Search

ObjectivesPatients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) treated with hemodialysis suffer a high burden of poor functional status. Poor functional status is known as a strong, consistent predictor of mortality. However, little is known about the trajectory of functional status and its association with clinical outcomes in the ESRD population. We examined the association between a change in the functional status over time and all-cause mortality among patients on hemodialysis.Design and methodsThis was a prospective cohort study of 817 patients with ESRD on hemodialysis with repeat measures of functional status, who enrolled in the Japan Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study phase V. The functional status was assessed based on the Katz Index and Lawton-Brody instrumental activities of daily living scale, and the assessments were conducted twice over a median of 361 (range: 339-378) days between 2012 and 2013. We classified patients into 2 groups based on having or not having at least a 1-point decline in the functional status score. To evaluate the association between the decline in the functional status and all-cause mortality with adjustment for potential confounders, a Cox regression analysis was conducted.ResultsOver the study period, 19.9% of the patients showed a decline in the functional status score. During the follow-up period, 44 (5.4%) patients died. Using the Cox regression analysis and adjusting for potential confounders, it was determined that the decline in functional status score was significantly associated with higher mortality (incidence rate: 2.2 vs. 7.0 per 100 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio: 2.68; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-5.50).ConclusionsThe present study provides evidence that ESRD patients on hemodialysis demonstrating a decline in the functional status are at elevated risk of mortality. Our findings strengthen the evidence underpinning the importance of interventions to maintain the functional status in this vulnerable population.

Background Due to potentially fatal consequences of missed bacteremia, blood cultures are often overused. While there are several prediction models that can be used to identify patients who truly need blood cultures, physicians often rely on their gestalt. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of physician gestalt for bacteremia in comparison with 2 existing prediction models: Takeshima and Shapiro. Methods The study enrolled consecutive adult patients with suspected infection who were in the process of being admitted to the general medicine department at 2 hospitals between April 2017 and January 2019. Attending physicians provided gestalt regarding risk of bacteremia (0%–100%). Patients with a <10% risk estimated via each strategy (ie, physician gestalt or 2 existing models) were categorized as bacteremia excluded (ie, blood cultures were considered unnecessary). Strategies were compared in terms of safety (proportion of patients with bacteremia among those classified as bacteremia excluded) and efficiency (proportion of patients classified as bacteremia excluded among the total cohort). Results Among 2014 patients, 292 (14.5%) were diagnosed with bacteremia. The safety of physician gestalt and the Takeshima and Shapiro models was 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2% to 5.7%), 6.5% (95% CI, 5.0% to 7.9%), and 10.8% (95% CI, 9.4% to 12.3%), whereas the efficiency of each strategy was 22.4% (95% CI, 22.5% to 26.3%), 52.7% (95% CI, 50.5% to 54.9%), and 87.8% (95% CI, 86.3% to 89.2%), respectively. Conclusions Physician gestalt was safer but less efficient than existing models. Clinical prediction models could help reduce the overuse of blood cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Whether the lower phase angle associated with worse physical function is a result of pain and muscle weakness in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between phase angle and back pain-specific disabilities in patients with LSS. METHODS: In this single-center, cross-sectional study, 491 participants with LSS were enrolled. The phase angle and back pain-specific disability were measured using bioelectrical impedance analysis and the Oswestry Disability Index, respectively. General linear models were used to examine associations between phase angle and the Oswestry Disability Index with or without adjustment for age, sex, low back and lower limb pain, numbness in the lower extremities, total fat mass, and lower limb muscle mass. RESULTS: The mean (SD) phase angle was 4.4 ∘ (1.0 ∘), and the mean Oswestry Disability Index was 36.1 (14.1) points. Greater phase angles were associated with less Oswestry Disability Index points (p = 0.037) independent of fat mass, low back pain, and hip or lower limb pain. CONCLUSIONS: A lower phase angle was associated with worse functional disability. Low phase angle may be an indicator of functional impairment due to low back pain associated with LSS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Given the growing diversity among cancer survivors and the fact that oncologists typically do not perform long‐term care, the expected role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in survivor care is expanding. However, communication and collaboration between oncologists and PCPs are lacking. Therefore, we assessed the perception of cancer survivor care among PCPs. Methods: We sent a questionnaire to 767 Japanese Board–certified PCPs, regardless of facility type (clinics and hospitals), inquiring about PCPs' perceptions of their role in survivor care. Additionally, we included vignette‐based scenarios focused on colorectal and prostate cancer survivors to explore factors associated with their clinical decisions. Results: We obtained 91 replies (response rate: 11.9%). A total of 75% of PCPs had encountered at least 1 cancer patient in actual practice. Even for patients actively receiving cancer treatment, >70% of PCPs reported that they were willing to engage in comprehensive survivor care, except for the administration of anticancer drugs. Further, 49% of PCPs considered that both PCPs and oncologists were suited to performing regular screening for cancer recurrence in high‐risk patients. Multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed that clinic PCPs were less inclined to conduct screening for recurrence than hospital PCPs in both colorectal (odds ratio, 3.85 [95% confidence interval 1.40–10.6]) and prostate (4.36 [95% confidence interval 1.51–12.6]) cancer scenarios. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that Japanese PCPs are willing to engage in survivor care and encourage closer collaboration between oncologists and PCPs. However, oncologists might need to request cooperation, considering the facility type with which PCPs are affiliated. The present study revealed that Japanese primary care physicians (PCPs) were willing to engage in comprehensive survivor care, except for the administration of anticancer drugs. Further, most PCPs were willing to engage in psychosocial support to relieve survivors' anxiety and manage work‐related issues, but they have few opportunities to collaborate with oncologists. Oncologists and PCPs need to engage in more communication and conduct cancer survivor care while capitalizing on PCPs' willingness and capability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]