Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and risk of suicide: a systematic review of observational studies

Background

It is unclear whether the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other antidepressant drugs reduce the risk of suicide in people with depression. We explored the association between exposure to SSRIs and risk of suicide completion or attempt.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of observational studies that reported completed or attempted suicide in depressed individuals who were exposed to SSRIs compared with those who were not exposed to antidepressants. We assessed the overall risk of completed or attempted suicide.

Results

Eight studies involving more than 200 000 patients with moderate or severe depression were included in the meta-analysis. Although exposure to SSRIs increased the risk of completed or attempted suicide among adolescents (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.51–2.44), the risk was decreased among adults (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47–0.70). Among people aged 65 or more years, exposure to SSRIs had a protective effect (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27–0.79). Sensitivity analyses did not change these findings. In particular, for studies that used completed suicide as an outcome, exposure to SSRIs was associated with increased risk among adolescents (OR 5.81, 95% CI 1.57–21.51) and decreased risk among adults (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52–0.83) and older people (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26–1.06).

Interpretation

Based on data from observational studies, use of SSRIs may be associated with a reduced risk of suicide in adults with depression. Among adolescents, use of SSRIs may increase suicidality.There is uncertainty about the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which may cause worsening of suicidal thoughts in vulnerable people.^1,2 In 2005, a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials comparing SSRIs with another active treatment or placebo found an almost 2-fold increase in the odds of fatal and nonfatal suicide attempts among those exposed to SSRIs.³ No increase in risk was observed, however, when only fatal suicide attempts were included. Another systematic review,⁴ which included both published and unpublished randomized controlled trials submitted by pharmaceutical companies to the safety review of the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency compared the use of SSRIs and placebo in adults with depression and other clinical conditions.⁴ This review showed no evidence of increased risk of completed suicide and only weak evidence of increased risk of self-harm.More recently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data from 372 randomized placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants with a total of nearly 100 000 patients.⁵ This study reported that the incidence of reported suicidal behaviour was strongly related to age.⁵ The risk associated with antidepressant use relative to placebo was increased among patients aged 25 or fewer years, and it was reduced among patients aged 65 or more years.⁵ The risk among patients aged 25–64 years was neutral; however, risk was reduced when suicidal behaviour and ideation were considered together.⁵ Based on these findings, in May 2007 the FDA ordered that all antidepressant drugs carry an expanded black-box warning on their label that included information about increased risk of suicidal behaviour in young adults aged 18–24 years.^6,7A controversial point of the FDA analysis is that the included trials were not primarily designed to measure suicidality (a composite outcome that includes suicide ideas, preparatory acts, suicide attempts and deaths by suicide).⁵ Of all suicidality events, less than 30% were serious suicide attempts or deaths. Additionally, considering that suicidality was self-reported rather than observed by others in most clinical trials, it is possible that antidepressant treatment, particularly in younger individuals, enhanced communication about suicidality, which may have allowed them to become more articulate and open about their thoughts and actions. Alternatively, antidepressant treatment might have enhanced communication about suicidality in all age groups, but increased attention to adverse effects might have led to enhanced detection of suicidality in younger individuals.⁵It is unlikely that individual randomized trials will be designed to primarily investigate the effect of antidepressant use on suicidality, and future systematic reviews of clinical trial data will not be able to overcome the limitations of the FDA analysis. Therefore, we sought to further explore the association between SSRI exposure and risk of completed or attempted suicide by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. By including a large, broad spectrum of individuals followed under naturalistic circumstances, systematic reviews of observational studies may offer an added dimension in the evaluation of drug safety that is complementary to that provided by clinical trials.^8,9 Additionally, observational studies may allow researchers to move from the controversial concept of suicidality to hard outcomes such as suicide attempt and completion. Specifically, we set out to quantify the risk of completed or attempted suicide among people in different age groups with depression after exposure to SSRIs.     

Effectiveness of paroxetine in the treatment of acute major depression in adults: a systematic re-examination of published and unpublished data from randomized trials

Background

Concern has been raised about the efficacy of antidepressant therapy for major depression in adults. We undertook a systematic review of published and unpublished clinical trial data to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of paroxetine.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Trial Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 2006. Published and unpublished randomized trials comparing paroxetine with placebo in adults with major depression were eligible for inclusion. We selected the proportion of patients who left a study early for any reason as the primary outcome measure because it represents a hard measure of treatment effectiveness and acceptability.

Results

We included in our review 29 published and 11 unpublished clinical trials, with a total of 3704 patients who received paroxetine and 2687 who received with placebo. There was no difference between paroxetine and placebo in terms of the proportion of patients who left the study early for any reason (random effect relative risk [RR] 0.99, 99% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–1.11). Paroxetine was more effective than placebo, with fewer patients who did not experience improvement in symptoms of at least 50% (random effect RR 0.83, 99% CI 0.77–0.90). Significantly more patients in the paroxetine group than in the placebo group left their respective studies because of side effects (random effect RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.44–2.18) or experienced suicidal tendencies (odds ratio 2.55, 95% CI 1.17–5.54).

