Time filter

Source Type

Eindhoven, Netherlands

Koornstra R.H.T.,Radboud University Nijmegen | Peters M.,Radboud University Nijmegen | Donofrio S.,University of Groningen | Van den Borne B.,Catharina Hospital | De Jong F.A.,Amgen
Cancer Treatment Reviews | Year: 2014

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a serious clinical problem and is one of the most common symptoms experienced by cancer patients. CRF has deleterious effects on many aspects of patient quality of life including their physical, psychological and social well-being. It can also limit their ability to function, socialise and participate in previously enjoyable activities. The aetiology of CRF is complex and multidimensional, involving many potentially contributing elements. These include tumour-related factors and comorbid medical/psychological conditions and also side effects associated with anti-cancer therapies or other medications. Barriers to the effective management of CRF exist both on the side of physicians and patients, and as a result CRF often remains unrecognised and undiscussed in clinical practice. A change of approach is required, where fatigue is treated as central to patient management during and after systemic anti-cancer treatment. In this review we summarise factors involved in the aetiology of CRF and the barriers to its effective management, as well as factors involved in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients experiencing fatigue. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to its management are also reviewed. We suggest an algorithm for the process of managing CRF, guided by our experiences in The Netherlands, which we hope may provide a useful tool to healthcare professionals dealing with cancer patients in their daily practice. Although CRF is a serious and complex clinical problem, if it is worked through in a structured and comprehensive way, effective management has the potential to much improve patient quality of life. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Source

Nicolai S.P.A.,Atrium Medical | Teijink J.A.W.,Catharina Hospital | Prins M.H.,Maastricht University
Journal of Vascular Surgery | Year: 2010

Objective: The initial treatment for intermittent claudication is supervised exercise therapy (SET). Owing to limited capacity and patient transports costs of clinic-based SET, a concept of SET provided by local physiotherapists was developed. We hypothesized that provision of daily feedback with an accelerometer in addition to SET would further increase walking distance. Methods: This multicenter randomized trial was set in vascular surgery outpatient clinics and included 304 patients with intermittent claudication. Patients were randomized to exercise therapy in the form of "go home and walk" advice (WA), SET, or SET with feedback. Local physiotherapists provided SET. The primary outcome measure was the change in absolute claudication distance. Secondary outcomes were the change in functional claudication distance and results on the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey after 12 months. Results: In 11 centers, 102, 109, and 93 patients were included, respectively, in the WA, SET, and SET with feedback groups, and data for 83, 93, and 76, respectively, could be analyzed. The median (interquartile range) change in walking distance between 12 months and baseline in meters was 110 (0-300) in the WA group, 310 (145-995) in the SET group, and 360 (173-697) in the SET with feedback group (P < .001 WA vs SET). WIQ scores and relevant domains of the SF-36 improved statistically significantly in the SET groups. Conclusions: SET is more effective than WA in improving walking distance, WIQ scores, and quality of life for patients with intermittent claudication. Additional feedback with an accelerometer did not result in further improvement. SET programs should be made available for all patients with intermittent claudication. © 2010 Society for Vascular Surgery. Source

Pijls N.H.J.,Catharina Hospital
Circulation Journal | Year: 2013

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become an increasingly important index for decision making with respect to revascularization of coronary artery stenosis. It is the gold standard to indicate whether a particular stenosis is responsible for inducible ischemia and it is generally accepted that a stenosis with an ischemic value of FFR is responsible for angina pectoris and a worse outcome, and should be revascularized, whereas lesions with a non-ischemic FFR have a more favorable prognosis and can better be treated medically. In this review paper, the background, concept and clinical application of FFR are discussed from a practical point of view. On top of that, some in-depth considerations are given with respect to further possibilities of FFR for examining the coronary circulation, including separate assessment of coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flows. Finally, a word of caution is given with respect to using resting pressure indexes, which seem attractive because they avoid the need for hyperemia, but negatively affect the accuracy of the measurements. This review can be read as an overview of the state-of-the-art of FFR and as a guide to further reading. Source

Fokkenrood H.J.,Catharina Hospital
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews | Year: 2013

