Citations

AbstractThe AURKA oncogene is associated with abnormal chromosome segregation and aneuploidy and predisposition to cancer. Amplification of AURKA has been detected at higher frequency in tumors from BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers than in sporadic breast tumors, suggesting that overexpression of AURKA and inactivation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 cooperate during tumor development and progression. The F31I polymorphism in AURKA has been associated with breast cancer risk in the homozygous state in prior studies. We evaluated whether the AURKA F31I polymorphism modifies breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2. Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 was established to provide sufficient statistical power through increased numbers of mutation carriers to identify polymorphisms that act as modifiers of cancer risk and can refine breast cancer risk estimates in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. A total of 4,935 BRCA1 and 2,241 BRCA2 mutation carriers and 11 individuals carrying both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations was genotyped for F31I. Overall, homozygosity for the 31I allele was not significantly associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers combined [hazard ratio (HR), 0.91; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.77-1.06]. Similarly, no significant association was seen in BRCA1 (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.75-1.08) or BRCA2 carriers (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.67-1.29) or when assessing the modifying effects of either bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy or menopausal status of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. In summary, the F31I polymorphism in AURKA is not associated with a modified risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(7):1416–21)

Background— Cardiac troponin T (cTnT) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) have been used to estimate prognosis in heart failure; however, most studies have evaluated decompensated patients with single measurements. To determine if there are advantages to serial measurements, we evaluated stable chronic heart failure patients every 3 months for 2 years. Methods and Results— A cohort of 190 New York Heart Association class III–IV heart failure patients was prospectively enrolled from June 2001 to January 2004. Primary end points were death, cardiac transplantation, or hospitalization. At study enrollment cTnT was <0.01 ng/mL in 87 (45.8%) patients, 0.01 to 0.03 ng/mL in 50 (26.3%) patients, and >0.03 ng/mL in 53 (27.9%) patients. An increase in cTnT above normal (<0.01 ng/mL) carried a 3.4-fold increased risk ( P =0.019). Further increases (≥20%) from an elevated level worsened the overall risk (hazard ratio, 5.09; P <0.001). BNP was elevated (>95th percentile for age and gender normal population) in 122 (64.2%) patients. An elevation of BNP from normal at any time during the study was associated with a poor outcome, but, once elevated, further changes in BNP (increases or decreases) remained associated with the same risk (hazard ratio, 5.09; P <0.001). Combined elevations of cTnT (>0.03 ng/mL) and BNP defined the highest risk group (hazard ratio, 8.58; P <0.001). Conclusions— Elevations of cTnT or BNP from normal detected at any time during clinical follow-up in ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure are highly associated with an increased risk of events. Further increases in cTnT contribute to additional risk. Combined elevations of cTnT and BNP contribute the highest risk. The ability to monitor changes by serial measurements adds substantially to the assessment of risk in this patient population.

Abstract Bone structure, strength, and load-strength ratios contribute to forearm fracture risk independently of areal BMD. Introduction: Technological and conceptual advances provide new opportunities for evaluating the contributions of bone density, structure, and strength to the pathogenesis of distal forearm fractures. Materials and Methods: From an age-stratified random sample of Rochester, MN, women, we compared 18 with a distal forearm fracture (cases) to 18 age-matched women with no osteoporotic fracture (controls). High-resolution pQCT was used to assess volumetric BMD (vBMD), geometry, and microstructure at the ultradistal radius, the site of Colles' fractures. Failure loads in the radius were estimated from microfinite element (μFE) models derived from pQCT. Differences between case and control women were assessed, and the risk of fracture associated with each variable was estimated by logistic regression analysis. Results: Given similar heights, estimated loading in a fall on the outstretched arm was the same in cases and controls. However, women with forearm fractures had inferior vBMD, geometry, microstructure, and estimated bone strength. Relative risks for the strongest determinant of fracture in each of the five main variable categories were as follows: BMD (total vBMD: OR per SD change, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.4–12), geometry (cortical thickness: OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.4–11), microstructure (trabecular number: OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.02–5.1), and strength (axial rigidity: OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.4–10); the factor-of-risk (fall load/μFE failure load) was 24% greater (worse) in cases (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2–7.5). Areas under ROC curves ranged from 0.72 to 0.82 for these parameters. Conclusions: Bone geometry, microstructure, and strength contribute to forearm fractures, as does BMD, and these additional determinants of risk promise greater insights into fracture pathogenesis.