Interpretation

Among adults with moderate to severe major depression in the clinical trials we reviewed, paroxetine was not superior to placebo in terms of overall treatment effectiveness and acceptability. These results were not biased by selective inclusion of published studies.Although most treatment guidelines recommend one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the pharmacologic treatment of moderate to severe depression in adults,^1,2 concerns have been raised in recent years about the efficacy of these drugs in alleviating symptoms of depression.^3,4First, in trials of antidepressants, the choice of the outcome of interest is often problematic. Whereas in other fields of medicine the definition of outcome measures may be relatively straightforward, efficacy in the treatment of depression may be an elusive concept, typically measured by rating scales. The use of rating scales as outcome measures has often been questioned by physicians, who seldom use them to define patients'' improvement under clinical circumstances.⁵ In addition, improvement in symptoms is typically documented as the difference between baseline and post-treatment scores. Although from a practical viewpoint this approach seems reasonable, in that it allows physicians to make a reasoned judgment in terms of proportions of patients (and not in terms of means and standard deviations), it may systematically magnify the effect of new drugs relative to placebo.³ As a consequence of this criticism, the field of mental health has seen a renewal of interest in “hard measures” of treatment effectiveness.^6–8 Hard measures include suicide attempts, treatment switching, hospital admissions, job loss or dropping out of the trial itself. Hard outcomes may also have a role in re-analyses of clinical trial data, where they may offer a “down-to-earth” evaluation of effectiveness and acceptability.A second concern is that the modest differences between active antidepressants and placebo, as calculated in systematic reviews of clinical trial data,^9–12 might be explained in part by the selective inclusion of specific subsets of studies, such as those submitted to regulatory authorities by drug companies, those that were eventually published or those supported by the manufacturers of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.¹³In the present systematic review, we used a hard measure to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of paroxetine, a commonly prescribed antidepressant belonging to the group of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Paroxetine was chosen for 3 reasons: first, it is one of the most frequently prescribed antidepressant drugs both in primary and secondary care (as indicated by a search of the US National Center for Health Statistics database, www2.cdc.gov/drugs/); second, GlaxoSmithKline, the company that launched paroxetine, has recently adopted and implemented a disclosure policy to provide easy access to all published and unpublished data from clinical trials that it has sponsored; and third, the effectiveness and acceptability of paroxetine are particularly relevant in view of recent concerns about its safety profile, especially in terms of suicidal tendencies among pediatric and adult patients with major depression.^14–17     

Fluoroquinolones compared with β-lactam antibiotics for the treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The presumed superiority of newer fluoroquinolones for the treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis is based on laboratory data but has not yet been established on clinical grounds.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of fluoroquinolones and β-lactams in acute bacterial sinusitis.

Results

We identified 8 randomized controlled trials investigating the newer “respiratory” fluoroquinolones moxifloxacin, levofloxacin and gatifloxacin. In the primary effectiveness analysis involving 2133 intention-to-treat patients from 5 randomized controlled trials, the extent of clinical cure and improvement did not differ between fluoroquinolones and β-lactams (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–1.39) at the test-of-cure assessment, which varied from 10 to 31 days after the start of treatment. Fluoroquinolones were associated with an increased chance of clinical success among the clinically evaluable patients in all of the randomized controlled trials (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03–1.63) and in 4 blinded randomized controlled trials (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05–2.00). There was no statistically significant difference between fluoroquinolones and amoxicillin–clavulanate (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.93–1.65). Eradication or presumed eradication of the pathogens isolated before treatment was more likely with fluoroquinolone treatment than with β-lactam treatment (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.09–4.08). In the primary safety analysis, adverse events did not differ between treatments (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.86–1.59). However, more adverse events occurred with fluoroquinolone use than with β-lactam use in 2 blinded randomized controlled trials. The associations described here were generally consistent when we included 3 additional studies involving other fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin and sparfloxacin) in the analysis.

Interpretation

In the treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis, newer fluoroquinolones conferred no benefit over β-lactam antibiotics. The use of fluoroquinolones as first-line therapy cannot be endorsed.Acute bacterial sinusitis (more accurately known as rhinosinusitis, given that the nasal mucosa is commonly involved¹) is one of the most frequent health disorders;² it has an adverse impact on patients'' quality of life³ and accounts for nearly 3 million ambulatory care visits in the United States annually⁴ and substantial health care costs.⁵Acute bacterial sinusitis typically follows an episode of viral upper respiratory tract illness.² The diagnosis of bacterial disease in routine clinical practice is usually based on the presence of a constellation of clinical manifestations.¹ The bacterial pathogens most commonly involved are Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and, to a lesser degree, Moraxella catarrhalis.^6,7 Over the years, these pathogens have acquired various degrees of resistance to many traditional antibiotics.⁸The benefit of older antibiotics over placebo in the treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis appears limited, mostly because of the high success rate achieved with placebo.^9,10 However, newer, third-and fourth-generation fluoroquinolones possess excellent in vitro activity against the most common respiratory pathogens,¹¹ and for this reason these drugs are often designated as “respiratory.” Based on analysis of the available laboratory data, current guidelines give the newer fluoroquinolones the highest ranking, in terms of expected clinical effectiveness, among the antimicrobials used to treat acute bacterial sinusitis (although admittedly the difference is marginal).⁷The presumed clinical advantage of the respiratory fluoroquinolones over other classes of antimicrobials has not been clearly demonstrated in comparative clinical trials or meta-analyses.^9,10 We aimed to comprehensively reassess the role of fluoroquinolones in the treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis, in terms of effectiveness and safety, by performing a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials.     

Fish-oil supplementation in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a meta-analysis

Background

A recent Cochrane meta-analysis did not confirm the benefits of fish and fish oil in the secondary prevention of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of fish-oil supplementation on ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia to determine the overall effect and to assess whether heterogeneity exists between trials.

Methods

We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL) from inception to May 2007. We included randomized controlled trials of fish-oil supplementation on ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. The primary outcome was implantable cardioverter defibrillator discharge. We calculated relative risk [RR] for outcomes at 1-year follow-up for each study. We used the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects methods when there was significant heterogeneity between trials and the Mantel-Hanzel fixed-effects method when heterogeneity was negligible.

Results

We identified 3 trials of 1–2 years'' duration. These trials included a total of 573 patients who received fish oil and 575 patients who received a control. Meta-analysis of data collected at 1 year showed no overall effect of fish oil on the relative risk of implantable cardioverter defibrillator discharge. There was significant heterogeneity between trials. The second largest study showed a significant benefit of fish oil (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–0.98). The smallest showed an adverse tendency at 1 year (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.92–1.65) and significantly worse outcome at 2 years among patients with ventricular tachycardia at study entry (log rank p = 0.007).

