudal (motor-related processing) areas as suggested by imaging work. SIGNIFICANCE: A prime for response preparation is a trigger for separate, but closely linked, attention-related activity in premotor areas.     

Outcomes of low-vision services using optometric and multidisciplinary approaches: a non-randomized comparison

Consecutive patients (n = 215) who were referred to optometric (55%) or multidisciplinary (45%) low-vision services and above 50 years of age were recruited from four hospitals in the Netherlands. They completed two vision-related quality of life questionnaires, the Vision Quality of Life Core Measure (VCM1) and the Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire (LVQOL), before their first visit with low-vision services and 1 year later. At follow-up, patients referred to multidisciplinary low-vision services had lower scores on the mobility subscale of the LVQOL than patients referred to optometric low-vision services [5.3 points; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2-10.5]. Paired sample t-tests for the two groups of patients taken together show improvement for the VCM1 (3.1 points; 95% CI: 0.6-5.6) and deterioration for the basic aspects of vision (3.5 points; 95% CI: 1.1-5.9) and the mobility (6.6 points; 95% CI: 3.7-9.5) subscales of the LVQOL. In conclusion, people referred to optometric services showed less deterioration in mobility than those referred to multidisciplinary services. No differences were observed for any of the other subscales of the LVQOL and the VCM1. Future research in this field should include randomized controlled designs comparing low-vision services with no treatment or placebo.