Although supervised exercise therapy is considered to be of significant benefit for people with leg pain (peripheral arterial disease (PAD)), implementing supervised exercise programs (SETs) in daily practice has limitations. This is an update of a review first published in 2006. The main objective of this review was to provide an accurate overview of studies evaluating the effects of supervised versus non-supervised exercise therapy on maximal walking time or distance on a treadmill for people with intermittent claudication. For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched September 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 9). In addition, we handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles for additional trials. No restriction was applied to language of publication. Randomized clinical trials comparing supervised exercise programs with non-supervised exercise programs (defined as walking advice or a structural home-based exercise program) for people with intermittent claudication. Studies with control groups, which did not receive exercise or walking advice or received usual care (maintained normal physical activity), were excluded. Two review authors (HJPF and BLWB) independently selected trials and extracted data. Three review authors (HJPF, BLWB, and GJL) assessed trial quality, and this was confirmed by two other review authors (MHP and JAWT). For all continuous outcomes, we extracted the number of participants, the mean differences, and the standard deviation. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) outcomes were extracted to assess quality of life. Effect sizes were calculated as the difference in treatment normalized with the standard deviation (standardized mean difference) using a fixed-effect model. A total of 14 studies involving a total of 1002 male and female participants with PAD were included in this review. Follow-up ranged from six weeks to 12 months. In general, supervised exercise regimens consisted of three exercise sessions per week. All trials used a treadmill walking test as one of the outcome measures. The overall quality of the included trials was moderate to good, although some trials were small with respect to the number of participants, ranging from 20 to 304.Supervised exercise therapy (SET) showed statistically significant improvement in maximal treadmill walking distance compared with non-supervised exercise therapy regimens, with an overall effect size of 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.86) and 0.48 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.64) at three and six months, respectively. This translates to an increase in walking distance of approximately 180 meters that favored the supervised group. SET was still beneficial for maximal and pain-free walking distances at 12 months, but it did not have a significant effect on quality of life parameters. SET has statistically significant benefit on treadmill walking distance (maximal and pain-free) compared with non-supervised regimens. However, the clinical relevance of this has not been demonstrated definitively; additional studies are required that focus on quality of life or other disease-specific functional outcomes, such as walking behavior, patient satisfaction, costs, and long-term follow-up. Professionals in the vascular field should make SET available for all patients with intermittent claudication. Source

Chapple C.R.,Royal Hallamshire Hospital | Montorsi F.,Vita-Salute San Raffaele University | Tammela T.L.J.,University of Tampere | Wirth M.,University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus | And 2 more authors.
European Urology | Year: 2011

Background: Silodosin is a new selective therapy with a high pharmacologic selectivity for the α1A-adrenoreceptor. Objective: Our aim was to test silodosin's superiority to placebo and noninferiority to tamsulosin and discuss the findings in the context of a comprehensive literature review of the new compound silodosin. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted a multicenter double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled parallel group study. A total of 1228 men ≥50 yr of age with an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥13 and a urine maximum flow rate (Qmax) >4 and ≤15 ml/s were selected at 72 sites in 11 European countries. The patients were entered into a 2-wk wash-out and a 4-wk placebo run-in period. A total of 955 patients were randomized (2:2:1) to silodosin 8 mg (n = 381), tamsulosin 0.4 mg (n = 384), or placebo (n = 190) once daily for 12 wk. Measurements: We calculated the change from baseline in IPSS total score (primary), storage and voiding subscores, quality of life (QoL) due to urinary symptoms, and Q max. Responders were defined on the basis of IPSS and Qmax by a decrease of ≥25% and an increase of ≥30% from baseline, respectively. Results and limitations: The change from baseline in the IPSS total score with silodosin and tamsulosin was significantly superior to that with placebo (p < 0.001): difference active placebo of -2.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.2, -1.4) with silodosin and -2.0 (95% CI,-2.9, -1.1) with tamsulosin. Responder rates according to total IPSS were significantly higher (p < 0.001) with silodosin (66.8%) and tamsulosin (65.4%) than with placebo (50.8%). Active treatments were also superior to placebo in the IPSS storage and voiding subscore analyses, as well as in QoL due to urinary symptoms. Of note, only silodosin significantly reduced nocturia versus placebo (the change from baseline was -0.9, -0.8, and -0.7 for silodosin, tamsulosin, and placebo, respectively; p = 0.013 for silodosin vs placebo). An increase in Q max was observed in all groups. The adjusted mean change from baseline to end point was 3.77 ml/s for silodosin, 3.53 ml/s for tamsulosin, and 2.93 ml/s for placebo, but the change for silodosin and tamsulosin was not statistically significant versus placebo because of a particularly high placebo response (silodosin vs placebo: p = 0.089; tamsulosin vs placebo: p = 0.221). At end point, the percentage of responders by Qmax was 46.6%, 46.5%, and 40.5% in the silodosin, tamsulosin, and placebo treatment groups, respectively. This difference was not statistically significantly (p = 0.155 silodosin vs placebo and p = 0.141 tamsulosin vs placebo). Active treatments were well tolerated, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events were low in all groups (2.1%, 1.0%, and 1.6% with silodosin, tamsulosin, and placebo, respectively). The most frequent adverse event with silodosin was a reduced or absent ejaculation during orgasm (14%), a reversible effect as a consequence of the potent and selective α1A-adrenoreceptor antagonism of the drug. The incidence was higher than that observed with tamsulosin (2%); however, only 1.3% of silodosin-treated patients discontinued treatment due to this adverse event. Conclusions: Silodosin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for the relief of both voiding and storage symptoms in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction thought to be associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Its overall efficacy is not inferior to tamsulosin. Only silodosin showed a significant effect on nocturia over placebo. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00359905. © 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Source

Discover hidden collaborations