Conclusion

These data indicate that there is heterogeneity in the response of patients to fish-oil supplementation. Caution should be used when prescribing fish-oil supplementation for patients with ventricular tachycardia.There is a public perception that fish and fish oil can be recommended uniformly for the prevention of coronary artery disease.^1–3 However, the scientific evidence is divided^4,5 and official agencies have called for more research.⁶It is estimated that 0.5% of patients with coronary heart disease, 1% of patients with diabetes or hypertension and 2% of the general population at low risk of coronary heart disease take fish-oil supplements.⁷ In 2004, the price of fish oils overtook that of vegetable oils, and in 2006, the price rose to US$750 per ton.⁸ The value of fish oil as a nutraceutical in the European market was US$194 million in 2004, and it is anticipated that the price will continue to rise as availability declines.⁸ Canada is both a consumer and an exporter of fish oil, and it exported 15 000 tons in 2006.⁹The scientific debate over the clinical value of fish oil is highlighted by a recent Cochrane review, which concluded that long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid) had no clear effect on total mortality, combined cardiovascular events or cancer.⁴ Furthermore, another recent meta-analysis¹⁰ only showed a significant positive association between fish-oil consumption and prevention of restenosis after coronary angioplasty in a select subgroup after excluding key negative papers.¹¹ Finally, the antiarrhythmic effect, which is proposed to be the principal mechanism of their benefit in cardiovascular disease, has not been demonstrated clearly in clinical trials.^12–14We therefore performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of fish-oil supplementation in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators who are at risk of ventricular arrhythmia to determine the overall effect of fish oils. We also sought to investigate whether there was significant heterogeneity between trials.     

Access to health care among status Aboriginal people with chronic kidney disease

Background

Ethnic disparities in access to health care and health outcomes are well documented. It is unclear whether similar differences exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people with chronic kidney disease in Canada. We determined whether access to care differed between status Aboriginal people (Aboriginal people registered under the federal Indian Act) and non-Aboriginal people with chronic kidney disease.

Methods

We identified 106 511 non-Aboriginal and 1182 Aboriginal patients with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m²). We compared outcomes, including hospital admissions, that may have been preventable with appropriate outpatient care (ambulatory-care–sensitive conditions) as well as use of specialist services, including visits to nephrologists and general internists.

Results

Aboriginal people were almost twice as likely as non-Aboriginal people to be admitted to hospital for an ambulatory-care–sensitive condition (rate ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.46–2.13). Aboriginal people with severe chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m²) were 43% less likely than non-Aboriginal people with severe chronic kidney disease to visit a nephrologist (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.39–0.83). There was no difference in the likelihood of visiting a general internist (hazard ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.83–1.21).

Interpretation

Increased rates of hospital admissions for ambulatory-care–sensitive conditions and a reduced likelihood of nephrology visits suggest potential inequities in care among status Aboriginal people with chronic kidney disease. The extent to which this may contribute to the higher rate of kidney failure in this population requires further exploration.Ethnic disparities in access to health care are well documented;^1,2 however, the majority of studies include black and Hispanic populations in the United States. The poorer health status and increased mortality among Aboriginal populations than among non-Aboriginal populations,^3,4 particularly among those with chronic medical conditions,^5,6 raise the question as to whether there is differential access to health care and management of chronic medical conditions in this population.The prevalence of end-stage renal disease, which commonly results from chronic kidney disease, is about twice as common among Aboriginal people as it is among non-Aboriginal people.^7,8 Given that the progression of chronic kidney disease can be delayed by appropriate therapeutic interventions^9,10 and that delayed referral to specialist care is associated with increased mortality,^11,12 issues such as access to health care may be particularly important in the Aboriginal population. Although previous studies have suggested that there is decreased access to primary and specialist care in the Aboriginal population,^13–15 these studies are limited by the inclusion of patients from a single geographically isolated region,¹³ the use of survey data,¹⁴ and the inability to differentiate between different types of specialists and reasons for the visit.¹⁵In addition to physician visits, admission to hospital for ambulatory-care–sensitive conditions (conditions that, if managed effectively in an outpatient setting, do not typically result in admission to hospital) has been used as a measure of access to appropriate outpatient care.^16,17 Thus, admission to hospital for an ambulatory-care–sensitive condition reflects a potentially preventable complication resulting from inadequate access to care. Our objective was to determine whether access to health care differs between status Aboriginal (Aboriginal people registered under the federal Indian Act) and non-Aboriginal people with chronic kidney disease. We assess differences in care by 2 measures: admission to hospital for an ambulatory-care–sensitive condition related to chronic kidney disease; and receipt of nephrology care for severe chronic kidney disease as recommended by clinical practice guidelines.¹⁸     

The efficacy and safety of intensive statin therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Recent lipid guidelines recommend aggressive low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol lowering in patients with coronary artery disease. To clarify the evidence for this recommendation, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared different intensities of statin therapy.

Methods

We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registery of Controlled Trials, Web of Science) for randomized controlled trials published up to July 19, 2007, that compared statin regimens of different intensities in adults with coronary artery disease and that reported cardiovascular events or mortality. Data were pooled using random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (OR).

Results

A total of 7 trials (29 395 patients) were included. Compared with less intensive statin regimens, more intensive regimens further reduced LDL levels (0.72 mmol/L reduction, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60–0.84 mmol/L), and reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77–0.91) and stroke (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71–0.95). Although there was no effect on mortality among patients with chronic coronary artery disease (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80–1.14), all-cause mortality was reduced among patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with more intensive statin regimens (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61–0.93). Compared with lower intensity regimens, more intensive regimens were associated with small absolute increases in rates of drug discontinuation (2.5%), elevated levels of aminotransferases (1%) and myopathy (0.5%), and there was no difference in noncardiovascular mortality. All 7 trials reported events by randomization arm rather than by LDL level achieved. About half of the patients treated with more intensive statin therapy did not achieve an LDL level of less than 2.0 mmol/L, and none of the trials tested combination therapies.