OBJECTIVE—Management of diabetes is frequently suboptimal in primary care settings, where providers often fail to intensify therapy when glucose levels are high, a problem known as clinical inertia. We asked whether interventions targeting clinical inertia can improve outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A controlled trial over a 3-year period was conducted in a municipal hospital primary care clinic in a large academic medical center. We studied all patients (4,138) with type 2 diabetes who were seen in continuity clinics by 345 internal medicine residents and were randomized to be control subjects or to receive one of three interventions. Instead of consultative advice, the interventions were hard copy computerized reminders that provided patient-specific recommendations for management at the time of each patient’s visit, individual face-to-face feedback on performance for 5 min every 2 weeks, or both. RESULTS—Over an average patient follow-up of 15 months within the intervention site, improvements in and final HbA1c (A1C) with feedback + reminders (ΔA1C 0.6%, final A1C 7.46%) were significantly better than control (ΔA1C 0.2%, final A1C 7.84%, P &lt; 0.02); changes were smaller with feedback only and reminders only (P = NS vs. control). Trends were similar but not significant with systolic blood pressure (sBP) and LDL cholesterol. Multivariable analysis showed that the feedback intervention independently facilitated attainment of American Diabetes Association goals for both A1C and sBP. Over a 2-year period, overall glycemic control improved in the intervention site but did not change in other primary care sites (final A1C 7.5 vs. 8.2%, P &lt; 0.001). CONCLUSIONS—Feedback on performance aimed at overcoming clinical inertia and given to internal medicine resident primary care providers improves glycemic control. Partnering generalists with diabetes specialists may be important to enhance diabetes management in other primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE To compare the compliance with diabetes care performance indicators by diabetes specialists using a diabetes electronic management system (DEMS) and by those using the traditional paper medical record. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A DEMS has been gradually introduced into our subspecialty practice for diabetes care. To assess the value of this DEMS as a disease management tool, we completed a retrospective review of the medical records of 82 randomly selected patients attending a subspecialty diabetes clinic (DC) during the first quarter of 1996. Eligible patients were defined by the suggested criteria from the American Diabetes Association Provider Recognition Program. During the first quarter of 1996, ∼ one half of the providers began using the DEMS for some but not all of their patient encounters. Neither abstractors nor providers were aware of the intent to examine performance in relationship to use of the DEMS. RESULTS Several measures were positively influenced when providers used the DEMS. The number of foot examinations, the number of blood pressure readings, and a weighted criterion score were greater (P &lt; 0.01) for providers using the DEMS. There was evidence, although not statistically significant, for lower mean diastolic blood pressures (P = 0.043) in patients and for number of glycated hemoglobins documented (P = 0.018) by users of the DEMS. CONCLUSIONS Performance and documentation of the process of care for patients with diabetes in a subspecialty clinic are greater with the use of a DEMS than with the traditional paper record.

If treatment-emergent central nervous system (CNS) symptoms following triptan therapy represent direct pharmacological effects of the drug, they should occur independent of response to active drug. However, if they represent unmasking of neurological symptoms of the migraine attack after pain is relieved, they should be more common in responders both to active drug and to placebo. To explore this issue, we evaluated the relationship between the CNS adverse events and treatment response following triptan or placebo treatment. We used pooled data from seven double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving eletriptan 20 mg (E20, n = 402), eletriptan 40 mg (E40, n = 1870), eletriptan 80 mg (E80, n = 1393), sumatriptan 100 mg (S100, n = 275) and placebo (Pbo, n = 1024). Somnolence was more prevalent among 2 h headache responders than non-responders for all treatments, including E80 (8.8% vs. 5.0%; P < 0.05), E40 (6.4% vs. 5.0%; NS), E20 (4.0% vs. 2.0%; NS), S100 (4.7% vs. 3.2%; NS) and Pbo (7.6% vs. 3.0%; P < 0.05). Similarly, the incidence of asthenia was higher among patients who responded to treatment compared with those who did not respond to E80 (15.2% vs. 7.8%; P < 0.05), E40 (6.5% vs. 3.6%; P < 0.05), E20 (6.5% vs. 1.0%; P < 0.05), S100 (10.1% vs. 4.7%; NS) and Pbo (4.4% vs. 2.7%; NS). The generally higher rates of somnolence and asthenia in patients who respond to treatment suggests that these treatment-emergent neurological symptoms may represent the unmasking of CNS symptoms associated with the natural resolution of a migraine attack, rather than simply representing drug-related side-effects. The rate of somnolence in placebo responders is comparable to that in responders to E40 and E80, indicating that somnolence is related, at least in some important part, to headache relief and not treatment.