Search

Copyright of Proges en Urologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Proges en Urologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background:Sunitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Few data evaluated severe buccodental adverse events. The aim of this study was to evaluate sunitinib buccodental toxicity in patients with metastatic RCC and to compare it with that of standard chemotherapy in patients with other solid cancers.Methods:Patients with RCC treated with sunitinib and patients with other solid tumours treated with chemotherapy were followed for 3 months. Data on dental appliances, oral hygiene/care practices before and during treatment were collected.Results:A total of 116 patients were included (58 RCC treated by sunitinib: group S, and 58 treated by chemotherapy: group C). No differences in dental care habits were noted before treatment. In group S, patients reported significantly more frequent pain (P<0.01), teeth instability (P=0.01), gingival bleeding (P=0.01) and change in teeth colour (P=0.02). In all, 58% of patients in this group had to modify their diet (P<0.01). Frequency of dentist' visits for teeth removal was increased (25% vs 8%, P=0.01).Conclusion:Sunitinib seems to increase buccodental toxicity as compared with chemotherapy. This finding emphasises the need for optimal dental care and standardised dental follow-up in patients treated with sunitinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Olanzapine is prescribed for a number of psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, bipolar mania, and unipolar and bipolar depression. Olanzapine treatment is associated with tolerability issues such as metabolic adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, increase in blood glucose, triglycerides and total cholesterol levels), extrapyramidal symptoms [EPS] (e.g. parkinsonism, akathisia, tardive dyskinesia) and sedative adverse effects. Metabolic issues lead to some long-term consequences, which include cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus, and these complications cause high rates of mortality and morbidity among patients with severe mental illnesses. The expanded indications of olanzapine in psychiatry suggest a need to investigate whether there is a difference in the incidence and severity of adverse effects related to category diagnosis. Are the adverse effects expressed differently according to phenotype? Unfortunately, there are no reported studies that investigated these differences in adverse effects associated with olanzapine treatment in psychiatric patients with different phenotypes.Objective: The aim of the present meta-analysis is to separately examine olanzapine-induced cardiometabolic adverse effects and EPS in patients with schizophrenia and affective disorders.Data Sources: A search of computerized literature databases PsycINFO (1967-2010), PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE (1980-2010) and the clinicaltrials.gov website for randomized clinical trials was conducted. A manual search of reference lists of published review articles was carried out to gather further data.Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials were included in our study if (i) they assessed olanzapine adverse effects (metabolic or extrapyramidal) in adult patients with schizophrenia or affective disorders; and (ii) they administered oral olanzapine as monotherapy during study.Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts for choosing articles and one reviewer extracted relevant data on the basis of predetermined exclusion and inclusion criteria. It should be mentioned that for the affective disorders group we could only find articles related to bipolar disorder.Data Synthesis: Thirty-three studies (4831 patients) that address olanzapine monotherapy treatment of adults with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder were included in the analysis. The primary outcomes were metabolic adverse effects (changes in weight, blood glucose, low-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol and triglyceride levels). The secondary outcomes of our study were assessing the incidence of some EPS (parkinsonism, akathisia and use of antiparkinson medication). The tolerability outcomes were calculated separately for the schizophrenia and bipolar disorder groups and were combined in a meta-analysis. Tolerability outcomes show that olanzapine contributes to weight gain and elevates blood triglycerides, glucose and total cholesterol levels in both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients. However, olanzapine treatment produced significantly more weight gain in schizophrenia patients than in bipolar disorder patients. In addition, increases in blood glucose, total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were higher in the schizophrenia group compared with the bipolar disorder group, even though these differences were not statistically significant. Based on our results, the incidence of parkinsonism was significantly higher in the schizophrenia group than in the bipolar disorder group. Subgroup analysis and logistic regression were used to assess the influence of treatment duration, dose, industry sponsorship, age and sex ratio on tolerability outcome.Conclusions: Our results suggest that schizophrenia patients may be more vulnerable to olanzapine-induced weight gain. The findings may be explained by considering the fact that in addition to genetic disposition for metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia patients, they have an especially high incidence of lifestyle risk factors for CVD, such as poor diet, lack of exercise, stress and smoking. It might be that an antipsychotic induces severity of adverse effect according to the phenotype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Several factors have been shown to be involved in decisions to use seclusion and restraint in psychiatric inpatient settings. This study examined whether staff perceptions of factors related to the care team and violence on the ward predicted use of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric wards.Methods: A total of 309 staff members (nurses, rehabilitation instructors, and nurse's aides) providing care to patients with serious mental disorders were recruited from eight university psychiatric hospitals and general-hospital psychiatric units in the province of Quebec. Factors assessed included sociodemographic characteristics, psychological distress, staff perceptions of aggression and of interaction between members of the psychiatric team (team climate), and organizational factors.Results: Bivariate analyses showed that certain aspects of the team climate, staff perceptions of aggression, and organizational factors were associated with greater use of seclusion and restraint. The final multivariate model indicated that the following factors independently predicted greater use: type of hospital ward (emergency department and intensive care unit), staff perception of a higher level of expression of anger and aggression among team members, perception of the frequency of incidents of physical aggression against the self among patients, and perception of insufficient safety measures in the workplace.Conclusions: These findings represent the first stage of a research program aimed at reducing use of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric settings. They underscore the importance of evaluating a variety of factors, including perceptions of safety and violence, when examining reasons for use of these controversial interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]