Interpretation

Our analysis supports the use of more intensive statin regimens in patients with established coronary artery disease. There is insufficient evidence to advocate treating to particular LDL targets, using combination lipid-lowering therapy to achieve these targets or for using more intensive regimens in patients without established coronary artery disease.Dyslipidemia is the most important modifiable risk factor for myocardial infarction worldwide,¹ and serum cholesterol levels are directly related to mortality from coronary artery disease in all populations studied.^2–4 Over the past decade, randomized controlled trials enrolling a wide variety of patients have confirmed that for every 1-mmol/L reduction in serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol achieved by statin therapy, the relative risks of cardiovascular events and mortality are reduced (by 21% and 12% respectively).⁵Statins exert their beneficial effects primarily by reducing the level of LDL cholesterol,⁶ and the reductions in the relative risk of cardiovascular events achieved by statin therapy appears to be similar regardless of baseline cholesterol levels.⁵ As a result, attention has increasingly focused on defining optimal target LDL levels, particularly in patients at highest risk (i.e., those with coronary artery disease). Based on the observational studies mentioned above,^2,3 the apparent lack of a lower threshold for statin benefit in the randomized controlled trials, and recent trials reporting greater benefits with more intensive statin regimens (compared with less intensive regimens), Canadian⁷ and American⁸ guidelines for secondary prevention now recommend target LDL levels below 2.0 mmol/L in patients with coronary artery disease. On the other hand, European guidelines specify a target LDL of 2.5 mmol/L in these patients.⁹ Questions have been raised about the safety and incremental benefits of more intensive statin regimens.^10–12We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to critically examine the evidence for the safety, efficacy (LDL lowering) and clinical effectiveness from trials comparing more intensive statin therapy with less intensive statin therapy in patients with coronary artery disease.     

Postdischarge thromboprophylaxis and mortality risk after hip-or knee-replacement surgery

Background

Patients undergoing hip or knee replacement are at high risk of developing a postoperative venous thromboembolism even after discharge from hospital. We sought to identify hospital and patient characteristics associated with receiving thromboprophylaxis after discharge and to compare the risk of short-term mortality among those who did or did not receive thromboprophylaxis.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using system-wide hospital discharge summary records, physician billing information, medication reimbursement claims and demographic records. We included patients aged 65 years and older who received a hip or knee replace ment and who were discharged home after surgery.

Results

In total we included 10 744 patients. Of these, 7058 patients who received a hip replacement and 3686 who received a knee replacement. The mean age was 75.4 (standard deviation [SD] 6.8) years and 38% of patients were men. In total, 2059 (19%) patients received thomboprophylaxis at discharge. Patients discharged from university teaching hospitals were less likely than those discharged from community hospitals to received thromboprophylaxis after discharge (odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80–1.00). Patients were less likely to receive thromboprophylaxis after discharge if they had a longer hospital stay (15–30 days v. 1–7 days, OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59–0.81). Patients were more likely to receive thromboprophylaxis if they had hip (v. knee) replacement, osteoarthritis, heart failure, atrial fibrillation or hypertension, higher (v. lower) income or if they were treated at medium-volume hospitals (69–116 hip and knee replacements per year). In total, 223 patients (2%) died in the 3-month period after discharge. The risk of short-term mortality was lower among those who received thromboprophylaxis after discharge (hazard ratio [HR] 0.34, 95% CI 0.20–0.57).

Interpretation

Fewer than 1 in 5 elderly patients discharged home after a hip-or knee-replacement surgery received postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Those prescribed these medications had a lower risk of short-term mortality. The benefits of and barriers to thromboprophylaxis therapy after discharge in this population requires further study.Venous thromboembolism is a leading cause of mortality among patients in hospital.^1,2 Major orthopedic surgery (e.g., hip or knee replacement) is associated with a high risk for postoperative venous thromboembolism.^1,3,4 Because the clinical diagnosis of venous thromboembolism is unreliable and its first manifestation may be a life-threatening pulmonary embolism,⁵ it is recommended that patients undergoing hip or knee replacement receive routine thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulant therapy after surgery unless they have contraindications to anticoagulant therapy.^1,3,5,6Thromboprophylaxis is commonly administered for the entire hospital stay, which is usually between 4 and 14 days.⁷ Expert consensus guidelines recommend that patients undergoing hip or knee replacement receive thromboprophylaxis medications for at least 10 days after surgery.⁶ These guidelines also recommend extended thromboprophylaxis for up to 28–35 days after surgery for patients undergoing hip replacement.⁶ Although there is evidence that extended thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge is effective for reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism among patients who undergo hip replacement,⁸ the benefit among patients who undergo knee replacement has not been established.⁶ Thromboprophylaxis after discharge is likely to most benefit patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism, such as those with cancer, heart failure or major respiratory disease.^6–9 However, given that patients who undergo joint replacement are often elderly and have multiple comorbidities, the risks associated with extended thromboprophylaxis, particularly gastrointestinal bleeding and hemorrhagic strokes, may be substantial and may be relative contraindications for this therapy.¹⁰Among patients discharged home after hip-or knee-replacement surgery, we sought characterize the use of thromboprophylaxis after discharge and its consequences on risk of short-term mortality.     

Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis

Background

Clinical trials and meta-analyses have produced conflicting results of the efficacy of unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in adults. We sought to evaluate the vaccine''s efficacy on clinical outcomes as well as the methodologic quality of the trials.

Methods

We searched several databases and all bibliographies of reviews and meta-analyses for clinical trials that compared pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine with a control. We examined rates of pneumonia and death, taking the methodologic quality of the trials into consideration.

Results

We included 22 trials involving 101 507 participants: 11 trials reported on presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia, 19 on all-cause pneumonia and 12 on all-cause mortality. The current 23-valent vaccine was used in 8 trials. The relative risk (RR) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.96) for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia and 0.73 (95% CI 0.56–0.94) for all-cause pneumonia. There was significant heterogeneity between the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia (I² = 74%, p < 0.001) and between those reporting on all-cause pneumonia (I² = 90%, p < 0.001). The RR for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87–1.09), with moderate heterogeneity between trials (I² = 44%, p = 0.053). Trial quality, especially regarding double blinding, explained a substantial proportion of the heterogeneity in the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia and all-cause pneumonia. There was little evidence of vaccine protection in trials of higher methodologic quality (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.75–1.92, for presumptive pneumonia; and 1.19, 95% CI 0.95–1.49, for all-cause pneumonia in double-blind trials; p for heterogeneity > 0.05). The results for all-cause mortality in double-blind trials were similar to those in all trials combined. There was little evidence of vaccine protection among elderly patients or adults with chronic illness in analyses of all trials (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78–1.38, for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia; 0.89, 95% CI 0.69–1.14, for all-cause pneumonia; and 1.00, 95% CI 0.87–1.14, for all-cause mortality).

Interpretation

Pneumococcal vaccination does not appear to be effective in preventing pneumonia, even in populations for whom the vaccine is currently recommended.The burden of disease due to Streptococcus pneumoniae falls mainly on children, elderly people and people with underlying conditions such as HIV infection.¹ Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines were developed more than 50 years ago and have progressed from 2-valent vaccines to the current 23-valent vaccine, which has been available since the early 1980s. The 23-valent vaccine includes serotypes accounting for 72%² to 95%³ of invasive pneumococcal disease, depending on the geographic area. In many industrialized countries, pneumococcal vaccination is currently recommended for people aged 65 years and older and for individuals aged 2–64 who are at increased risk of pneumococcal disease.^4–6Meta-analyses of controlled clinical trials have produced conflicting results of the efficacy of unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine.^7–22 The lack of consistency between results reported from observational studies and controlled trials is another reason why the efficacy of the vaccine remains controversial. Empirical studies have shown that inadequate quality of clinical trials can lead to biases that distort their results.²³ For example, inadequate allocation concealment or failure to blind patients, caregivers or those assessing outcomes may exaggerate treatment effects.²³ Despite this, none of the previous reviews formally compared effect sizes in trials of high methodologic quality with effect sizes in trials of lower quality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials examining the efficacy of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination on clinical outcomes, taking the quality of trials into account.     

Interventions led by nurse continence advisers in the management of urinary incontinence: a randomized controlled trial

Background

The short-term efficacy of combined lifestyle and behavioural interventions led by nurses in the management of urinary incontinence has not been rigorously evaluated by randomized controlled trial. We conducted a 6-month randomized controlled trial to determine whether a model of service delivery that included lifestyle and behavioural interventions led by “nurse continence advisers” in collaboration with a physician with expertise in continence management could reduce urinary incontinence and pad use in an outpatient population. We also aimed to evaluate the impact of this approach on subjects'' knowledge about incontinence and their quality of life.

Methods

We used advertising in the mainstream media, newsletters to family physicians and community information sessions in 1991 to invite volunteers who were 26 years of age or older and suffered from incontinence to participate in a randomized controlled trial. Men and women who met the eligibility criteria were randomly allocated to receive either counselling from specialized nurses to manage incontinence using behavioural and lifestyle modification sessions every 4 weeks for 25 weeks or usual care. Symptoms of incontinence and the use of incontinence pads were the primary outcome measures.

Results

Using sealed envelopes, 421 patients were randomly allocated to the treatment or control groups. On average, patients in the treatment group experienced 2.1 “incontinent events” per 24 hours before treatment and 1.0 incontinent event per 24 hours at the end of the study. Control patients had an average of 2.4 incontinent events per 24 hours before the study and 2.2 incontinent events per 24 hours at the end of the study. The mean decrease in events in the treatment group was 1.2 and in the control group 0.2 (p = 0.001). Pad use declined from a mean of 2.2 per 24 hours before randomization in the treatment group to 1.2 per 24 hours at the end of the study, compared with 2.6 pads per 24 hours in the control group at the start of the study and 2.4 per 24 hours at the end. Pad use per 24 hours decreased on average by 0.9 pads in the treatment group and 0.1 in the control group (p = 0.021).

Interpretation

Behavioural and lifestyle counselling provided by specialized nurses with training in managing incontinence reduces incontinent events and incontinence pad use.Urinary incontinence primarily affects young-to-middle-aged women and elderly men and women. The prevalence of urinary incontinence in people aged 65 years and older living in the community ranges from 8% to 30%.^1,2,3,4,5,6 Urinary incontinence is underrecognized and those affected are often embarrassed and ashamed, thus, the problem frequently remains hidden.^1,2North American and Canadian practice guidelines for the effective management of adult urinary incontinence have advocated thorough initial assessment, then staged multidisciplinary approaches beginning with the least invasive and reversible (lifestyle and behavioural) interventions, before drug therapy (reversible) and surgery (invasive and irreversible).^1,2,3 The role of continence advisers in the management of urinary incontinence has evolved from its early beginnings in the United Kingdom^7,8,9,10,11 and is now increasingly recognized in North America.^12,13,14 There has been some evaluation of the short-term efficacy of multidisciplinary incontinence management by nurse practitioners or “nurse continence advisers” in community and outpatient settings.^{15,16,17,18,19,20} However, the short-term efficacy of combined lifestyle and behavioural interventions led by nurse continence advisers has not been rigorously evaluated using randomized controlled trials.Urinary incontinence has many causes, particularly in elderly people,²¹ and the potential for overall clinical improvement is greater when multiple interventions target several factors. Each intervention effects a small positive change, and these small changes cumulatively have a large positive outcome.²¹ Individual components of lifestyle and behavioural interventions are increasingly being shown to be effective. For example, behavioural training, including pelvic muscle exercises, has reduced urinary incontinence significantly,^22,23,24 in some cases up to 57%.²⁵ A combined approach consisting of both bladder training and pelvic muscle exercises, provided by trained registered nurses, has resulted in significantly fewer incontinent episodes than either approach alone.²⁶ Pelvic floor exercises have been shown to be equally effective in women with stress, urge and mixed urinary incontinence.²⁷ Adherence to pelvic floor muscle exercises has been shown to be sustained for up to 5 years in 70% of women who have intensive exercise training.²⁸ Decreasing caffeine intake has also been shown to reduce episodes of incontinence.²⁹ Reducing fluid intake in people with detrusor instability, but not those with genuine stress incontinence, reduces the number of “incontinent events.” Increasing fluid intake makes the urinary incontinence worse.³⁰Our 6-month randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine whether a model of service delivery that included lifestyle and behavioural interventions led by nurse continence advisers in collaboration with a physician with expertise in continence management could reduce urinary incontinence and pad use. Our secondary aim was to investigate the impact of incontinence management led by nurse continence advisers on subjects'' knowledge about incontinence and their quality of life.     

Thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke: results of the Canadian Alteplase for Stroke Effectiveness Study

Background

Thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke has remained controversial. The Canadian Alteplase for Stroke Effectiveness Study, a national prospective cohort study, was conducted to assess the effectiveness of alteplase therapy for ischemic stroke in actual practice.

Methods

The study was mandated by the federal government as a condition of licensure of alteplase for the treatment of stroke in Canada. A registry was established to collect data over 2.5 years for stroke patients receiving such treatment from Feb. 17, 1999, through June 30, 2001. All centres capable of administering thrombolysis therapy according to Canadian guidelines were eligible to submit patient data to the registry. Data collection was prospective, and follow-up was completed at 90 days after stroke. Copies of head CT scans obtained at baseline and at 24–48 hours after the start of treatment were submitted to a central panel for review.

Results

A total of 1135 patients were enrolled at 60 centres in all major hospitals across Canada. The registry collected data for an estimated 84% of all treated ischemic stroke patients in the country. An excellent clinical outcome was observed in 37% of the patients. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in only 4.6% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4%–6.0%); however, 75% of these patients died in hospital. An additional 1.3% (95% CI 0.7%–2.2%) of patients had hemiorolingual angioedema.

Conclusions

The outcomes of stroke patients undergoing thrombolysis in Canada are commensurate with the results of clinical trials. The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was low. Stroke thrombolysis is a safe and effective therapy in actual practice.Thrombolytic therapy for stroke was first reported in 1958¹ and a subsequent small trial was reported in 1963² in the absence of brain parenchymal imaging but guided by angiography. The later arrival of CT scanning was an enabling technological event, and early dose-finding trials were begun in the 1980s,^3,4,5 with large randomized trials conducted a decade later. Results of randomized trials of streptokinase therapy for ischemic stroke were uniformly negative.^6,7,8 Results of trials of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) were mixed in their respective primary analyses^{9,10,11,12,13} but overall showed a benefit that wanes as time from symptom to treatment elapses.^14,15 A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that 55 fewer patients per 1000 treated with tPA within 6 hours after stroke would be dead or dependent at the end of follow-up compared with patients given placebo.¹⁶ Nevertheless, use of thrombolysis for stroke remains controversial, particularly because it is unclear whether such a therapy that is dependent on time, technology and infrastructure can be broadly and safely applied.In Canada, tPA therapy for stroke was conditionally licensed in 1999. As a condition of approval, a prospective registry to monitor safety was mandated by the federal government. The Canadian Alteplase for Stroke Effectiveness Study (CASES) was launched to collect data on outcomes for all patients treated with tPA in Canada. The purposes of the study were (a) to assess the safety of alteplase for stroke in the context of routine care and (b) to assess whether efficacy demonstrated in randomized clinical trials could be translated into effectiveness in clinical practice.     

Effectiveness of a home-based balance-training program in reducing sports-related injuries among healthy adolescents: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Sport is the leading cause of injury requiring medical attention among adolescents. We studied the effectiveness of a home-based balance-training program using a wobble board in improving static and dynamic balance and reducing sports-related injuries among healthy adolescents.

Methods

In this cluster randomized controlled trial, we randomly selected 10 of 15 high schools in Calgary to participate in the fall of 2001. We then recruited students from physical education classes and randomly assigned them, by school, to either the intervention (n = 66) or the control (n = 61) group. Students in the intervention group participated in a daily 6-week and then a weekly 6-month home-based balance-training program using a wobble board. Students at the control schools received testing only. The primary outcome measures were timed static and dynamic balance, 20-m shuttle run and vertical jump, which were measured at baseline and biweekly for 6 weeks. Self-reported injury data were collected over the 6-month follow-up period.

Results

At 6 weeks, improvements in static and dynamic balance were observed in the intervention group but not in the control group (difference in static balance 20.7 seconds, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.8 to 30.6 seconds; difference in dynamic balance 2.3 seconds, 95% CI 0.7 to 4.0 seconds). There was evidence of a protective effect of balance training in over 6 months (relative risk of injury 0.2, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.88). The number needed to treat to avoid 1 injury over 6 months was 8 (95% CI 4 to 35).

Interpretation

Balance training using a wobble board is effective in improving static and dynamic balance and reducing sports-related injuries among healthy adolescents.Adolescents commonly participate in sports.^1,2 In a survey of adolescents in Alberta, 59% reported that they took part in sports more than 5 hours per week (unpublished data). In North America, sport is the leading cause of injury requiring medical attention and visits to an emergency department among adolescents.^3,4 In Alberta 26% of youths aged 15–19 years in a survey reported sustaining a sports-related injury requiring medical attention.⁵ The impact may be lifelong, as there is evidence that knee and ankle injuries may result in an increased risk of osteoarthritis later in life.^6,7,8 In addition, each year 8% of adolescents drop out of sports activities because of injury.⁹ The reduction in physical activity resulting from sports-related injuries could have significant long-term effects on morbidity and mortality.^10,11Proprioceptive balance training is used in rehabilitation following sports-related injuries and is becoming recognized as an important element in injury prevention in sports.^{12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19} Running, jumping or pivoting on one leg relies on a sense of joint position and muscular control for joint stability. There is evidence that static balance improves following proprioceptive balance training using a wobble board.^20,21,22,23 However, most of these studies did not examine the effect of dynamic proprioceptive balance training, which may improve postural control in athletic situations and prevent some injuries.There is evidence from randomized trials that multifaceted prevention programs, including proprioceptive balance training using a wobble board, are effective in reducing injuries to the lower extremities in specific sports.^{12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19} However, the programs in these trials were multifaceted (i.e., included warm-up, flexibility, jump training, strength training, rehabilitation and sport-specific technical components), and balance was not measured. The effectiveness of balance training alone on balance ability and prevention of injury remains unclear. Moreover, the use of these techniques in adolescents and non-elite athletes has not been studied.The objectives of our study were to determine the effectiveness of a proprioceptive home-based balance-training program in improving static and dynamic balance in adolescents and to examine the effectiveness of this training program on reducing sports-related injury among adolescents.     

Behavioural treatments for chronic systemic inflammation: effects of dietary weight loss and exercise training

PERSISTENT LOW-GRADE INFLAMMATION, as indicated by higher circulating levels of inflammatory mediators such as C-reactive protein, interleukin-6 and tumour necrosis factor-α, is a strong risk factor for several chronic diseases. There are data indicating that decreasing energy intake and increasing physical activity may be effective therapies for reducing overall inflammation. Evidence is strong that circulating levels of inflammatory markers are elevated with total and abdominal obesity, possibly owing to a higher secretion rate of cytokines by adipose tissue in obese people. Moreover, very-low-energy dietary weight loss reduces both circulating markers of inflammation and adipose-tissue cytokine production. Data from several large population-based cohorts show an inverse association between markers of systemic inflammation and physical activity or fitness status; small-scale intervention studies support that exercise training diminishes inflammation. Dietary weight loss plus exercise is likely more effective than weight reduction alone in reducing inflammation. To date, data from randomized, controlled trails designed to definitively test the effects of weight loss or exercise training, or both, on inflammation are limited. Future studies are required to define the amount of weight loss needed for clinically meaningful reductions of inflammation; in addition, fully powered and controlled studies are necessary to clarify the effect of exercise training on chronic, systemic inflammation.The biologic cascade of events that form the body''s natural defenses against injury or infection is a vital part of the immune system. Ordinarily, this process is an acute response resulting in rapid, major increases in inflammatory mediators released into the circulation.^1,2 In healthy, lean, non-elderly people, for example, blood concentrations of the acute-phase reactant C-reactive protein (CRP), which are normally less than 2 mg/L in men³ and less than 2.5 mg/ L in women,⁴ can increase more than 1000-fold in response to infection or trauma.^2,5,6Typically, a CRP value of 10 mg/L or more is considered indicative of clinically significant inflammation.⁷ However, recent evidence indicates that persistent elevations in circulating markers of inflammation, even when within the clinically normal range, are risk factors for cardiovascular disease in both middle-aged^{8,9,10,11,12,13} and older^{14,15,16,17,18,19} people. Recently, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Heart Association have stated that people with CRP values in the upper tertile of the adult population (> 3.0 mg/L) have a risk of cardiovascular disease that is double that of people whose CRP concentrations are less than 1.0 mg/L.²⁰ In addition to CRP, interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), along with several other acute-phase reactant proteins, cytokines and cytokine-soluble receptors, are strongly associated with increased risk for several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease,^12,17,21,22 diabetes mellitus^23,24 and disability.^25,26 IL-6 and TNF-α are both stimulators of CRP release from hepatocytes.^27,28 It is not yet known which of these factors might be the most robust indicator of underlying inflammation, or whether the effects of these biomarkers are additive for risk prediction.As illustrated in Figure 1, behavioural factors are associated with chronic, low-grade states of inflammation (as measured by slightly elevated inflammatory biomarkers), and therefore with the several chronic diseases that are associated with inflammatory states. Since the risk estimates associated with elevated inflammation appear to be linear (e.g., the CRP category cut-offs for assessment of cardiovascular disease risk²⁰ are low risk < 1.0 mg/L, medium risk 1.0–3.0 mg/L and high risk > 3.0 mg/L), behavioural interventions that produce even slight reductions in inflammation may have clinically significant benefits. A few pharmacologic interventions such as use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and statins decrease inflammation, as evidenced by lowered CRP concentrations in prospective clinical trials.^29,30,31,32 Moreover, there are very promising data suggesting that decreasing body weight and increasing physical activity are just as effective as medication for reducing overall inflammation. The published effects of behavioural interventions involving weight loss and exercise training on inflammatory markers are reviewed here.Open in a separate windowFig. 1: Reported behavioural factors associated with chronic subclinical inflammation, and diseases and adverse health conditions for which inflammation is a risk factor. ↓ = decreased; BMI = body mass index.     

Effectiveness of statins for secondary prevention in elderly patients after acute myocardial infarction: an evaluation of class effect

Background

Clinical trials have shown the benefits of statins after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, it is unclear whether different statins exert a similar effect in reducing the incidence of recurrent AMI and death when used in clinical practice.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study (1997–2002) to compare 5 statins using data from medical administrative databases in 3 provinces (Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia). We included patients aged 65 years and over who were discharged alive after their first AMI-related hospital stay and who began statin treatment within 90 days after discharge. The primary end point was the combined outcome of recurrent AMI or death from any cause. The secondary end point was death from any cause. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each statin compared with atorvastatin as the reference drug were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.

Results

A total of 18 637 patients were prescribed atorvastatin (n = 6420), pravastatin (n = 4480), simvastatin (n = 5518), lovastatin (n = 1736) or fluvastatin (n = 483). Users of different statins showed similar baseline characteristics and patterns of statin use. The adjusted HRs (and 95% confidence intervals) for the combined outcome of AMI or death showed that each statin had similar effects when compared with atorvastatin: pravastatin 1.00 (0.90–1.11), simvastatin 1.01 (0.91– 1.12), lovastatin 1.09 (0.95–1.24) and fluvastatin 1.01 (0.80– 1.27). The results did not change when death alone was the end point, nor did they change after adjustment for initial daily dose or after censoring of patients who switched or stopped the initial statin treatment.

Interpretation

Our results suggest that, under current usage, statins are equally effective for secocondary prevention in elderly patients after AMI.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that the use of statins after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are effective in reducing the incidence of both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events.^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8} Although these trials have significantly influenced post-AMI treatment,^9,10,11,12 it remains unclear whether all statins are equally effective in preventing recurrent AMI and death. Drugs in the same class are generally thought to be therapeutically equivalent because of similar mechanisms of action (class effect).^13,14,15 However, in the absence of comparative data, this assumption requires evaluation. Statins differ in multiple characteristics, including liver and renal metabolism, half-life, effect on other serum lipid components, bioavailability and potency.^16,17,18,19 These differences could potentially influence the extent to which the drugs are beneficial. Despite limited evidence in support of a differential benefit of statins for secondary prevention, preferential prescribing already occurs in practice and cannot be fully explained by the existing evidence or guidelines.²⁰ Comparative data of statins are thus required to inform health care decision-making.A number of RCTs have directly compared statins using surrogate end points, such as lipid reduction,^21,22,23 markers of hemostasis and inflammation^24,25,26 or reduction in number of atherotic plaques.²⁷ However, the extent to which these results can be extrapolated to clinically relevant outcomes remains to be established. The newly released PROVE IT– TIMI 22 trial²⁸ was the first trial to compare 2 statins for cardiovascular prevention. The study showed that atorvastatin used at a maximal dose of 80 mg (intensive therapy) was better than pravastatin at a dose of 40 mg (standard therapy) in decreasing the incidence of cardiovascular events and procedures. The study was, however, conducted to show the benefit associated with increased treatment intensity. It did not compare the drugs by milligram-equivalent doses or by cholesterol-lowering equivalent doses. Moreover, no difference was detected when death alone or the combined outcome of death or AMI was evaluated. Other than the PROVE IT–TIMI 22 trial, few data are currently available from RCTs that compare statins for cardiovascular prevention.²⁹We conducted a population-based study to examine the relative effectiveness of different statins for long-term secondary prevention after AMI. We used retrospective cohorts of elderly patients prescribed statins after AMI in 3 provinces. Five statins were studied: atorvastatin, pravastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin and fluvastatin. The newest statin, rosuvastatin, was not available during the study period and was not considered in this study.     

The effect of traumatic brain injury on the health of homeless people

Background

We sought to determine the lifetime prevalence of traumatic brain injury and its association with current health conditions in a representative sample of homeless people in Toronto, Ontario.

Methods

We surveyed 601 men and 303 women at homeless shelters and meal programs in 2004–2005 (response rate 76%). We defined traumatic brain injury as any self-reported head injury that left the person dazed, confused, disoriented or unconscious. Injuries resulting in unconsciousness lasting 30 minutes or longer were defined as moderate or severe. We assessed mental health, alcohol and drug problems in the past 30 days using the Addiction Severity Index. Physical and mental health status was assessed using the SF-12 health survey. We examined associations between traumatic brain injury and health conditions.

Results

The lifetime prevalence among homeless participants was 53% for any traumatic brain injury and 12% for moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. For 70% of respondents, their first traumatic brain injury occurred before the onset of homelessness. After adjustment for demographic characteristics and lifetime duration of homelessness, a history of moderate or severe traumatic brain injury was associated with significantly increased likelihood of seizures (odds ratio [OR] 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8 to 5.6), mental health problems (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1), drug problems (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.5), poorer physical health status (–8.3 points, 95% CI –11.1 to –5.5) and poorer mental health status (–6.0 points, 95% CI –8.3 to –3.7).

Interpretation

Prior traumatic brain injury is very common among homeless people and is associated with poorer health.Traumatic brain injury is caused by “a blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain” and most commonly results from falls, motor vehicle traffic crashes and assaults.¹ Traumatic brain injury is a leading cause of permanent disability in North America.¹ Traumatic brain injury may be common in the homeless population.² Exposure to physical abuse during childhood, which could result in traumatic brain injury, is a known risk factor for homelessness as an adult.³ Substance abuse increases the risk of homelessness⁴ and the risk of traumatic brain injury.⁵ Homeless people experience high rates of injury of all types and are frequently victims of assault.^6,7 Finally, traumatic brain injury could be a factor contributing to the 3%–8% prevalence of cognitive dysfunction among homeless adults.^8,9Providing health care for homeless patients can be challenging for various reasons, including difficult behavioural patterns. These behaviours may be related in part to unrecognized sequelae of traumatic brain injury and may include cognitive impairment, attention deficits, disinhibition, impulsivity and emotional lability.¹ Appropriate support services may be able to minimize the adverse impact of these behaviours.Two previous studies have reported the prevalence of traumatic brain injury among homeless people in London, England, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. These studies were limited by small sample sizes, recruitment at a single shelter and a lack of data from women.^10,11 We conducted this study to determine the lifetime prevalence of traumatic brain injury in a representative sample of homeless men and women across an entire city, and to identify the temporal relation between traumatic brain injury and the onset of homelessness. We also sought to characterize the association between a history of traumatic brain injury and current health problems in this population. Our primary hypothesis was that a history of traumatic brain injury would be associated with poor current health.     

Joint contracture following prolonged stay in the intensive care unit

Background

Prolonged immobility during a critical illness may predispose patients to the development of joint contracture. We sought to document the incidence of, the risk factors for and the reversibility of joint contractures among patients who stayed in a tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) for 2 weeks or longer.

Methods

We conducted a chart review to collect data on the presence of and risk factors for joint contractures in the shoulders, elbows, hips, knees and ankles among patients admitted to the ICU between January 2003 and March 2005.

Results

At the time of transfer out of the ICU, at least 1 joint contracture was recorded in 61 (39%) of 155 patients; 52 (34%) of the patients had joint contractures of an extent documented to impair function. Time spent in the ICU was a significant risk factor for contracture: a stay of 8 weeks or longer was associated with a significantly greater risk of any joint contracture than a stay of 2 to 3 weeks (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 7.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29–38.9; p = 0.02). Among the variables tested, only the use of steroids conferred a protective effect against joint contractures (adjusted OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14–0.83; p = 0.02). At the time of discharge to home, which occurred a median of 6.6 weeks after transfer out of intensive care, 50 (34%) of the 147 patients not lost to follow-up still had 1 or more joint contractures, and 34 (23%) of the patients had at least 1 functionally significant joint contracture.

Interpretation

Following a prolonged stay in the ICU, a functionally significant contracture of a major joint occurred in more than one-third of patients, and most of these contractures persisted until the time of discharge to home.Joint contracture is a limitation in the passive range of motion of a joint secondary to shortening of the periarticular connective tissues and muscles.^1–7 Immobility plays a major role in the development of joint contractures.^1,2,6,8–13 Indeed, patients with conditions limiting mobility are at high risk for joint contracture.^1,9,14,15 Prolonged immobility from critical illness can also be expected to predispose patients to experience joint contractures. Herridge and colleagues¹³ evaluated the long-term consequences of acute lung injury and noticed the disabling effects of joint contractures in a small number of patients in the first year after discharge from an acute care hospital. In a systematic review, we were unable to identify any other studies characterizing joint mobility after critical illness.¹⁶Given the potentially devastating consequences of joint contracture after a prolonged stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), we sought to document the incidence of this problem among patients who remained in an ICU for 2 weeks or more. We were especially interested in mild, as well as functionally significant, limitation in the range of motion of major joints and in the number of joints affected. We also examined risk factors and the persistence or reversibility of joint contractures until discharge from hospital.